Captain's Quarters -

Becoming What You Oppose

The new nation of Macedonia, eager to prove its anti-terror chops on the world stage, made much of stopping a terrorist cell in its capitol city of Skopje, killing seven Pakistanis identified as terrorists conspiring to attack embassies and diplomats throughout the country. However, prompted by US intelligence agencies that remained skeptical of the plot, Macedonian authorities have discovered that several police officers and a businessman smuggled the Pakistanis into Macedonia to act as clay pigeons:

Macedonian police gunned down seven innocent immigrants, then claimed they were terrorists, in a killing staged to show they were participating in the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism, authorities said Friday. Police spokeswoman Mirjana Konteska told reporters that six people, including three former police commanders, two special police officers and a businessman, have been charged by police with murder. ...

She described a meticulous plan to promote Macedonia as a player in the fight against global terrorism that involved smuggling the Pakistanis into Macedonia from Bulgaria, housing them, and then coldly gunning them down.

The killings, she added, were part of an attempt to "present themselves as participants in the war against terrorism and demonstrate Macedonia's commitment to the war on terror."

The Macedonian legislature promptly revoked the immunity that one of the conspirators enjoyed as a recently-elected representative in order to allow for his prosecution, and authorities say that more arrests may be forthcoming. He still claims that the Pakistanis were terrorists, but forensic evidence collected by the Macedonians show that the shooting was a set-up job, and that the Pakistanis were nothing more than targets for Macedonian murderers. Ironically, the killings prompted al-Qaeda to target the Macedonian consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, where they bombed the building after slitting the throats of three people inside, with a warning about "infidels".

In their depravity and greed for Western anti-terror recognition -- and undoubtedly the funding that would follow -- these Macedonians became what they purported to fight against: terrorists. They lured seven men into an ambush, and they did it not for Allah nor self-determination but to make themselves look good. It's hard to imagine any more complete picture of humans without souls than the men at the center of this conspiracy.

Did Chris Matthews Equate Bush and Cheney to the Menendez Brothers?

I received an e-mail from reader Vayapaso who regularly watches the Imus show on MS-NBC. Today's guest was Chris Matthews, who infuriated Vayapaso by equating George Bush and Dick Cheney with the notorious parricidal killers, Lyle and Eric Menendez. Here's an excerpt from her e-mail to Matthews, which she copied to me as well:

Dear Mr. Mathews:

I rarely ever write to people in your industry but you said something this morning on the Imus show that shocked and amazed me; so much so, I had to write you. It was when you compared the President and Vice President to the Menendez Brothers. I realize that your philosophy differs from this administration but there should be a line that you should not cross over and I believe that you crossed that line.

I have watched you for the seven years you have had Hardball and felt that even though you are clearly a "liberal," most times you seem to be fair in your analysis. You do not have to agree with the policies of the current administration, and when you don't you should put forward your views but when you start to compare the people who are trying to do the best for the country (I hope you agree that while the methods are not what you want to see, you agree with the sincerity of their efforts), you start to compare those people with the despicable people who kill their own parents, then I say again, you crossed that line. I am sure that you will get pats on your back from people who agree with your philosophy and validate your comparison, but there are many people out here in American feel shocked and sickened by your discussion this morning with Imus.

To say, "I will not watch your show again" probably does not mean much to you, one viewer, "so what," but I hope there are a lot of people who was as outraged as I was and will not take you seriously again.

I can personally vouch for Vayapaso's credibility. When I see a transcript on line, I will link back to it. Matthews' remaining credibility in commentating during this election has to be seriously damaged as a result.

UPDATE: Imus has it on his page now, at the link above:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews comments on the decision that the President and Vice President had to be together when meeting with the 9/11 commission. Chris Matthews: "I hate to say this because these are all good Americans but it reminds me a little bit of the Menendez brothers, just a little bit. Two guys who are connecting there phones so they can get the story straight. I mean it's all about getting this story straight isn't it?"

I'm sure he hates to say that Bush and Cheney are the equivalent of a couple of ambush murderers ... that's why he said it on national TV.

