The Editors at the NY Times have long proved themselves overwhelmingly biased and nakedly partisan, throughout 8 years of relentless attacks against any move the Bush Administration has taken to fight terrorism or our terrorist enemies. They make no pretense of logic, consistency, or even sanity, as long as all slurs and insults point Bush-ward. They have no need of facts, let alone opposing viewpoints, especially not those heretical ones that refute the received wisdom of the Times.

They assume venality in every case, cause, and controversy, and have championed the alternate universe inhabited by most of the Left, whereby their political opponents are evil, every intention is ulterior and sinister, and every partisan (on the other side) is less than human. The NY Times doesn’t just drink the Kool-Aid, they concoct huge batches of it for public consumption.

But they’ve outdone themselves today, in offensiveness, insult, even slander, asserting that the US Military has aided and abetted in orchestrating a Kangaroo Court conviction of an admitted terrorist, under orders from the White House and Congress.

From the Editors of the Times comes this:

Guilty as Ordered

Now that was a real nail-biter. The court designed by the White House and its Congressional enablers to guarantee convictions of high-profile detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — using evidence obtained by torture and secret evidence as desired — has held its first trial. It produced ... a guilty verdict.

The military commission of six senior officers (whose names have not been made public) found Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who worked as one of Osama bin Laden’s drivers until 2001, guilty of one count of providing material support for terrorism.

The rules of justice on Guantánamo are so stacked against defendants that the only surprise was that Mr. Hamdan was actually acquitted on the more serious count of conspiring (it was unclear with whom) to kill Americans during the invasion of Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001.

The Times refuses to employ real legal scholars, or any modicum of fact checking to refute your average terrorist defense attorney’s talking points, apparently preferring to rely on columnists like “economist” Paul Krugman for legal commentary. Thus, they can allege that the trial outcome was ordered, or that the military tribunal process is “so stacked against defendants,” while in the very same editorial admit that Hamdan was found innocent of a questionable charge, and found guilty of one he admitted.

This despite the views of actual legal scholars, who note that the current military tribunal process as established by the “worst bits of lawmaking in American history,” the Military Commissions Act of 2006, insisted upon by the Supreme Court and enacted by Congress on a second attempt, is actually more protective of defendant rights as anything guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions, or even that afforded US soldiers under Military Justice.

If I were one of the 6 officers who sat in that jury, I’d file a defamation or libel suit against the Times. I’d also make it big, public, and embarrassing for the Times Editors.

The Times has played anything but the role of impartial observer, negligently perpetrating untruths and fallacies about military law, and repeated Bush Administration efforts to create a legal framework for individuals who are at war with us, but act as proxies for State sponsors of terror, or other organized terror and criminal gangs.

The Times misreports on the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War, military justice, military affairs, and often, constitutional law and jurisprudence. They insist on remaining ignorant, and perpetuating the prolonged ignorance of their readers. They sabotage Government and Military counterterrorism programs, aid and abet the disclosure of classified intelligence and programs, and they self-righteously cloak themselves in a ludicrous mantel of public service, in doing as much harm as possible to any effort taken to combat terror.

If there existed any actual, impartial credentialing authority for Journalists, their bona fides would have been yanked some time ago.

I for one have concluded that we should have identified any terrorists, saboteurs, irregular militias, fighters (in or out of uniform) captured on foreign battlefields or outside the US as Prisoners of War, rather than unlawful combatants. With an oppositional and power-hungry Supreme Court, an obstructionist opposition Party who places partisan gain above National Security, there has been and will be no hope we will ever convince the naysayers that terrorists are a threat and terror organizations are real and must be combated aggressively.

Here’s the thing. With POWs, in wartime, military authorities get to identify those who engaged in terror, committing acts of violence in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War. Sure, go ahead and exempt American terrorists, and shuttle them off to the civilian legal system.

The US can then implement military proceedings on foreign combatants, and conduct summary executions of individuals deemed guilty of war crimes, terror, espionage or sabotage, on the spot. They can keep the rest confined until such time as a credible terror organization steps forward to surrender on their behalf. Which means, we can leave them to rot for the rest of their lives in prison camps.

An actual real world prosecutor, with real life experience in prosecuting terror cases, Andy McCarthy, reacts with similar if more composed outrage over at The Corner.

Naturally, I would never suggest that the New York Times stoops to a predetermined editorial narrative with which it proceeds, and toward which it slants news coverage, without a care in the world about what facts actually happen. But today's "Guilty as Ordered" rant about the Hamdan military commission trial has to take the cake. The first paragraph is so shamefully dishonest and misrepresentative of reality as to defy one's necessarily low expectations of the Gray Lady.

(snip)

Of course, the trial also produced a not-guilty verdict. Was that "as ordered" too? If the system was "designed ... to guarantee convictions" how did that happen?

