“The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful  lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.  The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.”

Retired Ambassador Charles Freeman

With all the attention centered on the financial crisis these days, there is another issue brewing that taints our national security. Last week Retired Ambassador Charles Freeman withdrew from the National Intelligence Council after being torpedoed (sorry about the Naval pun) by the right wing of the Israel lobby. (Click here to read the entire e-mail. It is an interesting read.) The fact that this flew so low under the radar is saddening. With soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan our condemnation of Israeli policy should be front and center. The actions Israel takes are seen in the region as a shadow of America since we breath life into Israel with US aid and weaponry. The fact Israel is moving to the far right should concern us all. Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory last month and his imminent naming of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister has sent shock waves through the international community. Lieberman is seen by many to be racist. This far right coalition is sure to prevent any attempt to create a Palestinian state. Their stand on Iran could also draw the US into a no win situation. The world community sees Israel as the bully in the region with an unyielding government in Jerusalem. The Jewish lobby in the US is now marrying America to these guys? The decisions Netanyahu and Lieberman make will be carried out with US weapons and US money. If we are to ever gain any credibility in the region it is America that should be dictating the actions made by Israel not Israel dictating the policy of the US. The sad thing in the withdrawal of Freeman is he was right on the issues. This is not a conservative versus liberal issue. One of the key politicians that forced Freeman’s resignation was Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York. The White House was very silent on this issue, a fact that is very disheartening. This weekend on his enlightening show GPS, Fareed Zakaria interviewed Ambassador Freeman. It should provide a wake-up call for those unaware of the strength of the right wing Israeli lobby in the US.

After listening to the clear and concise argument made by Ambassador Freeman, one feels the US has lost a talented policy mind.

ADDRESSING THE NON-ARAB MIDDLE EAST

To say the Middle East is confusing is an understatement. One must remember most of the hijackers aboard the planes on 9/11 were Saudi and their leader, Osama Bin Laden (OBL), is a Saudi national also. But Al-Qaeda is a stateless organization and their headquarters was in the heart of a country, Afghanistan, that had no true government. When America turned their might against those who did us harm on that warm September morning it wasn’t with the full power of our military. The US wasn’t going after a nation-state, we were attempting to eradicate an organization whose members’ loyalty belonged not to the nations from which they came but instead to a virulent ideology. Al-Qaeda in the 21st century is not a lot different than the  pirates who plied the seas in the 17th and 18th centuries. The only significant difference are the goals. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group who wishes to recreate the Caliphate, a pan-Islamic state with Shari’a  as the basis of law. During the Afghan-Soviet war of the 80s, the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in the mujahadeen battles against the godless communist invaders. These “holy warriors” were being funded in part by the US who wanted to see the Soviet Union become bogged down in the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan. The Islamists also received safe haven and material support from Pakistan, a largely Sunni state.

During this same time Shia Iran, fresh from their Islamic Revolution, was fending off an assault by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces whose intention was to seize vital oil regions within the Iranian state while Iran was weak. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who led a largely Shia state had no reluctance in invading his neighbor. He intended to be the great Arab leader who would unite the Sunnis under his own version of Pan-Arabism. His aims, unlike Al-Qaeda, were secular. Throughout the 80s the entire region was in flames. American aims were to ensure no one got the upper hand, flame the fires of instability and to humiliate the Soviet Union without turning the Cold War hot.

The events of the 1980s would lay the foundations for the current problems in the region. The Iran-Iraq War was fought to a draw with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq deeply in debt. This led the dictator to invade Quwait in an audacious gamble to seize oil from a weaker nation. The oil revenue would enable Iraq to get back on its feet again. The world was not prepared to allow Saddam to control such a strategic position in the Gulf and the notion he invaded a fellow Sunni state with such brutality sent a warning shot across the bow to his fellow Sunni states to the west.  Saddam’s aggression to both his own people and to his fellow Muslim neighbors created the climate that led to his defeat in the First Gulf War and the Bush policy of preemption in the current Iraq War.