It's Not Just Bombs and Bullets

The New York Times shines a light on a little-mentioned facet of the Bush adminsitration's approach to combating terrorism. While wars and captures understandably occupy the headlines, the strategy also works towards building stronger relationships with Muslims in areas where we can provide humanitarian assistance:

From remote Siyu, investigators say, the bombing of a Mombasa hotel that catered to Israeli tourists, and the simultaneous failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli-chartered airliner, were planned in 2002. The well is one of many public works projects being undertaken by the American military throughout the Horn of Africa aimed at changing the locals' view of a country many of them had learned to hate.

"The war on terrorism is not necessarily a shooting war," said Maj. W. Brice Finney, commander of theArmy's 412th Civil Affairs Battalion. Still, these are good deeds with a strategic edge. The main purpose is to monitor the vast coastline for terrorists fleeing Afghanistan and other spots across the Gulf of Aden. All of which explains why the military is paying close attention to Siyu.

Complaints from the hard left of the military response to terrorism leave the impression that the military strategy has been the only response the Bush administration has provided. The policy of assigning uniformed American troops to East African areas for humanitarian assistance allows unpressured interaction to grow between American troops and Muslim civilians, who normally may never have had the opportunity to meet Americans before having fanatics describe us with horns growing out of our heads.

The White House has good reason to keep this program low-profile; if al-Qaeda or its associates find out how well it works, the troops could be targeted for terrorist attacks, or worse, the civilian population could be attacked as retribution for cooperating with the Americans. Some local clerics have already voiced their disapproval, asking Muslims to cease cooperating with American efforts to make civic improvements. So far, their congregations have ignored them:

People here have become used to the sight of soldiers in their midst. Most welcome the American help with open arms, putting their political and religious beliefs to the side.

"We need all the help we can get," said Bunu Mwengyealy, headmaster of Pate Primary School, across the island from Siyu. A storm wiped out one classroom last year, so Mr. Mwengyealy and others were thrilled when American soldiers arrived recently to assess the campus.

Muslim leaders say their followers have been ignoring their warnings about accepting the American largess. The people are poor and ideology takes a distant second to making ends meet.

"When I tell people, 'Don't let the Americans help you,' they ask me, 'What is the alternative?' " Sheik Abdulkadir said, shaking his head in frustration.

Bush demonstrates more subtlety than his critics allow -- another "misunderestimation" that will cost them in November if the shrill Bush-hatred campaign continues.

And Now, Today on Dr. Howard, People Who Shout "YEEARGH!"

Matt Drudge reports on the nadir of Howard Dean's trajectory in what was supposed to be his triumphant march to the Democratic nomination. Instead, Dr. Dean may trade in politics to signify the end of his career as surely as a previous generation's Vegas shows marked the end of theirs:

While everything's still in the early talking stages, the former Democratic presidential candidate is mulling the idea of hosting his own syndicated gabfest. He's hooked up with ex-Big Ticket TV topper Larry Lyttle ("Judge Judy") and longtime political consultant Gerald Rafshoon, who would likely serve as exec producers of a pilot for any such project. ...

"The last thing we're going to talk about is politics," Lyttle said. "We'd talk about a myriad of other things instead of politics. He'd look at things like, What happens if you lose a sibling? What about when you're victimized by not having health care?" Lyttle said, arguing that Dean has the perfect persona for the small screen [emph mine]."

I'd make a joke about that, but I'm already in trouble with Bill at the great blog INDC Journal, so I'd better leave it alone. In terms of the "perfect persona", though, did anyone come away from the early primary season with an impression of Dean as a warm, approachable person, the kind of guy you'd welcome into your living room on a daily basis? To me, he alternated between cold calculation and angry passion, not a terribly winning combination for television unless you want to be the next Morton Downey.

I doubt we'll actually see this project come to air, but if we do, perhaps we could suggest his first topic: "Men Who Torpedo Their Own Success With Subconscious Sabotage -- on the next Dr. Dean Show!!"