Bill West, writing at the Counterterrorism Blog, comments on the Times’ malicious slander of the military officers sitting on the Hamdan jury:

The results of this trial demonstrate that American military officers truly are the independent minded, moral self-thinkers we expect them to be. Sure, members of the military must "take and follow orders." But they must also be able to think for themselves and act in a moral way. This is especially true for the Officer Corps...the leadership of the US military. We expect military officers to act with honor and sound judgement. Contrary to what some on the far left (very many of whom never served in the military) may believe, when one becomes a US military officer, one does not morph into a mindless automaton.

The officers who served on this jury had a duty to independently weigh the evidence presented to them within the rules of the Commission and to render a decision based on their own judgment of that evidence...not based on any external orders. The conduct of the proceedings and the verdict demonstrate those officers did just that. They not only vindicated the Commission...the "system"...but they brought great credit upon themselves and the Officer Corps. They upheld that code of honor We the People expect of them.

The NY Times, in its derogatory editorial, not only ignores that fact but does a backhanded insult to those officers who served on the jury.

(Links via Memeorandum)

Claudia Rosett has proven herself as one of the most disciplined and tenacious investigative reporters working today. She applies her skills to maximum effect in a recent piece in National Review Online, where she digs into the recent controversy over the firing of Pentagon Analyst Stephen Coughlin. She began to unravel the mystery by asking, Who is Hesham Islam?

Earlier reports allege that Islam, a native Arabic speaker and Muslim with a high visibility role in outreach to Islamic groups, along with highly influential contacts within the Pentagon, served as catalyst for Coughlin’s dismissal.

Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reported on the controversy, which was also well-covered by MILBLOGS, such as Chaotic Synaptic Activity, Cop the Truth, CDR Salamander, and Blackfive, as well as Hot Air and Andrew Bostom.

Here’s what Rosett presents as background on Islam:

Hesham Islam is a native Arabic speaker, a Muslim, born in 1959 in Cairo and schooled in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In 1980 he immigrated to the U.S. From 1985-2005 he served in the U.S. Navy, rising to the mid-level officer rank of commander. At some point after former defense-industry executive Gordon England joined the Bush administration as secretary of the Navy, in 2001, Islam went to work on his staff. In 2005, when England, after a stint in Homeland Security took over from Paul Wolfowitz in the Defense Department’s number two slot of deputy secretary, Islam came with him.
In England’s office, Islam’s official title is special assistant for international affairs. In that capacity he pops up as a man-about-town in Washington, making the rounds of embassies. But Islam also works as England’s point man for Pentagon outreach programs to Muslim groups. These include organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, with whom Islam and England have forged ties — attending ISNA conventions, and hosting ISNA delegations at Pentagon events, and in England’s office.

For some critics, what’s already been known about Islam should cause concern, such as Stephen Emerson, who describes Islam as “an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators.”

And how about Coughlin? Rosett reports that Coughlin is an analyst determined to highlight a covert threat from within:

In a thesis accepted last year by the National Defense Intelligence College, entitled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” Coughlin came up with heavily documented findings that Islamic law, to a dangerous extent, supports the global spread of Islamic extremism, through both violent and non-violent means. In presentations to the military, based in part on court documents connected to the case of the Holy Land Foundation, Coughlin warned of Muslim Brotherhood plans to subvert the U.S. system via front groups, and “destroy western civilization from within.”
And then, Coughlin got the shove. Earlier this month, he was told that his contract with the Joint Chiefs of Staff will not be renewed when it expires in March. Why? According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, who on Jan. 4 broke the story of Coughlin’s ouster, Coughlin ran afoul of a Pentagon “key aide” named Hesham Islam. Attributing his information to unnamed “officials,” Gertz, who in a series of subsequent articles has stood by his story, alleged that Hesham Islam at a Pentagon meeting late last year sought to have Coughlin soften his views, and called him a “Christian zealot or extremist ‘with a pen’” — or words to that effect.

Rosett digs deeper, and finds some rather dubious credentials and “experiences” in Islam’s biography, beyond what has been highlighted publicly.

What Rosett has uncovered strongly suggests a possibility that Islam has invented at least portions of his resume. That in turn suggests that Islam may not be who he claims to be, and seriously calls into question his motivations and the intent of his actions.
First, there’s the possibly imagined Israeli “bombing of Cairo”:

But this Pentagon-endorsed profile raises more questions than it answers. It begins: “If Hesham Islam’s life story was translated into a screenplay — and it’s got all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster — the director would be hard-pressed to come up with a more compelling chain of events landing him as a top adviser to the deputy defense secretary.”
As told by Islam to the reporter, “The movie would open with Islam as a young boy growing up in Cairo, Egypt, huddling in terror as Israeli bombs came raining down, demolishing much of the building around him and his family.”
There’s one problem with this scene. As far as I have been able to discover, Israel during Hesham Islam’s entire lifetime has never bombed Cairo. Asked to explain this, the Pentagon spokesman duly conferred with Islam, and relayed to me by phone that Islam says this building-wrecking bombing raid took place during the 1967 Six-Day War. But as for details that might substantiate the when and where in Cairo of this graphic scene, Islam “Doesn’t remember. He was seven years old.”