In Afghanistan, those who defeated the Soviets in the 80s went on to radicalize the failed state. The Taliban, also  Sunni, is an anti-modern, ultra religious organization who ruled large swaths of Afghanistan in the power vacuum created by the withdrawal of the Soviets and the complete negligence from the west. Their rule returned Afghanistan to a bygone century and their strict interpretation of the Quran brought about hardships for most of the the citizenry of the impoverished nation. Their association and acceptance of Al-Qaida was a natural byproduct of their beliefs. The strong ties with the Sunni tribes between Pakistan and Afghanistan had been solidified during the Soviet war and reaffirmed during the period of Taliban rule. As 2001 approached, a very anti-western Islamic militancy flourished in Afghanistan. The bonds between Al Qaeda and the Taliban stretching over the borders of two tenuous nation-states would show their resilience in the period following 9/11. The challenges facing the United States in the months and years to come will be daunting as we struggle to address how to confront these two groups and find a solution in the Hindu Kush that doesn’t resemble the Soviet experience.

The situation in Pakistan is also complex. The government in Islamabad has had direct ties to the Taliban and to those who are in Al-Qaeda ever since the Soviet war next door. Members of Pakistan’s intelligence service still remain connected to the two groups and some even assist their endeavors. There seems to be some resolve these days  within the new Zadari government to fight against the radical elements in the lawless northwest provinces. This is a welcome sign in the wake of several US strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets within Pakistan’s border.

To the west of Pakistan and Afghanistan is Shia Iran. Their recent history is one of immense change combined with conflict. As Iran threw off their pro-western King and imposed a theocracy, they were thrust into a war with their Arab neighbor that bled the nation severely. After almost a decade of struggle, Iran emerged weakened but resolute. They continued to use the US as a tool to divert the people’s attention away from Iran’s economic and political troubles. In recent years President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad has shown a strong measure of resolve (if not a modicum of craziness) by denying the holocaust, funding radical organizations in Lebanon and Palestine, and voicing the desire to obtain nuclear energy which would also give Iran the ability to make nuclear weapons. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech was the most destructive words spoken by a President in recent times. The separation created by those words has created the climate that makes the notion in Iran that a bomb is necessary to prevent an American attack.

Obama’s route through this geography of uncertainty is tricky. Iran can be pacified. Iran has a weakness. Most of Iran’s citizens love America since they have contact with someone within their family who left during the Islamic Revolution and now lives comfortably in the US. Americans who travel to Iran are greeted warmly by the Iranians. This notion is their Achilles heal. Direct contact with Iran along with a multilateral approach will bear fruit under Obama. Since the Islamic Revolution there has not been direct diplomatic relations with Iran. Their strategy until recently has been to demonize the US and in that way has kept us at arms length. In the runup to the Iraq War Khatami, their President, reached out to the US. He was a moderate and favored improved relations but the Bush Administration was riding their neo-con high and saw weakness in Iran’s position. With US troops on either side in 2003 it would have been an ideal time to engage Iran. Removing Saddam enhanced Iran’s position. With the Shias assuming control in Iraq, their western neighbor was turned from an enemy into an ally. This fact has emboldened Iran and when Ahmedinijad was elected his bravado further alienated the already toxic relationship. Obama has the tools with which to change the dynamic, and he should. Iran can be bartered away from their nuclear ambitions. The nation’s people can be co-opted to move in a direction away from the current hard line approach.

Afghanistan has become dangerous. The problem with our commitment there is the poor nation has nothing to offer the US in return. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has no oil. In fact there are no resources at all in the mountainous state. The only product that generates wealth is opium, something the Taliban had nearly eradicated prior to the US invasion. The growing of poppies has exploded since 2001. Obama is going to need a large commitment from western nations to resolve the conflict there. America can’t go it alone in Afghanistan or else more than likely the end result will be a brokered peace with the Taliban; one that involves their return to prominence in Afghanistan for a movement away from their association with Al Qaida. This would be disastrous for the Afghani people and would ensure a continuation of civil war into the foreseeable future. If Obama is to be successful in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan he must form the bond with influential world capitals and encourage their full commitment in the fight. Afghanistan is the one issue outside of the US economy that could cause a demise in the good feeling Obama currently enjoys.

