Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The War in Afghanistan Is Part of the Larger Struggle Against Global Terrorism


by Max Boot

When I recently participated in an Intelligence Squared US debate about Afghanistan, my debate partner, terrorism expert Peter Bergen (who, like me, argued that it’s not a lost cause), was practically hooted off the stage by a skeptical audience when he said there was not much difference between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. Now his insight is confirmed by U.S. intelligence reporting.

As described in the New York Times, “New intelligence assessments from the region assert that insurgent factions now are setting aside their historic rivalries to behave like ‘a syndicate,’ joining forces in ways not seen before.” The elements of the “syndicate” cited are the Quetta Shura Taliban led by Mullah Omar, the Haqqani Network, and HiG (Hizb-i-Islami Gulbuddin), which are increasingly cooperating to stage attacks in Afghanistan from their safe havens in Pakistan. But all three have close links to other jihadist groups based in Pakistan, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehrik-i-Taliban (aka the Pakistan Taliban), and, lest we forget, al-Qaeda. An American officer quoted by the Times does a good job of summing up the state of play among the jihadists:

“This is actually a syndicate of related and associated militant groups and networks, Trying to parse them, as if they have firewalls in between them, is really kind of silly. They cooperate with each other. They franchise work with each other.”

If that’s the case — and the preponderance of intelligence reporting certainly points in that direction — then it’s silly to disassociate the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, as so many critics of the war effort do, from the broader struggle against jihadist groups bent on inflicting serious harm on America and on our allies. There are real differences among the jihadist groups, but there is also a growing commonality of tactics and purpose. The war in Afghanistan is part of a broader struggle — a global war — that we must win not only to safeguard distant allies but also our own territory.

Original URL: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions

Max Boot

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The 2011 Economy and Obama’s Political Fate


by Peter Wehner

Newly released data show that home prices across 20 major metropolitan areas fell 1.3 percent in October from September, the third straight month-over-month drop. Many economists expect the decline to continue into at least next spring, erasing most of the gains made since prices bottomed out in early 2008. “This looks like a double-dip [in housing],” according to David Blitzter, chairman of the Standard & Poor’s index committee. “Somebody who thought last year that it’s going to be straight up from here was wrong.”

For every dollar decline in housing wealth, consumers reduce spending by about a nickel in the subsequent 18 months, according to Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com.

Falling housing prices, then, while not necessarily derailing a recovery, can mitigate one.

Whether the housing market will recover by 2012 is unclear. But we do know this: objective economic conditions will largely determine Mr. Obama’s political fate. If the economy continues to struggle and stagger — if housing prices continue to fall, if unemployment continues to remain high, and if growth continues to be sluggish — the president will find himself in a perilous situation. And all the talk about his “comeback” and how successful he was during the lame-duck session of Congress will evaporate like the morning mist.

Many people forget that when unemployment was above 10 percent, Ronald Reagan — the Great Communicator — was deeply unpopular and considered by many Americans to be out of touch, dogmatic, and easily defeatable. He won a landslide re-election in 1984 because in 1983 the economy took off like a rocket. If it hadn’t, the Morning in America theme would have been a bust.

This doesn’t mean that other factors beyond the economy won’t come into play in 2012. Presidential elections are decided by a cluster of things; some of them are objective conditions, while others have to do with subjective impressions. ObamaCare will continue to be a focal point of attention. And events we cannot now anticipate will arise; how the president responds will matter a great deal.

Still, the optics of how the president ended 2010 — whether he has regained political momentum or not — will matter hardly at all. The political narrative will shift dozens of times between now and the 2012 election. And as almost every president before him has discovered, Mr. Obama will find that the state of the American economy will play a significant, and perhaps a decisive, role in his re-election prospects.

Original URL: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions

Peter Wehner

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Everyone Does Not Know What Everyone Supposedly Knows


by Rick Richman

For more than a decade, the guiding principle of the peace process has been that “everyone knows” what peace will look like: a Palestinian state on roughly the 1967 lines, with land swaps for the major Israeli settlement blocs, a shared Jerusalem, international compensation for the Palestinian refugees, and a “right of return” to the new Palestinian state rather than Israel.

A new poll conducted jointly by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace shows that the Palestinian public opposes such a solution by a lopsided majority.

The poll presented a package modeled on the Clinton Parameters: (1) an Israeli withdrawal from more than 97 percent of the West Bank and a land swap for the remaining 2-3 percent; (2) a Palestinian state with a “strong security force” but no army, with a multinational force to ensure security; (3) Palestinian sovereignty over land, water, and airspace, but an Israeli right to use the airspace for training purposes and to maintain two West Bank early-warning stations for 15 years; (4) a capital in East Jerusalem and sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and the Old City (other than the Jewish Quarter and the “Wailing Wall”); and (5) a “right of return” for refugees to the new state and compensation for their “refugeehood” and loss of property.

The package was opposed by 58 percent of the Palestinians, with only 40 percent favoring it.

It was not a case of one or more individual elements in the package causing a problem. Each of the five elements was polled separately; not one of them commanded majority support.

Writing today in Yediot Aharonot, Sever Plocker asserts that while most Israelis are prepared to support a Palestinian state, they have in mind a state “not much different from the Palestinian Authority that exists today.”