Teamsters Anti-Corruption Team Resigns, Blames Hoffa

In a move that threatens to delay the end of federal control of the largest American union, 20 investigators and lawyers assigned to fight corruption in the Teamsters followed the example of their leader, Edwin H. Stier, and walked off the job. The New York Times reports that union president James Hoffa, Jr frustrated investigators who got too close to high-ranking members of the union:

The former prosecutor, Edwin H. Stier, sent a sharply worded letter that accused James P. Hoffa, the Teamsters president, of blocking a broad investigation into possible union corruption in Chicago and of dragging his feet in a case of alleged embezzlement by a Teamsters leader in Houston.

"In spite of our efforts to convince General President Jim Hoffa to remain committed to fighting corruption," Mr. Stier wrote, "I have concluded that he has backed away from the Teamsters' anticorruption plan in the face of pressure from self-interested individuals."

In the 1980s, the government finally took over the International Brotherhood of Teamsters after decades of organized crime and petty corruptions had turned the union into a sewer of crime. Ever since, the union has chafed under the scrutiny of the feds and came up with its own, supposedly independent task force as a means of demonstrating their ability to police themselves and eliminate the federal mandate for control. No one took them terribly seriously, and these resignations only underscore the superficial nature of the Teamsters' efforts to eliminate corruption within their ranks:

Mr. Stier accused Mr. Hoffa of delays in moving against Chuck Crawley, the former president of a Houston Teamsters local, who has been accused by the review board of receiving more than $20,000 in kickbacks. Mr. Crawley, who denies any wrongdoing and has not been formally charged, is accused of telling a vendor to inflate the price of a phone system for a new union building and then to kick back the money to him.

Mr. Stier also asserted that Mr. Hoffa and several people around him were trying to shut down a wide-ranging investigation into charges that various Teamster members and officials in Chicago were associates of organized crime, and that some Teamster officials had participated in a deal in which a mob-run company was allowed to use nonunion workers to replace union workers in construction and convention jobs.

"These people didn't want to be investigated, and it eventually got to a point where the situation got to be intolerable," Mr. Stier said. "Hoffa's office was responding to these guys in Chicago, and interfering with our ability to investigate."

It sounds like Stier's next stop should be the FBI to determine why Hoffa and his senior leadership were so determined to keep Stier's team from investigating the Chicago officers.

Kerry's Diversity Problems Grow: NYT

In a sign that John Kerry may be experiencing some real damage from his monochromatic senior campaign staff, the New York Times covers criticism from minority groups on the Kerry campaign's lack of diversity in much greater detail than CNN's article from yesterday. The normally supportive Jodi Wilgoren writes in today's Times that not only is the protest more widespread than CNN reported, but more passionate as well:

For weeks, Senator John Kerry savored a Democratic Party that was unified in rallying behind his presidential candidacy. But in recent days, influential black and Hispanic political leaders whom the campaign had counted on for support have been openly complaining that Mr. Kerry's organization lacks diversity and is failing to appeal directly to minority voters.

Even as Mr. Kerry spoke here on Thursday to the National Conference of Black Mayors — an appearance his community outreach team viewed as critical to building a network of minority support — two influential Latino leaders circulated harsh letters expressing concern about the campaign's dealings with minorities.

And in interviews over the last week, more than a dozen minority elected officials and political strategists voiced concerns about what they said was the dearth of representation in Mr. Kerry's inner circle and worried that he was taking black and Hispanic votes for granted.

Of course, the Democrats have taken black votes for granted for decades, and while the Hispanic vote has proved easier to capture in recent elections, the party's approach to them has been much the same. Until the Bush presidency, these groups felt that their best chance at participating in high-level politics lay with the Democrats. However, in striking contrast to the "dearth of representation" they experience with Kerry, a quick look at Bush's cabinet and senior staff reveals that this administration has created the most de facto diverse American leadership ever, without making a show of it, and repeatedly showing Bush's personal ease with reaching out to anyone.

While I hardly expect the long-term, self-appointed spokespeople for minority groups to publicly shift positions -- people like Jesse Jackson (Jr or Sr) have too much at stake personally to ever attack Kerry -- the rank and file may look at this disparity between Kerry's rhetoric and his practice and determine that the Democrats have produced a particularly transparent brand of racial hypocrite. It threatens to expose the tired policies of handouts and patronizing set-asides as the only inclusion that Democrats offer, while Republicans offer true leadership positions as well as innovative solutions to real problems in their community, such as school vouchers to bypass the failed, hidebound school systems that keep their children from succeeding.