Perhaps you are burned out from the 24/7 coverage of the assault on Mumbai but here is a great overview of the incident with more details than you would ordinarily get from the main stream media.

Analysis: Mumbai attack differs from past terror strikes

By Bill Roggio

November 28, 2008 12:31 AM

Almost two days after terrorists attacked the Indian financial hub of Mumbai, the military is still working to root out the remnants of the assault teams at two hotels and a Jewish center. More than 125 people, including six foreigners, have been killed and 327 more have been wounded. The number is expected to go up, as Indian commandos have recovered an additional 30 dead at the Taj Mahal hotel as fighting has resumed.

The Mumbai attack is unique from past terror strikes carried out by Islamic terrorists. Instead of one or more bombings at distinct sites, the Mumbai attackers struck throughout the city using military tactics. Instead of one or more bombings carried out over a short period of time, Mumbai I entering its third day of crisis.

An attack of this nature cannot be thrown together overnight. It requires planned, scouting, financing, training, and a support network to aid the fighters. Initial reports indicate the attacks originated from Pakistan, the hub of jihadi activity in South Asia. Few local terror groups have the capacity to pull of an attack such as this.

READ MORE

New information is being revealed in regards to America’s war against our true enemy, Al Qaeda. In one of those “The emperor has no clothes” moments, President Bush is apparently fuming from the fact this information has surfaced. It tells the story of President Musharaf cutting deals with the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in essence appeasing the terrorists. Also revealed are inter-agency turf battles that left key strategic operations on the planning board. Highlighted in these latest reports is the impact the Iraq War had on the real “war on terror”. Key assets that were required to aggressively go against Al Qaeda and Taliban elements in Pakistan were sent to Iraq. Even CIA operatives were diverted to the Iraq War in the years following 2003. As a result the terrorist organization that was responsible for the death of 3000 US civilians has effectively reconstituted itself several hundred miles from where they planned the 2001 attacks. The following article details the facts of how the current administration has duped the American people into believing we are safer as a result of their leadership and how their use of fear as a reason to be elected is nothing short of a sham. George Bush has done very little since taking office in 2001. The engine of his presidency has been the Iraq War, and as it sucked out all the oxygen from the room, the real threat continues to burn brightly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

Amid policy disputes, Qaeda grows in Pakistan

By Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde

Monday, June 30, 2008

WASHINGTON: Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to authorize the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave an easier path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

Read More

Death to America! It is the chant that is synonymous with Iran. With Saddam toppled and the North Koreans actively discussing stepping down from their nuclear program the final member of the "Axis of Evil" remains Iran. Their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the destruction of Israel. This in turn has led to statements out of Tel Aviv that caused a jolt to the markets on Friday. Recently a movie entitled Charlie Wilson’s War told the story of a Congressman who pulled for the arming of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The lessons from this movie tell only half the story.