Then, there’s close proximity between Islam’s father and Saddam Hussein, and a fabulous adventure when Islam survived the sinking of an Iraqi cargo ship by Iranians:

That family move to Iraq came as Saddam Hussein was consolidating his Baathist rule, though neither the Pentagon profile nor Hesham Islam’s Pentagon biography any makes mention of that context. In answer to questions, the Pentagon spokesman says Islam’s father was invited to Iraq by Saddam Hussein, but the spokesman doesn’t know when: “It was in 1971-1973 time frame.” Surely with Pentagon background checks, more exact information would be easily available? “It’s available,” says the spokesman, but “I don’t have his C.V. kind of thing.”
The profile goes on to describe young Hesham Islam as a “merchant mariner adrift for three days in the Arabian Sea after an Iranian torpedo sunk his 16,000-ton cargo ship, drowning all but Islam and four of his crewmates.”

Rosett finds no evidence confirming Islam’s dramatic account:

As for records of any incident fitting the generic description of a 16,000-ton cargo ship, under any flag, torpedoed by the Iranians and sunk in the Arabian Sea before Islam immigrated to the U.S. sometime in 1980 (the Pentagon spokesman can’t or won’t say exactly when in 1980), after searching news archives, shipping records, and consulting a number of naval historians, I have yet to come across anything that corroborates Islam’s Iranian-torpedo-in-the-Arabian-Sea story. There were ships sunk by the Iranians in 1980, as the Iran-Iraq war broke out — but that was happening in the Gulf, around the Shatt-al-Arab, on the other side of the Straits of Hormuz, hundreds of miles from the Arabian Sea.
It is of course possible that this torpedoing, ship sinking, and rescue took place exactly as described in the Defense profile. But having showcased the scene for public consumption, why won’t Gordon England’s office provide basic factual information that could confirm this story? Does Hesham Islam not remember that, either? Does no one at Defense have it on file?

Then, there’s a 5 year gap in his record, when Islam immigrated to the US, got married to a pen pal, and in 1985 joined the Navy as an electronics technician.

No cause for alarm? Perhaps, perhaps. But then there’s Islam’s choice of topics for a Master’s Thesis while studying at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA:

For this degree, Islam wrote a 139-page thesis about the Middle East, entitled “Roots of Regional Ambition.” In it, he devoted dozens of pages to lambasting Israel, and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics. He deplored “Israeli activities which have detrimentally affected U.S. objectives but which have continued with impunity.” He argued that U.S. support for Israel “has negatively affected the attainment of U.S. objectives in the Middle East.” He blamed the influence of American Jews on U.S. policy for a host of ills, ranging from Arab “retaliation” against Americans, to jobs lost overseas, to hampering sales of “defensive arms to friendly Arab states.”

Based on reactions from other MILBLOGGERS, I know many are questioning whether Islam’s alleged role in getting Coughlin sacked. Whether or not those allegations are true, Islam’s biography – and questions raised by Rosett – raise some troubling questions.

What kind of a clearance did Islam get for this work in the Navy and for the Pentagon? How thoroughly were his foreign contacts vetted? Weren’t the incidents described in his public biography investigated? I would certainly think so, as a high level clearance for a foreign born subject would require close scrutiny.

Rosett’s research certainly suggests that Islam may not have been entirely truthful in dealing with military and government officials, who trust him implicitly, and who have assigned him to areas both very sensitive and vital to national security.

Why isn’t this setting off alarm bells?

(Via Powerline from last week.)

Andrew McCarthy, writing at National Review, dismisses Congressional and Media maneuvers to generate a scandal ala Watergate as “farce rich in high-dudgeon hypocrisy.” McCarthy further laments our failed experiments in “judicializing warfare.”

As McCarthy rightly observes and Democrats blindingly ignore, Congressional votes authorizing the use of military force in September 2001 were 420-1 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. By 2002, America’s ardor for military response had not abated:

The atmosphere of 2002 was one of forcible action. The American people demanded it. Our representatives in Congress were insistent that we would get it. Their own jobs hung in the balance. It was in that atmosphere that this military response, this war, began to result, as all wars do, in the capture of enemy operatives.

McCarthy notes recent accounts, which confirm reveal that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among other Democrats in 2002 worried that Bush Administration officials were not being tough enough on captured terrorists, in stark contrast to their revisionist views now.

McCarthy also places the activities of the CIA between 2001 and 2003 in an accurate context, something completely absent from mainstream media (MSM) reporting:

The program pushed to the margins of the law. Regardless of what the revisionist Left is now saying, the only bright-line limit on the treatment of alien enemy combatants held outside the United States in 2002 was the federal law against torture. The United States did not outlaw cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when it ratified the international anti-torture treaty in 1994 — it was not until 2005 that such treatment overseas was outlawed, and even then only ambiguously, no matter what Senators John McCain, Patrick Leahy, and others now claim. Congress could easily (and accountably) have made simulated drowning — waterboarding — unlawful. But it didn’t. It wouldn’t have dared done so in 2002; it didn’t do so in 2005 or 2006 despite specifically addressing war crimes; and it hasn’t done so to this day.

