Are Democrats "Yellow Cowards?"

When the President gave his speech announcing a troop surge, he said that the US and its allies would seek to interdict the insurgent support coming out of Iran. Reacting almost immediately, Senator Joe Biden threatened a "Constitutional Confrontation or crisis" if Iran was attacked.

Senator Jay Rockefeller is suddenly worried that the US shouldn't be using harsh, condemning language against Iran. He says we have weak intel and do not understand the Iranians. It reminds him of the rhetoric used in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Harry Reid has also warned the President not to take action against Iran without first seeking Congressional approval.

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball shed some light on why the Democrats seem suddenly concerned about Iran:

Jan. 24, 2007 - Why is the Bush administration escalating its accusations that Iran is backing Shiite extremists inside Iraq?

One reason: mounting intelligence indicating Tehran has been supplying insurgents with electronic sensors that trigger roadside bombs used against U.S. troops.

More precisely, these passive infrared sensors will allow the insurgents to stay one step ahead of our ability to detect the deadly IED. The cheap little killing and maiming opinion maker is too valuable a tool for the enemy to guit using. The most expensive thing about an IED is the human expense of paying someone $200-$300 to bury one on a roadside. The rewards of a successful IED attack far outweigh the costs. Targets are either killed outright or severely injured. Either way, it's very costly to the US and its allies both in money or morale. The enemy gets a lot of bang for its buck. A lot of bang.

Isikoff and Hosenball write that "Some recovered bombs closely match IED designs (shaped charges) known to have been used by Hizbullah...bombmaking videos believed to have been prepared in Iran have been recovered from insurgents in Iraq... and from Hizbullah,"

A case is being made against the Iranians and the Democrats are alarmed. What would George Patton think? Yellow cowards?
ht: allen

London Independent reports: "The sum of all fears"

Russian caught trying to sell enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb
By Andrew Osborn in Moscow The Independent
Published: 26 January 2007
An international nuclear smuggling scandal erupted yesterday after it was revealed that a Russian man has been caught selling weapons-grade uranium on the open market that could easily be used in a small nuclear bomb.

The man, named as 50-year-old Oleg Khinsagov, was arrested in a "sting" operation orchestrated by the FBI and the Georgian secret service last year, though details have only just become public.

The scandal raises fresh questions about the security of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and is embarrassing for the Kremlin, which has repeatedly claimed to have broken the illicit trade in nuclear components.

Mr Khinsagov, who has since been sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison, was arrested in Georgia with 100 grams of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium casually wrapped in a plastic bag in his jacket pocket.

He believed he had found a buyer willing to pay him $1m (£500,000) for the uranium, which had probably been stolen from a military or research facility somewhere in the former USSR.

American nuclear experts have claimed that the uranium originated within Russia itself, though Russian scientists have claimed it is "impossible" to determine its origin. The buyer was in fact an undercover Georgian agent who told Mr Khinsagov that he was a Muslim working for "a serious organisation".

For Mr Khinsagov, ostensibly a trader specialising in fish and sausages, that was good enough and he had boasted that the 100 grams was merely a "sample". Back at his flat in the southern Russian region of North Ossetia, he claimed to have a further four kilos of uranium.

Such an amount would have been enough to build a small nuclear bomb: the Hiroshima bomb contained about 50 kilos of a similar grade of uranium.

Three Georgian accomplices were arrested and sentenced to up to five years in jail. Non-proliferation experts have labelled the incident as one of the most serious in recent years.

"Given the serious consequences of the detonation of an improvised nuclear explosive device, even a small number of incidents involving HEU [highly-enriched uranium] or plutonium are of very high concern," said Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Georgian Interior Minister, Ivane Merabishvili, said the case illustrated the grave risk posed by nuclear trafficking in an age of international terrorism.

The biggest danger, he said, were people "in Russia and Georgia and everywhere else, even in America, who will sell this radioactive material" for millions of dollars.

Russia has confirmed the basic details of the case but has suggested that Georgia's decision to disclose its sensational details now has more to do with politics that a genuine concern for nuclear non-proliferation. The two countries are locked in a mutually damaging row aggravated by the fact that Georgia is run by a US-educated pro-Western President, Mikhail Saakashvili, who is perceived to be anti-Russian.

Laboratories in both the US and Russia have confirmed that the substance seized was indeed highly enriched weapons-grade uranium and that it was processed about 10 years ago.

According to researchers at Stanford University, about 40 kilos of uranium and plutonium was smuggled out of research and military facilities in the former Soviet Union in the past decade. The Kremlin begs to differ. It claims that the majority of uranium stolen was not weapons-grade and that most of it has been tracked down.

http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/

Rufus posted a link here at the Elephant Bar referring to a pledge site that poses the following:

"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."