Some quotes from Wilgoren, which indicate much more disenchantment with Kerry than CNN previously noted:

"The reality is that we're entering May and the Kerry campaign has no message out there to the Hispanic community nor has there been any inkling of any reach-out effort in any state to the Hispanic electorate, at least with any perceivable sustainable strategy in mind," Alvaro Cifuentes, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus, said in an e-mail message to party leaders provided by a recipient who insisted on anonymity. "It is no secret that the word of mouth in the Beltway and beyond is not that he does not get it, it is that he does not care."

Separately, in a letter addressed to Mr. Kerry, Raul Yzaguirre, the president of the National Council of La Raza, denounced the "remarkable and unacceptable absence of Latinos in your campaign."

"Relegating all of your minority staff to the important but limited role of outreach only reinforces perceptions that your campaign views Hispanics as a voting constituency to be mobilized, but not as experts to be consulted in shaping policy," wrote Mr. Yzaguirre, whose group is among the oldest, largest and most influential representing Hispanics. ...

Andi Pringle, who worked for the Rev. Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns and was a deputy campaign manager for Howard Dean, said that in addition to staffing, she wondered where minorities fit into Mr. Kerry's schedule, message and field efforts.

"All I've seen is on occasion there are a couple of Sundays where he's gone to church," said Ms. Pringle, who has a direct-mail firm.

Dean took a full blast from Al Sharpton just before the Iowa causcuses on minority representation in his Vermont administrations, even though Vermont's African-American community comprised less than 1% of its population. Massachussetts's population is 7% African-American and 5% Hispanic, and yet not only does Kerry not have any campaign leaders from this community, Al Sharpton has remained mostly silent, except to ridicule the notion of criticism:

The Rev. Al Sharpton, one of Mr. Kerry's two black primary opponents, said he had been welcomed with two one-on-one meetings and the candidate's personal cellphone number. He and some others attributed the complaints to old rivalries stemming as far back as Mr. Jackson's 1988 campaign against former Gov. Michael Dukakis, whose Massachusetts-based inner circle overlaps somewhat with Mr. Kerry's.

"I don't know whether the criticism is based on people wanting to see the inner circle diversified or whether it's a job application through the media," Mr. Sharpton said.

In other words, Al got his, and the rest of you can pound sand. No wonder Democrats feel as though they can take these communities for granted when their so-called leaders are so obviously out for only themselves. Perhaps it's time for leadership changes within the minority communities themselves.

Watchers Council Announces Winners and Open Seat

The Watchers Council has spoken again this week, and the winners are King of Fools in the Council category for his post on creating terrorists, and Kim du Toit in the non-Council category for his weekly rant on Dubya the "dummy". My post on Kerry's prime-time paranoid waffling about WMD got an honorable mention ... and one-third of a vote. Lo, have the mighty fallen! It's an honor just to be nominated, of course.

The Watcher also announced that the Council has an open seat due to the resignation of the Hawken Blog, who has an acute case of life and needs to reduce his blog load. I'd volunteer, but with the workload I already have, it's just not possible. Be sure to read the rules and let the Watcher know if you'd like to join up. It looks like tremendous fun!

Coincidence?

The BBC reports that US analysis shows international terror attacks declined last year and the number of civilian deaths at a 30-year low:

US government figures suggest that terrorist attacks have fallen to the lowest level for more than 30 years. The annual report records a slight fall in the number of international attacks last year and a dramatic decrease in the number of victims.

The report says that less than half the number of people lost their lives in such attacks last year compared with the year before.

Attacks in Iraq have not been counted as terrorist attacks, primarily due to the targeting of military assets rather than civilians. Cofer Black, the State Department spokesman, credited improved international cooperation against terrorism, especially crediting Saudi Arabia. Malaysia also received praise for its cooperation, as CNN reports, and progress noted in both Libya and the Sudan. The State Department reports that Iraq has become the central theater in the war on terror:

It said former regime elements conducting attacks against coalition forces have "increasingly allied themselves tactically and operationally with foreign fighters and Islamic extremists, including some linked to Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

Black said while al-Zarqawi operates as an "independent actor," without orders from al Qaeda leadership, the United States considers him to be "sympathetic to al Qaeda" and part of the threat represented by that network.