Lost in all the debate about what to do about Iran is a forgotten component to the history of the region. For this we must go back over half a century. Up through WW II Iran had been controlled by England. Their vast oil assets were managed by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (despite its name the company paid only a small pittance to the ruling elite of Iran and kept the huge profits in British hands). When Aramco (the Arab American Oil Company) was formed in Saudi Arabia the profits were shared 50-50. Following WW II the Iranian leadership and the multitude of Iranians wished for a similar deal with AIOC. When they were rebuffed by the British a new Iranian leader stepped forward. Mohammed Mossadeq was elected by the Iranian Parliament. Mossedeq was the leader of the Iranian National Front, a liberal, nationalist, social democratic organization that wished to bring democracy to Iran and strengthen itself by nationalizing its oil reserves.  Soon after being elected Prime Minister in 1951 Mossedeq and the Iranian Parliament passed the Oil Nationalization Act. The British protested vehemently, first to the UN and the World Court and then proceeded to pull their technicians out, leaving Iran with lots of oil but no specialists to extract and refine it. After much debate within Britain, they decided to initiate a coup d’etat but the Iranians caught wind of it and expelled all the English diplomatic corps which stopped the coup before it could begin. 1951 turned into 1952 and this was an election year in the US. The Truman administration refused to act alongside Britain. But the new Eisenhower administration was different. The Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles.  Dulles had been a lawyer for large multi-national corporations prior to joining the incoming administration and he was sympathetic to the British and the AIOC’s cause. Though democratic, the Mossadeq government with their oil nationalization program smelled of communism. Dulles (aided by his brother Allen) took on the cause of overthrowing the Iranian government. Code named Ajax, Dulles chose the great grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt to initiate the coup. Hatched in the basement of the US embassy in Tehran, the overthrow of a democratic Iran succeeded and the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza was installed as the new dictatorship. The Shah of Iran ruled harshly until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution swept through the country led by the aging Ayatollah Khomeini. Among the acts initiated by the supporters of the fanatical religious leader; the takeover of the US embassy. Why? Because these new leaders believed the US would again try to oust the fledgling government from the basement of the embassy just as they did in 1953. The ramifications of Operation Ajax are profound. As the radical government of Iran takes hold in the months following the revolution, Saddam Hussein seizes the opportunity to invade Iran as he views incorrectly a weak oil rich neighbor. The Soviet Union, fearing a spread of radical Islam through their southern republics invaded Afghanistan to begin its halt there before it could infect its own possessions. The decade long war weakened the Soviet Union but in the process the US armed the mujahadeen, the very same militants which would become Al-Qaida and the Taliban. And now we are faced with a government in Iran that is politically hostile to the US and eyes a nuclear program. What would the climate be in the Middle East if we had just kept our grubby little hands to ourselves. Sometimes you must be weary of the unintended consequences. This seems to be a lesson that Americans have a tough time learning.

Details of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book are coming out and by all indications it offers a scathing recollection of his days in the White House.

His revelations about why Bush went to war in Iraq are especially telling:

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness, "something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

The president’s real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

 AJC.com

On Bush’s leadership skills he writes:

"It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection, something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did."

Bush misled U.S. on Iraq, former aide says in new book

Scott McClellan’s ‘What Happened’ delivers tough criticism of president, advisers

By KEN HERMAN
Cox News Service
Published on: 05/27/08

WASHINGTON — In a book due out Monday, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan offers a blistering review of the administration and concludes that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Read the Rest

The hot button in the Presidential race these days revolves around the new “GI Bill”. This bill gives us a window on the soul of those who are waging the so called “War on Terror”. By any measure Democratic Senator Jim Webb’s version of the bill (and co-sponsored by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel) is quite generous. It would allow any serviceman who completed three years of active duty (or activated reservists or national guard) the ability to be compensated for four years of public university tuition. Sen. and Republican nominee John McCain is against Webb’s bill. McCain, like Bush, believes the bill would cause military retention rates to decrease. Many of America’s finest have served three, four and five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan (and sometimes swapping between the two theaters) and those who rightfully engaged the enemy in Afghanistan and those who wrongly invaded Iraq are now denying those who have sacrificed the most the ability to brighten their future; a future that for as long as they were serving in harms way was always in doubt. A future for some involves a life without a leg or an arm. Shame on George Bush, shame on John McCain and shame on any politician who doesn’t stand up in Congress and give these boys (and girls) what they deserve. For McCain to use his lack of support of this bill as a means to attack Barack Obama (who supports this bill) for not serving in the military shows a lack of integrity; a word I would never have used to define McCain in the past. Jim Webb’s bill may have an opposite effect. The prospect of having a full paid college scholarship may very well cause a number of kids to sign up for the military. These would be men who aspire to be college graduates, just the type of people we would like to fill the ranks of the US military. Those who have put their lives on the line for this country are exactly those we want to replace the aging baby boomers in the workplaces throughout this country. Jim Webb’s GI Bill is a start but in my opinion they deserve way more than that. Unfortunately those who most wanted to wage these wars don’t see it that way.