I and many others have been a critic of the conduct of this war. In many ways it appears to have been a war in search of a mission. The conduct of the war is replete with miserable political decisions. The use of the military has been Viet Nam Redux with political interference. The politics and diplomacy has been even worse. I can be as cynical as the next in criticism, but the action being taken by the Senate will force a collapse. It will confirm for another generation or two that the US is the same country that folded in support of Viet Nam, The Iranian Hostage crisis, The contra-war in Nicaragua, The Hungarian Revolution, the call to arms for the Shiite revolt against Saddam, The Cuban Bay of Pigs, the opposition to the Khmer Rouge,and the support of the Hmong.

If the Republicans want to end the war, walk down to The White House, face the President, make the call and then face the consequences, but do not kid yourself about the damage being done to the credibility of The United States of America.

I have signed the petition and urge you to do so as well, regardless of your criticisms of the conduct of this war and this Administration. Link to petition

Davos - The Shifting Power Equation

During the State of the Union Address last night, this little paragraph seemed to garner some of the most enthusiastic and bi-partisan applause.

We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.

The Democrats felt that this was a statement by the President that they could heartily applaud. And why not? Platitudes require no commitment, no troops, no blood and toil. To be fair to the Democrats though, this is attitude shared by the left throughout a world where words suffice and feelings mean more than actions especially when those actions are seen as too unilateralist.

This week in Davos, Switzerland, 2,400 global leaders including more than 800 CEOs, are once again gathered at the World Economic Forum's annual event. This years theme, "The Shifting Power Equation" will address a host of issues with the underlying premise that in an increasingly global world, power is shifting away from the traditional western institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the World Economic Fund, the UN Security Council and the United States.

Perceiving that the world's lone superpower has been humbled by its defeat in Iraq, the new players (at least in their own eyes) are the global corporations, China, India, Brazil and a host of non-governmental organizations such as the self appointed moral authority, Human Rights Watch. With the US humiliated, the world is leaderless and a race is on to fill the power vacuum in the New World Disorder.

This will be "the greenest year ever" at Davos and seventeen sessions will be devoted to saving humanity. The idea is that American and Global businesses can adopt climate friendly, carbon neutral policies ala the Kyoto Protocol even if recalcitrant leaders like George W. Bush refuse to. But lest you worry about US interests not being represented, John McCain will be a panelist on a session entitled ‘Climate Change: A Call to Action.’

Other sessions will be devoted to the challenges posed by globalization, shifting capital, and the future needs, requirements and demands of the emerging market labor forces. Also of interest is:

The rise of a newly multipolar world and which influential nations are constraining US dominance.

Energy security as a driver of international alliances and foreign policies.

The diffusion of threats from rogue states and non-state actors.

The discussions of one panel, meeting in a session entitled "Update 2007: The Regional Agenda - Middle East" were summarized as:

The Middle East has been experiencing a period of great conflict – from increased violence in Iraq and Iran’s controversial nuclear program to the current situation in Lebanon.

"Where are we in the Middle East?" asked moderator Vali Nasr, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, USA. "Are we on track or off track?"

It is very off track, suggested one seasoned Arab diplomat, referring to the situation in Iraq and unresolved conflicts in other parts of the region. He also expressed concern at the growing sectarian violence, not just in Iraq but in Lebanon as well. Others agreed that a political, not a military, solution is needed for Iraq, referring to US President George W. Bush’s recent decision to send more than 21,000 additional soldiers to Iraq. One panelist said guidelines are needed to improve the situation in Iraq, including ones that ensure that the country is not partitioned and that conciliation between factions is reached.

A potential US-Iran conflict also dominated the discussion. Most panelists agreed that the Middle East could not afford another war. One Arab business leader noted that, from an economic perspective, a US-Iran conflict is worrying. He pointed out that if there is war between the US and Iran, countries in the region will have major problems.

Many agreed that it is better for Arab countries and Iran to get into a dialogue to address regional issues, although some were not convinced that Iran is ready to "put everything" on the negotiating table and believed sectarian strife could serve hegemonic tendencies.

But even with the numerous conflicts, there has also been positive economic growth in some parts of the Middle East, Nasr noted. Can growth continue despite the conflicts? he asked panelists.

The solution for the region is economic, stressed one panelist, but countries must make reforming their economies a priority, including the need for further diversification and privatization. Citing the need to create millions of jobs in the region in the next decade, one panelist said that human resource development and education are among the biggest challenges to a growing population.