Given the public nature of the Bush administration's attack on terrorist networks and their support, had the US effort not been effective, terrorists would have escalated their attacks in response to our actions. However, it appears that the broad, strategic approach to the war on terror is paying off. The Afghanistan and Iraq phases have overthrown regimes that supported terrorism, and the intelligence gathered during both phases has identified more terrorist cells and plots. Rather than destroying our ability to coordinate with other nations on intelligence and disarmament, international cooperation has improved -- while Libya has renounced terror and WMD and Iran at least allows IAEA inspections, for now.

Neither CNN nor the BBC bother to connect the dots, nor I suspect will we see much of the US media try, either. However, the undeniable progress of the Bush policy on terror will be hard to ignore for long.

UPDATE: McQ at QandO notices the same thing:

All of this is found in the 181-page Patterns of Global Terrorism Report produced by the State Department which Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism analyst for the Rand Corp. says is considered the "gold standard" for measuring terrorism.

Some facts from the report:

— There were 190 acts of international terrorism last year, compared with 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. It was the lowest figure in 34 years.

— In those attacks last year, 307 people were killed, compared with 725 in 2002; 1,593 people were wounded, compared with 2,013 in 2002.

— Thirty-five Americans died in 15 international terrorist attacks. The deadliest was a May 12 attack by suicide bombers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed nine U.S. citizens and 26 people overall.

— Anti-U.S. attacks increased slightly to 82 from 77 in 2002. But they have declined sharply since the 219 attacks in 2001.

Looks like progress to me.

Sinclair Group: Koppel's Plan "Political Statement", Pre-Empts Nightline

Bloomberg reports that the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns 62 ABC affiliates, will preempt the Nightline broadcast when Ted Koppel spends the hour reading off the names of American servicemen killed in Iraq:

Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. ordered its ABC affiliates to preempt tomorrow's broadcast of "Nightline,'' which will air the names and photos of U.S. military personnel who have died in combat in Iraq, saying the move is politically motivated.

"Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq,'' the company said in a faxed statement. Sinclair, which owns 62 U.S. television stations, said ABC is disguising political statements as news content.

Many readers may not recall this, but during the Teheran hostage crisis, Dan Rather traveled to the Iranian capitol in order to televise interviews with the American captives for a special titled (as I recall) "Christmas With The Hostages". I remember watching it and considering it an egregious exploitation of the situation, as Rather's questioning centered not just on the hostages' fears but also asking them how they were being treated and whether they thought their captors had legitimate gripes -- as if they could answer him honestly under those circumstances. I was also struck at that time by how little criticism Rather received for his embarassingly naive, at best, performance.

When I heard about Koppel's plan to read the names of those KIA in Iraq and display their photos, I was torn on how to react. On one hand, I believe that the current administration has been terribly remiss in not sharing the bravery and accomplishments of American soldiers, sailors, and Marines during this war, regardless of whether they died in battle. Giving public recognition to those who gave their last full measure to protect us and make a safer world would be a good way to start. However, Koppel's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, and the interesting omission of those who died in Afghanistan, makes the entire enterprise look suspiciously like an anti-war protest, no matter how ABC News denies it. Plus, as Hugh Hewitt noted, the fact that Koppel planned this during "sweeps week" confirms its exploitative nature instead of any honorable motivation.

Ted Koppel protests this interpretation, of course, in an interview with Al Tompkins, telling him:

You start to wonder after a while. I've been doing "Nightline" for over 24 years, I've been at ABC for 41 years, if that's really the impression I've left with people then I have failed in such a colossal way that I can't even begin to consider the consequences of it.

But quite apart from that, it seems to me absolutely silly that anyone would suggest that we were doing this for ratings. In point of fact, we were sitting around unaware that it was sweeps [emph mine], that's how dumb we are at "Nightline."

As Michele Catalano says at her mega-blog A Small Victory when producer Leroy Sievers trotted out the same line:

Show me an exec that doesn't know when sweeps starts and I'll show you an exec getting a pink slip.