McCarthy notes the one argument I’ve seen expressed in the so called torture debate that is the least credible: that of the present or future treatment of Americans and American Military based on recent US actions in fighting terrorists and terror groups.

I have utmost respect for John McCain, and I can’t bring myself to find him dishonest. I have to otherwise conclude he reacts to the torture and terror treatment on a purely visceral basis rather than from a position of logic. I won’t yield the same courtesy to other partisans who take similar positions and McCarthy articulates the refutation of such arguments better than I:

We weren’t violating any treaty obligations, and we weren’t laying the groundwork for any other nation that actually cares about its obligations to violate theirs. Al-Qaeda is not going to reciprocate humane treatment; you haven’t heard of any jihadist Gitmo because this enemy tortures and kills its captives — believe it or not, they don’t even let the International Red Cross come visit. But if we were fighting a nation-state entitled to Geneva Convention prisoner-of-war provisions, we would honor those provisions, demand nothing beyond name, rank and serial number, and expect our foes to honor them as well. The Left’s charge that we are international outlaws is as vapid as it is slanderous.

That’s the crux of my outrage with that portion of the debate that centers around how we’re perceived, how we will be treated in future, and so forth.

The so called ticking time bomb scenario will never apply with US military or citizens in the hands of “a nation-state entitled to Geneva Convention prisoner-of-war provisions,” because we don’t use terror and terrorists as proxy for our foreign policy, and never will.

Some critics, like McCain, may have serious objections to any perceived, potential use of anything that might be construed as torture, but such as they know the US will never be guilty of the inhumanity of our enemies. They know there will never be any real equivalency between the actions of our Government or military, and those barbarians among our enemies.

The Washington Post this weekend published a notable op-ed, Getting Beyond Stalemate to Win a War,” jointly authored by retired Major General (MG) John Batiste and Vets for Freedom Executive Director Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth, who’s been tireless in his efforts this year in leading the media fight for victory and against surrender in the war in Iraq, presented quite a contrast with Batiste. Batiste the former 1^st Infantry Division Commander, publicly trumpeted starkly negative assessments of our efforts in Iraq this past year. At the time, immediately pre-election, the timing and vehemence of his opposition, his emphasis on subjective opinion versus military facts on the ground, all struck me as nakedly partisan and opportunist.

All the more remarkable that Hegseth and Batiste contributed jointly to this opinion piece. Hegseth notified Vets for Freedom supporters (I’m on their National Leadership Team) that, notwithstanding any prior political differences, Batiste is a “true patriot.” Here’s how Hegseth explains their work together for the WaPo op-ed:

The op-ed outlines the need for America to succeed in Iraq, as well as in the Long War against radical Islam.
As you may know, in 2006 Maj. Gen. Batiste was an outspoken critic of failed strategies in Iraq. However, to his great credit, he now believes we must stop "prosecuting the past," recognize the success of the new strategy, and focus on victory. I could not agree more!
My sincere hope is that this op-ed will help serve as a sort of "political reconciliation" in our own country. It is time to put aside petty partisan differences, and rally behind the need for success in Iraq and in the Long War.
It was an honor to write the piece with Maj. Gen. Batiste—he is a fine officer and a true patriot.

If Hegseth can make this statement about Batiste, at the least I can reconsider any earlier judgment I made about him. In any case, Hegseth and Batiste make a strong argument for reconciliation of oppositional national security views, and victory in Iraq:

Our military men and women deserve better than partisan politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's performance in fighting the Long War.
We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.
Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.
It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

As I’ve stated many times, who knows how much easier this fight might have been, if serious and security minded Democrats had held sway, and kept the anti-war rhetoric well-tempered by a “politics stop at the water’s edge” philosophy. (How about this for a post-9/11 version of same, “politics stop at ground zero’s debris field.”)

Hegseth and Batiste energetically embrace the concept of the Long War that we fight against radical Islamic extremism, and call for concerted, unified American effort against or terrorist enemies in five key areas, as excerpted:

·        The United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism.

·        Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria.

·        The counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq.

·        No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power.

·        Our military capabilities need to match our national strategy.

Hegseth and Batiste assert that Veterans are resolved in their defense of this nation, and make one additional plea:

America's veterans -- young and old -- are resolved to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This commitment, and nothing less, should compel us to stand together, in and out of uniform. Would that Congress finds the courage to bury its pride and do the same.

This should have been the stand taken in 2003, and long overdue in 2007, but perhaps it marks an important (and essential) turning point in political rhetoric.

I view it as inevitable that all those who formerly spoke of defeat, withdrawal, quagmire, blunders, will need to reposition for 2008. The writing’s on the wall. Those who cling to the defeat narrative will be punished severely; if not by an electorate, then by those who position with an electorate in mind.

Here’s a tactical question. How much cover do you extend to people who still have political interests in opposition to your own? Does it make them look foolish, or embarrassed that they were wrong? Is that enough to weaken them?