Other challenges discussed during the session were reform and democracy for the region.

Many participating in the session agreed that democracy is the best system, but it has to be home-grown, not imported. One pointed out it should be kept in mind that democracy and reform have started and that there can be no U-turn, and noted that more and more political parties are being formed and elections are being held in numerous Middle East countries.

It was agreed that democracy is something to build upon, but that it is not only about elections – it’s also about economic freedom, social rights, governance and other factors. Others agreed that the private sector has an important role to play in the process and strong leadership is needed to define a vision for the Middle East.

The problem with the middle east isn't democracy but not a word was written about the threat of radical Islam, radical Islamists or Darfur. How could that be? 2400 of the world's best and brightest gather at Davos to solve the world's problems and can't see the elephant in the room? Well, it is an economic forum; its not about security. But if there is one lesson to be learned from Iraq, it is that there is no economy without security. They should have extended invitations to the patrons of the Elephant Bar. Maybe next year.

With apologies to John Lennon, "You say you want a devolution, well, you don't know who's going to rule the world..."

trish said...No security, no intel. No intel, no security.

I remind all readers to the Elephant Bar to take the time to get into the links provided by those who make comments. Last night in an exchange with Allen, Trish posted this Link . Allen responded by saying:
trish,

Wow! This is worth anyone's time with an interest in the ME. And I use ME advisedly and in the largest possible geographic terms because I doubt the problem is isolated to Iraq.

Rollin's paints a dark picture of Bush I's handling of post-war relations with the natives, doesn't he?

Wed Jan 24, 12:24:14 AM EST

This is the article that Trish and Allen refer to:

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – SpyTalk
Jan. 19, 2007 – 8:08 p.m.
Spying in Baghdad: The CIA’s Real Mission Impossible
By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor

Many years ago, when I was a young Army Intelligence operative in South Vietnam, I had a daily routine to see if my spies had any new information for me.

I’d drive by a soccer stadium in Danang, the large coastal city where I lived, and I’d look for a particular mark on the wall. If it was there, I’d go to a prearranged place at a set time for a clandestine meeting with a go-between. Many times the pick-up place was a pleasant beach about a mile from my house. The war was raging in the jungles and rice paddies less than 10 miles away, and communist agents were everywhere in the city. But security was good enough that they weren’t likely to risk exposing themselves by kidnapping or killing me.

My secret courier was a young boy who would come along selling ice cream from a box slung over his shoulder. I’d buy a cone wrapped in rice paper, and drive away. Back at the office, I’d unroll the paper to decipher my spy’s tiny handwriting.

Baghdad is nothing like that.

The chaotic, ubiquitous violence of Baghdad has kept the CIA indoors.

According to several well informed intelligence sources, hundreds of CIA operatives have become virtual prisoners in the Green Zone, the sprawling American enclave whose high walls and guards separate the U.S. embassy, military command and related civilian agencies from the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad’s streets.

The CIA operatives cannot safely roam the city to meet their few agents, much less recruit new ones.

It’s just too dangerous. CIA chiefs don’t want to risk one getting kidnapped, tortured on camera and beheaded.

That would certainly dampen the allure of a career in the CIA.

So “they spend their days playing cards and watching DVDs,” said a former senior CIA operations official who maintains close ties in the agency.

No Casualties
One barometer of the CIA’s caution is the lack of agency casualties in the war, which has killed more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel and wounded 25,000 more.

Not a single CIA “case officer,” spy jargon for espionage operative, has been killed in Iraq, a half dozen former senior CIA officers with close knowledge of the situation there told me... Read the entire article here.

Jeff Stein can be reached at jstein@cq.com.

Telegraph reporting N. Korea helping Iran prepare a nuclear test.

N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing

By Con Coughlin Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:29am GMT 24/01/2007

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.

North Korea provoked an international outcry when it successfully fired a bomb at a secret underground location and Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.

There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests.

Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.

As a result, senior western military officials are deeply concerned that the North Koreans' technical superiority will allow the Iranians to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapon.

"The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year's North Korean nuclear bomb test," said the European defence official.

"We have identified increased activity at all of Iran's nuclear facilities since the turn of the year," he said.

"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."

The disclosure of the nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Iran comes as Teheran seems set on a collision course with the West over its nuclear programme, although it insists it is entirely peaceful.

Both countries were named in President George W Bush's famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002.

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously authorised the imposition of "smart" sanctions against Iran.

This is because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most Western intelligence agencies believe is part of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

France expressed concern yesterday over an Iranian decision to bar 38 UN nuclear inspectors from Iran, claiming that Teheran appeared to be singling out westerners from the inspection team.