Who believes for a moment that a broadcast professional, anchoring a show that had been rumored to be expendable because of declining ratings if David Letterman was available, doesn't know when the sweeps period comes around? Puh-leeze.

Good for the Sinclair Broadcast Group for holding ABC News to a standard to which it should be holding itself instead. (via Drudge)

UPDATE: Brent Bozell noted in 1997 10 examples of Koppel's bias, which makes his "failure" complete, incontemplatable or not. (via The Corner)

Kerry's Diversity Problem, Part II

CNN's Inside Politics continues its look at the Kerry campaign's diversity problems, which I described on the air on the Northern Alliance Radio Network as The Incredible Whiteness of Being. Since Carlos Watson's original piece appeared on CNN talking about the fact that almost all of his campaign's decision-making positions have been filled with Caucasians, representatives from traditionally Democratic minority groups have begun to make their displeasure known. Typically, the same people who would scream bloody murder if Bush's campaign or his cabinet had a similar composition are now busy making excuses for Kerry:

Some black officials and independent analysts expressed concerned about the campaign's lack of racial diversity. Campaign officials and the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus said the criticism was unfounded.

"I am concerned about diversity, but more importantly I am concerned about the experience in that diversity -- senior policy people who know people from one end of the country to the other," said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois, a caucus member.

If the Kerry campaign was a corporate boardroom instead of a Democratic presidential campaign, Rep. Jackson's father would be suing it and demanding not only an explicit plan to fill key roles with people of color but also extorting money to fund his own political organizations. The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus seems similarly disinterested in Kerry's monochromatic management staff:

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, the black caucus chairman, said he was satisfied with the access minorities had to Kerry, noting that he and fellow Democratic Reps. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Harold Ford of Tennessee are among House members asked to play key roles in the campaign.

"I believe the door is open and we are present and accounted for," he said. "I really believe in my heart that those trying to judge Kerry early in campaign are a bit premature in regards to diversity."

Not everyone declared themselves satisfied with Kerry's effort:

Added Ron Walters, who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson Sr. and runs the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland: "There is a sense that Kerry's people don't get it."

As always, the issue is the double standard that applies between the two political parties. George Bush, who has appointed a cabinet and selected campaign support staff that demonstrates a much larger commitment to real diversity -- and who has remained low-key about doing so -- gets labeled as a racist on a regular basis, while the Democratic nominee assumes that minorities will vote for him even though he gives them no voice in his inner circle. Two cheers to CNN for sticking with this story, even if they quote only one critical comment, and a fairly mild one at that.

Whiskey

I've received e-mail regarding the sudden disappearance of JAG Wire, a fresh new blog by Whiskey, an active-duty officer serving overseas for her country. I can tell you that Whiskey herself is just fine and that she will soon be back to blogging, although under different circumstances, probably in a week or so. I will post an announcement as soon as she's okayed it.

Stay tuned!

Al Franken: Neanderthal Man

The London Telegraph has uncovered new evidence as to why Al Franken is such an unpleasant little man:

Evidence that the life of Neanderthal man was short and probably nasty, is published today.

Short ... nasty ... Al! The Telegraph includes some convincing visual evidence as well:

Of course, the good news is that the Neanderthals eventually went away, which may be happening soon with Al, if Err America keeps going the way it has been ....

Insurgency Led By Saddam Remnants: Pentagon

The New York Times confirms that Pentagon analysts have concluded that the apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime has financed, advised, and even led the insurgencies inside Iraq. In fact, intelligence shows that the insurgencies are the result of pre-war planning, as many had suspected:

A Pentagon intelligence report has concluded that many bombings against Americans and their allies in Iraq, and the more sophisticated of the guerrilla attacks in Falluja, are organized and often carried out by members of Saddam Hussein's secret service, who planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad.

The report states that Iraqi officers of the "Special Operations and Antiterrorism Branch," known within Mr. Hussein's government as M-14, are responsible for planning roadway improvised explosive devices and some of the larger car bombs that have killed Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners. The attacks have sown chaos and fear across Iraq.