Breaking:  Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary breaks ranks with President Bush in new book.

The words of Reverend Wright? No. Actually these are the sentiments of those radical White preachers. You know, the ones that had (or have) national audiences to spew their vitriol. It was the damn secularists teaming up with the radical eastern monotheists that caused 9/11.

Every politician has interesting bed fellows. By what rules are we playing? Why did McCain accept Falwell’s endorsement? It was done to garner votes from the religious right. When this story makes headlines, and it surely will, will McCain denounce Falwell and an eventual Pat Robertson endorsement? Stay tuned.

No one who is employed watches the main-stream media (MSM) more than I do. I often have it running as background noise while I eat, read, surf the net and even sleep. There is a great redundancy to the reporting. It really doesn’t matter where you obtain your news. Whether it is MSNBC at the left of the spectrum, CNN at center left or FOX on the right; when a fire engulfs a building in New York City there is a rhythm in which all three cut into the story, like a trio of dancing couples entering a vacant dance floor. On election coverage the rhythm of story repetition can be as rapid as a West Indies soca song. During lulls in the media wars there will be those stories of fair haired damsels brutally slain, or missing toddlers in remote locals and a suspected make and model of car for which to be on the lookout. But is there really a down cycle? My contention is the MSM has failed us. The stories Americans should be focused on receive only glancing blows unless there is carnage involved. When was the last time you heard a really in depth story about the war in Iraq?  I am talking about one where there are multiple reporters on the ground highlighting all the nuances of the conflict; interviews with sergeants, the facts about the demise of Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), the current strategy for victory and the assessment of progress. Al-Anbar is much safer now. Where are the reporters covering that story? It seems if the US is spending upwards of $1 trillion there, shouldn’t it be a priority of the media and America in general to care? And of course there is the forgotten war in Afghanistan; the staging ground for Bin Laden and his gang. With nations waffling on their commitment there, the forces engaged are insufficient. But we would not know that from our news. The internet is a great outlet for information about the conflicts but most Americans don’t have the time or desire to seek out such stories. Instead we endure an endless cycle of stories about why Obama’s campaign called Hillary a monster or why McCain lost his temper about a 2004 collaboration attempt by John Kerry or even worse why a pretty girl at UNC was slain. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not callous to the sorrow involved in the case but last I heard over 4000 Americans and countless Iraqis have died in Iraq and 3000 Americans are attempting to be avenged in Afghanistan. When a story of one person’s death gets twenty times more coverage than those that matter to all of us, the MSM has failed us.

The most unusual information floating around the blogosphere lately is the presidential election of 2009. That would be the presidential election in Afghanistan. As the situation in Iraq has improved in the past few months, the war in Afghanistan has deteriorated. Much of the blame for the recent setbacks there are being laid at the doorstep of the current president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. The next election for president there is planned for 2009 and the one who is rumored to run against Karzai is the US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad was born in Afghanistan. The implications of having an American run the country of Afghanistan should make any of the readers here pause. This sounds like something that comes right out of the 19th century imperialism playbook. Granted, this is just a rumor but the prospect of having Zalmay Khalilzad as president of Afghanistan would have some interesting implications and sets up a plethora of unintended consequences for America’s war on terror. Our commitment in Iraq may be limited but our effort in Afghanistan will most likely be long term. If Khalilzad decides to throw his pakol (Afghani hat) into the ring, the pros and cons of his presidency will be fiercely debated by experts in the coming months.