One issue is who holds the White House in 2009. Another is, no matter who wins, how will the military be treated? Are they going to listen to us, next time things get tough? How will we be used? Will we keep fighting the Long War, with leaders who will make tough decisions?

I'd vote whole-heartedly for reconciliation, if I had any confidence that those on the other side were genuine in their "new awareness" and serious about the real, abiding threats we face.

Coincident with a theme I touched on in my debate yesterday with Scott Ritter, Austin Bay at Real Clear Politics posts an analysis reflecting on Al-Qaida's Emerging Defeat.

Bay highlights this week’s announcement of a joint, long-term Iraqi and US government security arrangement in the context of another long term initiative, that of Al Qaida trying to achieve strategic objectives in Iraq:

The January 2005 Iraqi election succeeded, giving terrorists and tyrants a disturbing "purple finger" -- the very public ink stains marking the fingers of Iraqi voters.

That election was an incremental success, but one of many. This week's publicized call for a more "normalized" U.S.-Iraq relationship is another indication that the incremental successes are accumulating. Every increment can become a decrement, but war is a dynamic process -- and from a historical perspective the dynamic direction in Iraq has favored the United States -- in other words, the big trend suggests an emerging success.

I know, that runs counter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's April 2007 declaration that the United States "lost" in Iraq, but it was Reid's choice to make himself a sad historical footnote.

This emerging success required lots of money and unfortunately involved lots of blood. I had another document on my Baghdad desk, Musab al-Zarqawi's February 2004 letter to al-Qaida's leaders, in which he lamented al-Qaida's looming defeat.

He also described his counter-strategy: a Shia-Sunni sectarian war. That's war's hideous dynamic, effort met by effort -- with death, pain and suffering in each terrible collision. Zarqawi's murderers did their best to incite a sectarian debacle. Oh, they got headlines, they enlisted a motley array of criminal allies, they set Iraq's democratic timetable back 12 to 24 months -- but they failed.

In concluding his analysis, Bay commends an October 15^th article by Tom Ricks in The Washington Post, discussing “al-Qaida's information warfare defeat.”

(Via Instapundit)

Our local high school has been hosting a Participation in Government speaker series. On Wednesday, November 28, they hosted a session on Pre-emptive War, the War in Iraq, and a potential War with Iran, with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. Until this week, efforts to “find” an additional speaker with contrasting views had been unsuccessful. Then a fellow parent shared with me about his appearance, discussed my willingness to step forward, and they asked me to participate.

The format allowed each of us 10 minutes to present our views on the three topics in turn, followed by student questions. I started. I used a brief outline, Ritter appeared to speak extemporaneously. Students and an adult or two asked questions, and towards the end the teacher who organizes the sessions augmented with questions of his own. Most allowed both of us to respond, but most were primarily directed at Ritter, but he was often offered to let me lead in response and I always had an opportunity to rebut or otherwise offer my own response.

My first impression of Ritter was of a very professional and courteous, even likeable man. His military background is evident. He was very respectful during the entire exchange, and had researched me at least as thoroughly as I researched him.

Here’s an outline of what I presented to open the session:

Pre-emptive War:

Just War Concept -- the morality of war

Why and How wars start

Aggressive, reactive, retributive, pre-emptive

Cold War, MAD, emergence of terrorism

Lessons from September 11^th:

War as Risk Management

Threat of Nuclear proliferation, other WMD

Terror as proxy for state to state warfare

Potentially catastrophic cost of inaction

The War in Iraq:

Gulf War and “Cessation” of Hostilities

UN Security Council Resolutions (1991-2002)

Iraq Regime Change as official US policy (1998)

9/11 Aftermath, change in strategy:

Waiting for imminence can be catastrophic

State sponsors of terror, “safe harbor” & terror proxies

WMD Proliferation as terror threat

Middle East and Regional Threats

Human Rights and Democracy Promotion

Pre- and Post-Invasion Intelligence

Possible War with Iran:

Iran “at war” with US since 1979

Iranian proxies: Hezbollah, Shiite Militias

Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP)

IEDs, weapons, funding, terrorist training

Regional influence & destabilization

Human Rights and Democratization

Iranian nuclear program:

Financial & technical resources driven by intent

Repeated obstruction and deception towards IAEA

Avowed aim the obliteration of Israel

Concerns about proliferation, “nuke by proxy”

Ritter centered his 10 minutes on the premise that the US signed international treaties, that those treaties take on the force of law, that he “swore an oath” to defend and support the constitution (he made very forceful declarations along these lines often). He quoted UN Charter, explained the prescribed military actions that the UN holds member countries can take that would be “legal” and “lawful.” He placed the entire issue of us going to war (previously in Iraq or in future in Iran or elsewhere) completely in the context of international treaty, UN mandate, with only cursory mention of the US Constitution or US war powers and authority.

I later challenged that formulation on the basis of US national sovereignty, and that the US can never sign a treaty that can abridge rights and powers granted by the Constitution (surely he can’t be enforced, either, without loss of national sovereignty. Ritter then seemed to reorient his line of reasoning to address what he felt were the unconstitutional aspects of our military actions in Iraq (and even Afghanistan).