Intelligence estimates vary about how long it could take Teheran to produce a nuclear warhead. But defence officials monitoring the growing co-operation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.

The precise location of the Iranian test site is unknown, but is likely to be located in a mountainous region where it is difficult for spy satellites to pick up any unusual activity.

Teheran successfully concealed the existence of several key nuclear sites — including the controversial Natanz uranium enrichment complex — until their locations were disclosed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.

Western intelligence agencies have reported an increase in the number of North Korean and Iranian scientists travelling between the two countries.

The increased co-operation on nuclear issues began last November when a team of Iranian nuclear scientists met their North Korean counterparts to study the technical and political implications of Pyongyang's nuclear test.

The Iranians are reported to have been encouraged by the fact that no punitive action was taken against North Korea, despite the international outcry that greeted the underground firing.

This has persuaded the Iranian regime to press ahead with its own nuclear programme with the aim of testing a low-grade device, which would be difficult for international inspectors to detect.

"The Stakes are High... but Hard is not Hopeless"

Over at theAtlantic.com, Robert Kaplan says that the recommendations of the much disparaged Iraq study group are being implemented by the Bush Administration. He writes that the report:

...warned against a precipitous troop withdrawal from Iraq, and was open-minded regarding a temporary surge of modest scale in Greater Baghdad. President George W. Bush is doing that. The report called for a reinvigoration of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as part of a regional diplomatic blitz. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been doing that. The report called for a reconstruction czar for Iraq, as part of a process of infusing the country with more economic aid. President Bush indicated he will do that. The report sought to give the President a swift kick in the rear end—toward a more dynamic policy on Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton report, together with the November election results, have accomplished that...

He goes on to say that the appointment of Admiral Fallon as head of Central Command was meant to send a "we mean business" message to Iran. This little quote got my attention.

Army Lt. Gen. David Petreaus told me months ago that because the Army promotes people for commanding American and not foreign troops, sometimes the least talented people get assigned to train Iraqi forces: therefore, the policy needed to be reversed.

Why am I not surprised and shocked? It's the old theory about "crap rolling downhill." Human nature is universal, even in the military. Undesirable tasks are passed down the chain to subordinates often with less than desirable results.

How many years ago was it that Secretary Rumsfeld was reporting the numbers of trained Iraqi forces "under arms and ready to stand up." Apparently, Gomer Pyle and Forrest Gump were doing the training because two years later we still haven't seem a significant improvement. Now that the first of the 20K surge troops have arrived in-country, the insurgents have stepped up the carnage and the question is: Can they be stopped or tamped down long enough for us to wean the Iraqi government. We'll know within a few months. The question that may not be answered so quickly though is "What the hell is Iran doing?" Well, we know what they're doing; working feverishly night and day to develop a nuclear deterrent so that they can work their will in the Islamic world or worse, bring on the end times. Kaplan writes:

Fallon could eventually be proven right on China. Whatever the case, it may not necessarily say anything meaningful about his stomach for a confrontation with Iran. Like a lot of people, he may put China in a completely different category from Iran. One thing is clear: he will be extremely cautious over the need for military action against Teheran. So the question becomes, can Gates and the man he has chosen to lead his war fighting command in the Greater Middle East frighten the Iranians sufficiently to make negotiations meaningful? For the history of naval pressure shows that it must communicate the willingness to fight if it is to have the desired impact on an adversary. I worry that we do not sufficiently grasp the fact that the Iranians may not be reading from the same set of instructions as us, on the real-life political-diplomatic board game we are about to embark on. What if the Iranians watch our beefed-up naval and air presence, combined with increasing economic pressure on them, and say, so what? That's where the partial and tenuous overlap between what the Baker-Hamilton report advised we should do, and what neoconservatives say we might do under better circumstances, evaporates. That's where it may come down to a confrontation between Vice President Dick Cheney and the Gates-Fallon team at the Pentagon, which is essentially the Baker-Hamilton team.

Only then will we know if Bush has truly repudiated the Iraq Study Group. For the moment, he has co-opted enough of its recommendations for those in Congress who praised the report, and now denounce the President's surge, to be labeled hypocrites. As I said, a report like that of the Iraq Study Group is never intended to be liked; or openly implemented. It is meant to subtly influence policy. That it has surely done, so far.