In addition, suicide bombers have worn explosives-laden vests made before the war under the direction of of M-14 officers, according to the report, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The report also cites evidence that one such suicide attack last April, which killed three Americans, was carried out by a pregnant woman who was an M-14 colonel.

This report should end the silly representation by some in this country that the insurgency demonstrates some sort of grassroots groundswell of Iraqi opinion against the US. Iraqis dislike the idea and experience of occupation, but they know better than we do that for us to evacuate Iraq entirely would leave them at the mercy of the same regime we deposed. They are not fools, but they worry that we are.

The report details how the M-14 structured cells to operate independently in case their leadership was killed or captured, and it also reports on the tactics of terror and intimidation employed by the Ba'athists which have kept Iraqi civilians from cooperating fully with the CPA and the provisional Iraqi government. Until the CPA takes decisive action against the Ba'athist remnants -- and the report makes clear that insurgents in Fallujah and nearby Ramadi are led by this group -- we will not have accomplished our overall goal of freeing Iraq from Saddam's grip, either personally or by proxy.

On the positive side, they cannot defeat us militarily; they are far too weak for that, which is why they've adopted the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade tactics described in the article. Their only hope is in outlasting us, by demonstrating a stronger political will than the CPA. Their very existence demonstrates Ba'athist futility, otherwise, these same units would have stood and fought as the Coalition rolled across Baghdad. As I posted earlier, we cannot allow Saddam's remnants to chase us out of Iraq by nitpicking us into losing our political will, the only possible strategy in which they could win. The resultant loss of prestige would guarantee high-yield terrorist action against the US for decades to come.

Fallujah As Microcosm of the War on Terror

For 24 days, the US Marine Corps has surrounded Fallujah, the center of a nagging insurgency that made headlines when their successful ambush of four contractors turned into a macabre party, with people literally tearing the bodies to pieces in front of reporters and photographers. However, the US has been reluctant to move past siege status for a number of reasons, as this Los Angeles Times article states:

The plans have been laid, the troops are positioned, and all is ready for a massive Marine assault on Fallouja — and with it the long-dreaded prospect of major urban warfare in Iraq.

"We got the last unit in place today. We're tightening the noose," Col. John Toolan declared with grim satisfaction, standing on the roof of the Marine command post at the edge of the volatile Sunni Muslim city on Wednesday as occasional hostile rounds zinged overhead and American tanks rumbled toward their positions on the dusty plain. ...

Since April 5, days after four American civilian contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated in Fallouja, Marines have encircled the city. And despite an 18-day cease-fire, skirmishes have erupted daily, with Marines calling in airstrikes Wednesday for the second consecutive day. It is the sense of Fallouja's importance to larger U.S. interests in Iraq and beyond, Pentagon and Bush administration officials said, that has caused delays in a planned full-scale assault — which at one point was set to begin Sunday.

By delaying the attack, U.S. planners have hoped to show the Iraqi population, the Muslim world and the American public that Washington has done everything possible to avoid a bloody assault on the city.

While understandable, the reluctance of the CPA and Washington to speedily reduce the Fallujah base for the insurgency not only sends the wrong message to Iraqis and the Middle East at large, but it also provides a microcosm of the type of thinking that has guided American anti-terrorism efforts for decades. In holding off for so long on using our vastly superior firepower, strategy, and tactical positions, the message that we have sent is not one of benificent arbiters of peace -- it is a message of weakness. To hold up for a few days to evacuate those noncombatants who would leave sends the former message. To wait for more than three weeks while negotiations drag on with the insurgents themselves demonstrates that we lack the political will to do what's necessary to win. It's not Mogadishu, but it still shows that insurgents and terrorists can simply outlast the US by hiding in civilian areas, taking potshots at our forces interspersed with bouts of fruitless "negotiations".

For twenty-seven years, going back to Teheran, we have delivered the same message. No one doubts (any more) that we have an overwhelming military advantage in the Middle East and anywhere else, both in personnel and in technology; the three-week fall of Saddam demonstrated that beyond doubt. What we lack is both political will to win a war, and the political will to recognize that we're in a war. Negotiation with terrorists brought us to 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and instead of learning the lessons of the past quarter-century, we seem to be repeating them in Fallujah. This vacillation only communicates a sense of weakness, negating our tactical and strategic superiority, as political weakness always does (see: France, 1939-40).