I highlighted that for several decades, and all modern wars (since WWII), all three branches of Government have been complicit in allowing Congress to abrogate its Constitutional obligations to declare war (War Powers Act), Congressional authorizations for Presidential use of military force, etc. Hold Congress to its obligations, I’d agree, but to allow Congress to then escape responsibility and only blame the President is allowing those complicit to evade responsibility twice: first in the votes to authorize, then second in turning around and blaming the President with the results, as if they were innocent bystanders.

Ritter obviously tailored what might have been a different, more strident kind of presentation, were he not before a student audience. It really was a good, vigorous debate. He knows his UN Charter, for sure, perhaps more than he knows his Constitution, but he knows better than I, though I’m certain he cherry picks from the US defining documents. He is quite passionate and forceful, makes effective argument, and it’s hard to argue against his resume. I’m glad I didn’t. Despite his later claims to cherish US Sovereignty (“we don’t need the UN or other international problems to fix things we did ourselves, the American people can do that ourselves”), Rittre clearly buys in to the whole UN as final arbiter for Right and Wrong and international law. I responded by describing UN involvement in wars, peacekeeping as absolute disasters that usually make matters worse: UN corruption, violence, criminal activities, other malfeasance.

He made the claim that we made Al Qaeda stronger, that we haven’t beaten them anywhere, that we discredited ourselves and our ideals by our actions. He responded to questions about Guantanamo, torture, Geneva Conventions, and our standing legally, internationally, in harsh terms. Illegal, immoral, and he would immediately close Gitmo and prosecute anyone guilty of torture.

I replied with a fuller explanation of what Geneva means to signatories and non-signatories, the significance of unlawful combatants, how to conceptually deal with terrorists as POWs, when you can’t have prisoner exchanges or terms of surrender with non-state, unlawful combatants or even with the militaries of non-signatory countries. Problematic, and in other eras, such people found on the battlefield were summarily executed, and the Geneva Conventions can be found to approve of such actions. (Not that I advocate same, but that’s the problem, isn’t it?)

I also said there’s one place that we actually DID defeat Al Qaeda: Iraq. We have decimated them there, handed their hats to them, and they have suffered a terrible public relations and psychological defeat – which is the only plane on which they could ever be successful. Our military might, coupled with Iraqi resolve and citizen rejection of their foreign terrorists – smashed Al Qaeda. So much for their invincibility.

I found myself time and again returning to the context of decisions, viewing decisions in light of potential, known and unknown threats. I stressed repeatedly that we are already at war, were already at war, and that our enemies used (and use) terror proxies to do what they can’t or won’t do explicitly, openly, with their military forces. State sponsors of terror, in many ways, are more dangerous than the minions they fund, sponsor, host, hide, and direct. Safe havens should be of great concern, and nuclear and other WMD proliferation is a grave threat.

As I stated several times, there is a potentially catastrophic cost of inaction, which serious minded leaders must confront. (And do, when they are in the decision seat.)

Just based on a search I did yesterday, Ritter appeared less than 2 months ago in a college forum in Syracuse. He had appeared in a couple of forums hosted by the local public television station. As he arrived today, Ritter stated that he had earlier that day appeared at a similar forum, likewise sponsored by the local PBS affiliate. He told me that such forums often consist entirely of like-minded speakers, rather than people with contrasting views.

AJ Strata continues his commentary on remarkable events in Iraq. Earlier this week, he posed the question of whether we can properly stop saying we’re winning in Iraq, but can rightly say, “we’ve won.” His latest post points to more evidence that this may be so.

Strata begins by noting what by now are widely reported declines in violence: against civilians, against US armed forces, in previously hostile areas outside and even more remarkably, dangerous areas inside Baghdad itself. Strata adds that military operations, civilian tips, and captured personnel and documents are leading to a huge increase in killed or captured terrorists, and the number of arms and weapons caches seized.

In recent months, as evidence of the success of the “surge” mounted, war critics have pointed to what they allege has been a diaspora of Iraqis, professionals in particular, largely Sunni, fleeing the dangers of today’s Iraq. Most recently, these same critics have suggested that, without clear evidence that many of these Iraqi refugees were returning, any latter day Iraq would be crippled by what amounted to real and de facto ethnic cleansing. These same critics may be running out of “yes, but” caveats and constraints at surrendering to ever-apparent victory: Iraqis are returning.

Strata links to a British press report:

The figures are hard to estimate precisely but the process could involve hundreds of thousands of people. The numbers are certainly large enough, as we report today, for a mass convoy to be planned next week as Iraqis who had opted for exile in Syria return to their homeland. It is one of the most striking signs that not only has violence in Baghdad and adjacent provinces decreased dramatically in recent months, but confidence in the economic and political future of Iraq has risen sharply. Nor is this movement the action of men and women who could easily reverse course and turn back again. Tighter visa restrictions imposed by Damascus mean that those who are returning to Iraq cannot assume that they could quickly retreat again to Syria if that suited them. This is, for many, a one-way decision. It represents a vote of confidence in Iraq.