Niall Ferguson, also writing at the Atlantic, A War to Start All Wars, says that the middle east looks like Europe, circa WWI and he concludes with this:

What will the United States do if Iraq’s neighbors fail to contain the ethnic conflict that is now consuming Iraq? The simple answer would be to leave the people to kill and displace one another until ethnic homogeneity has been established in the various states. That has effectively been American policy in central Africa. The trouble, of course, is that Iraq matters more than Rwanda, economically and strategically. Does anyone seriously believe that a regional conflagration would leave Israel and Saudi Arabia—America’s most important allies in the Middle East—unscathed?

Ask a different question. Did anyone seriously believe that a war in Central and Eastern Europe in 1939 would leave Britain and France unaffected? The really sobering lesson of the twentieth century is that some civil wars can grow into more than just regional wars. If the stakes are high enough, they have the potential to become world wars too.

---

Ferguson rightly raises the issue of what happens after the US leaves Iraq. With the Democrats lost in the myopic politics of today and now joined by the first wave of Republican defectors, no thought seems to be given to the consequences of leaving the Iraqi government to fend for itself against the Baathists, al-Qaeda, the sectarian militias, and Iran. Maybe it's unfair to say "no thought is given to the future consequences of the redeployment plan. " This morning, I heard one Bush critic on public radio say that it doesn't matter when we withdraw, a sectarian bloodbath is inevitable, therefore, we need to begin withdrawal now. That represents shallow, callous thinking to me; dangerous thinking, because it only looks at the short term without regard for the future. The argument is also made that continued US presence in Iraq is causing the violence. Does anyone honestly believe the violence will end when the US leaves? Look at the Iranian proxy in Lebanon today. How many times must it be repeated? "The biggest threat to middle-east and world stability is radical Islam."

General Petraeous, testifying before Congress this morning admitted the situation is grim. He also said that he wouldn't have accepted the job if he thought Bush's plan had no chance of success. Petraeous is willing to "give it a go" and the country should be also. Bush's plan may fail , but the fact is, "staying the course" has been defeated and there is a higher probability for an unfavorable outcome with the Democrat's "Redeployment" plan. This could be our last opportunity to stabilize the country and secure our investment (such as it is). It would be a shame to give up now but letting the situation descend into regional chaos or world war would be criminal.
General Petraeous also told Congress, "The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. ... But hard is not hopeless."

Shiites tiring of democracy in Lebanon. Burning tires in street to make point.

More bad news from our new best friends, the Shiites, who in Lebanon are Hezbollah. Pay attention now. The Shiites are the predominate tribe in Iraq. We are there to ensure the spread of democracy both in Iraq and beyond their borders. It just gets confusing beyond their borders. Actually it is confusing within their borders as well, but we are focusing on Lebanon. So is Syria and Iran. Lebanon has democracy. The Shiites do not like the results and want to end that. Democracy does not burn as brightly in the Lebanese Shiite breast as say it does in the Iraqi Shiite breast. Democracy does not seem to be smoldering in the Syrian and Iranian Shiite soul either. Too bad some of our soul-gazers in DC did not notice that earlier. Anyway in Lebanon, this is the deal:



Burning barricades paralyze Lebanon

Jan 23, 2007
Thousands of Lebanese protesters blocked main roads around the country with rubble and burning tires on Tuesday at the start of a general strike called by the opposition to try to topple the Western-backed government.

Demonstrators barricaded the road to Lebanon's only international airport and to the sea port. Security sources said a gunman fired on protesters in the ancient Christian town of Byblos, wounding three people before being arrested by soldiers.

"This government only understands force and today is only a small lesson," protester Jamil Wahb told Reuters in a southern, mostly Shi'ite suburb. "We will stay here until they give in."

Organizers of Syrian-backed Hezbollah, their faces covered in black masks, prowled on motorcycles, walkie-talkies clamped to their mouths.

One Christian leader described the protests as tantamount to a coup attempt.

The strike escalates a campaign by the Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah-led opposition to dislodge the government, install a new unity administration and hold early parliamentary elections.

TV-NZ

If you are not getting all of this and have muddled up your play card, the BBC wishes to be helpful and does a pretty reasonable job of sorting it all out here. The Lebanese crisis explained. It begins thusly:

"Lebanon is the most politically complex and religiously divided country in the Middle East, which is what makes it such a potentially explosive factor in an unstable region.


Tiny Lebanon baffles outsiders. Even people in the Middle East find its politics confusing.

Set up by France after World War I as a predominantly Christian state, Lebanon is now about 60% Muslim, 40% Christian.

It has 18 officially recognised religious sects and sharing power between them has always been a complicated game.

Lebanese Muslims have tended to look east for support from the other Arab states and from Iran. The Christians have tended to look west to Europe and the United States."