It's doubly frustrating because Fallujah does not have the tactical disadvantages we face in Najaf, with the Shi'a shrines complicating our ability to attack al-Sadr's militia. Fallujah, in fact, holds the center of the Ba'athist reaction to the Coalition's regime change, and as such makes the case much stronger for direct military action. Instead of acting under a war-time paradigm, the CPA has turned the Marines into a SWAT team with better weaponry, which is a strategy for failure. We cannot be the new police force in Iraq; we must see the war to its conclusion first.

Time to quit fooling around and parleying with terrorists and unreconstructed Ba'athists, and fight the battle of Fallujah from the offense rather than the defense that the past 24 days have brought. The sooner we demonstrate our will to use all of the resources available to us to crush those who would take up arms against us, the sooner other pesky militias and insurgents will recognize that their battle has already been lost. Further delay only gives them hope of outlasting us.

Kofi Annan Endorses Unilateral Action By Anglo-American Alliance

Under pressure from the revelation of what may be the largest corruption case in history, Kofi Annan attempted to strike back at critics of the UN and the Oil-For-Food program, asserting that member nations never alerted Annan to the smuggling and the kickbacks that stuffed Saddam's pockets:

Annan pointed out that all members of the U.N. Security Council were on the committee overseeing the program, yet none had come forward and said "we had a role." Instead, Annan said, all accusations of wrongdoing were being leveled at the U.N. Secretariat which he heads.

"Be that as it may, these allegations are doing damage, and we need to face them sternly and do whatever we can to correct them," he said. "And we are beginning to put out quite a lot of information which I hope will correct some of the misinformation that has been put out."

Annan wants to play a little misdirection with the facts. The UN specifically was put in charge of this program and was supposed to be administering the contracts and the shipments, guaranteeing that the money stayed within the program and that the proceeds went to aid Iraqi citizens, not Saddam's regime. If it had trouble fulfilling that mission, the UN Secretariat should have informed the Security Council, at which time the UNSC could have decided on a course of corrective action. In fact, as the excellent blog Friends of Saddam notes in several posts, the UN OFF relaxed its oversight over time, allowing a much wider range of goods to be purchased and eliminating most rudimentary accounting controls.

But Kofi's blameshifting is not the real story here. When responding to the allegations of smuggling, Annan said:

On the $5.7 billion that the GAO estimates Saddam pocketed through smuggling, Annan said "there was no way the U.N. could have stopped it" but he suggested the United States and Britain could have.

"We had no mandate to stop oil smuggling," he said. "There was a maritime task force that was supposed to do that. They (the Iraqis) were driving the trucks through northern Iraq to Turkey. The U.S. and the British had planes in the air. We were not there. Why is this all being dumped on the U.N.?"

Annan's remarks boggle the mind. He literally endorsed the entire idea of unilateral action by the Anglo-American alliance to enforce UNSC restrictions that the UN was clearly unable to maintain. In fact, what he says here is that the OFF corruption can be blamed on the US and the UK failing to act, even without specific UN approval, when Saddam clearly was in violation of UNSC resolutions well before 2002.

Annan, simply put, just agreed with everything George Bush has said in his justifications for military action in Iraq. Saddam clearly was in violation of Resolution 1441 -- even Hans Blix acknowledged that -- so Anglo-American military action, in Annan's view, was justified. Saddam, in fact, violated every single one of the UNSC resolutions related to disarmament, human rights, and reparations after the Gulf War, especially in continuing to oppress Iraqi citizens -- and so Anglo-American military action to rectify the situation was necessary, as the UN was unable to act on its own to stop it.

In fact, since the first whiffs of the OFF debacle only started coming out publicly in the run-up to the war, and since continuation of sanctions would have continued the smuggling and kickbacks by Saddam and his henchmen, Annan has now legitimized the Coalition action to remove the tyrranical regime and put an end to the OFF program.

Alert John Kerry -- even the UN Secretary General has conceded the worthlessness of the UN in enforcing world order, and has endorsed the Anglo-American initiative to reintroduce accountability to international relations.