Strata observes:

Why are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many with Baathist ties and one would assume some power and money, be streaming back into Iraq all of a sudden? What signal was given through the tribal or sectarian grapevine things in Iraq were quieting down enough to bring families home and to start their lives up again? These people may be looking at the sea of news stories coming out of Iraq on the progress. But given this mass exodus from Syria I would gather much more is at work here.

But whatever the reason, we now see three major indicators the war on Iraq is ending. We see huge drops offs in violence, violence now laid solely at the feet of al-Qaeda. Every bomb that kills Iraqi Muslims is now an attack from al-Qaeda. No one is being duped by the liberal media spin this is the fault of America. We see large numbers of dead and captured terrorists. The rest are fleeing.

From the terrorist cells we find we gain a wealth of intel which leads us to more terrorists, weapons and intel. We see a wave of concerned citizens leading us to the terrorists and their caches. We see the ever increasing amounts of weapons being seized and destroyed.

And now we see this massive migration of Iraqis coming home. These are not the signs of an endless war, an endless quagmire. These are the signs of a conflict ending. And they are all pointing to a huge US-Iraqi victory and a stunning defeat for Bin Laden’s Butchers.

Growing optimism. The people with a real stake in victory, their very lives at risk if they wager wrong, are voting, yet again, for the miracle that is modern, may the name and memory of the hated Tyrant not be uttered, post liberation Iraq.

Wait for it. When the Clintons start reminding voters that Hillary voted for us to go into Iraq, you’ll know we won, for sure.

Contrary to the myths of the left, peace can only be built over the corpses of evil men.

-- Ralph Peters, NY Post

(Via Real Clear Politics)

If I have to pick one quality that makes James Taranto an incredibly readable commentator, I’d say it’s the strength of his logic. On Thursday, he deployed that logic in devastating fashion against highly offensive comments by Senator Chris Dodd.

Sen. Dodd, in a speech he gave in Iowa, made this highly surprising assertion:

Compare that case to the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who organized the attacks of 9/11. He was held in a secret prison, where he claims he was tortured severely. Whether he is lying or not, by our actions we have allowed Khalid Mohammed to claim the moral high ground. Khalid Mohammed plays martyr to a world that is inclined to believe it.

Yes, assuredly, but does Dodd believe it? For some, by asking that, I leave myself open to immediate outrage in response, accusing me of questioning Dodd’s patriotism. I don’t question his patriotism, but his judgment. This is not an attack, but a question to probe the true intent of someone making such an assertion, an assertion that opponents of the President make repeatedly. This assertion is matched by a host of related assertions, about the standing of the US in the World, how we’re perceived, our government, as a nation, even as individuals.

Taranto challenges Dodd precisely along these lines:

Dodd does not quite have the courage of his convictions in this matter. He does not actually make the primary assertion: that KSM is morally superior to USA. Rather, he relies on a secondary claim: that unspecified other people--"a world," presumably meaning Earth--are "inclined to believe it."

Is even this secondary assertion true? Color us skeptical. Sure, a significant portion of the "world" is inclined to believe bad things about America. How much weight such opinions are due, both as a practical matter and as a moral one, is a legitimate topic for debate. But we don't recall ever hearing a serious person say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the moral high ground vis-à-vis the U.S.

Possibly our information is incomplete and someone actually has said such a thing. Doesn't Dodd agree that this is an outrageous slander? And if America is being slandered, doesn't Dodd, as an American political leader, have an obligation to set the record straight?

Either Dodd is condoning the most vicious defamation of America or he is engaging in such defamation himself via a straw man. Whichever the case--and regardless of the merits of the policy under debate--his rhetoric is despicable.

Even if one accepts on good faith the presumed intent of Dodd in making this argument, one can fault him on the attention he pays in world opinion, when it is factually wrong.

Much like decision-making or leadership by polls, while it is often informative to see what others think, even a majority of others, it is morally and ethically wrong to use such “consensus” or opinions of others as a determinant for action. Unless of course, you share those views.

And it isn’t questioning his patriotism to ask how thoroughly Dodd and other Democrats have thought through the logical chain of their arguments. By elevating the moral standing of our enemies most foul, partisan opponents burnish and enhance those enemies, and are part of the wrong-headedness and lack of perspective that allows the “world” to think wrongly, with an attendant suffering in our esteem.

The incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) notified subordinate commands of a top priority of the CJCS as he assumes command, according to John Donovan, posting at Castle Argghhh!.

Fighting the Global War on Terror (GWOT)? In a fashion, yes:

From:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:10 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: *****REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" OR "WAR ON TERROR" FROM ALL CORRESPONDENCE*****

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
J-X,
Today, we have received clear direction from Adm Mullen (incoming CJCS) regarding the phrase "Global War on Terror". He does not like this reference and we are not to use this in any future correspondence. Review your letters, orders, JSAPs, and presentations to ensure this reference is removed.
Ensure strict compliance.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
R/S,
LtCol X.

I thought we'd put this nonsense behind us, well the really reality-based world that is.

Sure the NYT has to include a paragraph worth of political commentary masked as caveat, every time they have to report of AQ misdeeds and misadventures in Iraq, formerly known as Mesopotamia several thousand years ago...[and so on].

But that's the Times under current ownership.

The new CJCS doesn't like the Global War on Terror, how it sounds? What, he gets a lot of crap from his fellow country clubbers? He's jockeying for a key appointment in what he expects will be an incoming Dem administration?

Or is it the idea that we're fighting terrorists and their terror, instead of discrete enemies that can be named and have letterhead with an official organizational address?

"I'm sorry, you can't be an Official Enemy of the United States" -- which entitles you to this nifty logo with matching T-shirts and caps -- unless we have a permanent mailing address."

Or maybe it's the idea that the war is global, like we're fighting the whole world? I am sure our would-be Jihadi enemies would like to think so.

Hey maybe that's the strategy here! If we keep ignoring who and what our enemies are and how they operate, maybe they'll get all jealous and jump up and say, "hey, what about us?! Why can't we be in an axis of evil or something? What are we, chopped liver?!" That’ll make them easier to spot!

We lose when we buy into the arguments of the opposition, that somehow we bring violence upon ourselves by being overly "aggressive," insensitive, "cowboyish," and all such drivel.

PC taken to its logical extreme, where resolve drains away and nations die.

Also linked at MILBLOGS.

Charles Krauthammer speculates in the Washington Post on a recent Israeli air strike in Northern Syria, and suggests that North Korea was providing means, material, or expert assistance in helping Syria acquire nuclear capability. If they did, their actions would make an absolute mockery of international efforts to verify North Korea’s professed willingness to abandon their nuclear ambitions and surrender any nuclear capabilities.

Krauthammer offers some intriguing circumstantial evidence for North Korea’s perfidy:

Circumstantial evidence points to this being an attack on some nuclear facility provided by North Korea.

Three days earlier, a freighter flying the North Korean flag docked in the Syrian port city of Tartus with a shipment of "cement." Long way to go for cement. Within days, a top State Department official warned that "there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment." Three days later, the six-party meeting on dismantling North Korea's nuclear facilities scheduled for Sept. 19 was suddenly postponed, officially by China, almost certainly at the behest of North Korea.

Apart from the usual suspects -- Syria, Iran, Libya and Russia -- only two countries registered strong protests to the Israeli strike: Turkey and North Korea. Turkey we can understand. Its military may have permitted Israel an overflight corridor without ever having told the Islamist civilian government. But North Korea? What business is this of North Korea's? Unless it was a North Korean facility being hit.

Krauthammer also notes a widely underreported account of the misadventures of a joint Syrian and Iranian chemical weapon program:

Second, there are ominous implications for the Middle East. Syria has long had chemical weapons -- on Monday, Jane's Defence Weekly reported on an accident that killed dozens of Syrians and Iranians loading a nerve-gas warhead onto a Syrian missile -- but Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Syria.

It would certainly remain possible that such evidence might convince the harshest critics to drop their objections that President Bush ever formulated his ‘Axis of Evil’ locution, or their sharp rebuttals against including the Dear Leader and his slave state in the axis. It should, but it won’t.

Those who oppose Bush foreign policy, after all, do so less on the basis of fact than on the basis of myth. Myths are essential to the world view that imagines that George Bush created anti-American animus where formerly there was none, that the aggressiveness of Bush foreign policy has created terror where there would be none, and that Nations in acting in their own perceived self-interest can never be interpreted to have committed crimes against humanity, or conducted acts of war against the US, our allies, or our vital national interests.

Central to all such myth-making is the moral irrelevancy of the behavior of any Nation State, save our own, which retains full culpability for all errors real or perceived, while other nations can only be our victims.

(Via Memeorandum)

I was invited to write an OP Ed in response to General Petraeus’ testimony this past week and my thoughts on our efforts in Iraq. The OP Ed was published this past Sunday in the New York Daily News.

Here’s an excerpt:

Wars take time. They require steady will and determination. They compel commitment.

If fighting Saddam Hussein, and later Al Qaeda, in Iraq was important when earlier in this mission, they should still be important today. Al Qaeda is badly wounded there and elsewhere, but they aren’t dead yet. Iraq is making gains as a democratic nation, but they still need help. They still need time.

Dear Senators and Representatives, you criticize President Bush relentlessly — picking apart the speech he gave last week with withering words, looking for any and every chance to bring him down.

But at least he maintains steady attention to this war. At least he seems to grasp the stakes of losing and the danger of giving up. Not so Congress.

Leaders influence the morale of their people, for good or bad. I wish you wanted to lead your constituents towards victory rather than defeat.

The Op Ed has been linked by Wake Up Americans and Right Voices.

Good timing, with Vets for Freedom on Capitol Hill Monday and Tuesday, September 17-18^th. More information here.