Ask now in a poll how many Israelis are ready for the evacuation of 150-200,000 settlers from Judea and Samaria, an IDF withdrawal from bases in the Jordan Valley, the deployment of Palestinian border police between Kalkilya and Kfar Saba, a new border in Jerusalem and turning the territories into a foreign country that will absorb hundreds of thousands of militant refugees from the camps in Lebanon – and see how the numbers of those who support a “two-state solution” drop to near zero.

Interestingly, the new poll showed that Israelis supported the hypothetical package by 52 percent to 39 percent, demonstrating that a majority or plurality of Israelis (the poll has a 4.5 percent margin of error) would support a demilitarized Palestinian state, as long as the IDF is empowered to keep it that way, the state does not assert a “right of return” to Israel, and there is a land swap that does not require the mass uprooting of Israelis from their homes. Plocker’s assertion may show, however, that a lot depends on how polling questions are framed, and the implications of flooding the West Bank with refugees (as opposed to resettling them where most have lived all their lives) deserve further study.

But all this is hypothetical. The Palestinians rejected the Clinton Parameters in 2000 and effectively rejected them again in 2008 in the Annapolis Process. The new poll makes it clear they would reject them a third time, despite what “everyone knows.”

Original URL: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions

Rick Richman

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Cuddling With Cuba


by Ryan Mauro

Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal [1] an unsettling betrayal of those fighting for democracy in Cuba. Apparently, fancy dinners and high-level access are more important than challenging a Castro regime that supports narco-terrorism and is spreading neo-Marxist tyranny in Latin America.

A cable from November 2009 shows how some Western countries have given up on pressing Cuba on human rights issues, with diplomats agreeing not to meet with opposition figures fighting for freedom while visiting the island. The European Union, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and Spain, among others, are described as countries whose officials have decided that Cuba’s political oppression is not worth fighting. Unbelievably, this catering to the Castros has no benefit beyond “pomp-full dinners and meetings, and for the most pliant, a photo-op with one of the Castro brothers.” There was no economic agreement behind this, only greed.

The United Kingdom, Germany and the Czech Republic are depicted as being more honorable, deciding it is better to not hold high-level meetings in Cuba than to submit to the regime’s rules about who they can meet with. A representative of the Vatican, Archbishop Claudio Celli, is especially principled and angers the officials he met with by complimenting Cuban bloggers and asking for freer Internet access for the population.

Another 2009 cable shows that the U.S. has little hope invested in Cuban dissidents. “We see very little evidence that the mainline dissident organizations have much resonance among Cubans,” it reads. The document claims that the opposition leaders are old, divided amongst themselves and their ranks have been infiltrated by Cuban intelligence. The cable is pessimistic about change in the near term, stating that “We do not believe the announcement of Fidel’s death would spark either violent demonstrations or a quick surge in migration.”

However, the cables do show an opportunity available for Cuban dissidents. One predicts [2] the declining economy of Cuba could become “fatal” in two to three years, with Italian officials reporting that sources in the Cuban government as saying the country “would become insolvent as early as 2011.” It appears that President Raul Castro does not have his head in the sand regarding this impending disaster, as he has announced [3] plans to reduce the government workforce by 500,000, decrease subsidies and allow some limited free market reforms to stimulate the economy.

Cuban-American author Humberto Fontova [4] told FrontPage that part of the reason for complacency towards the Castro regime is a belief among some in the West that “if Castro brought ‘fabulous health and education to some pesthole banana republic, then a few human rights abuses are a small price to pay.’” The reality, Fontova says, is that Castro turned a country with a higher per capita income than half of Europe “into a pesthole that repels Haitians.”

The rise of radical Islam is also distracting the West’s attention away from Cuba and its allies in Venezuela. He says this is a mistake because the Castro regime’s activity threatens the West.

“Cuba is still sponsoring terrorism big time—something apartheid South Africa and Pinochet’s Chile never did. Yet the entire world agonized and wailed over South Africa and Chile’s human rights abuses, which were a tiny fraction of Castro’s,” Fontova said to FrontPage.

Despite the State Department’s assurance [5] in 2009 that “Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world,” the government of Colombia says [6] that the FARC narco-terrorists consult with Cuban intelligence and receive Cuban funding through Venezuela. The Castro regime’s intelligence service has thoroughly infiltrated and compromised [7] U.S. intelligence efforts against Cuba, which may help explain the lax attitude towards Cuba.

Other cables released by WikiLeaks expose Cuba’s subversive role in Latin America in places other than Venezuela and Colombia. In June 2009, the Obama Administration and other Western countries condemned the removal of Honduran President Zelaya from power by the military, despite the fact that Zelaya had repeatedly violated the country’s constitution and refused to abide by Supreme Court rulings. In accordance with the constitution, the Congress began impeaching him and the Supreme Court authorized the military’s intervention to prevent Zelaya from establishing a dictatorship. [8]

Released cables report that some of Zelaya’s closest advisors were connected to Cuba, Venezuela and organized crime. It also confirmed [9] his dictatorial ambitions, saying he “resents the very existence of the Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme Court.” Although the cables maintain that the coup was illegal, it shows that the military’s action stopped the expansion of the Cuban-Venezuelan alliance to include Honduras.

Another cable shows how Chavez, whose regime is propped up by Cuba, has come to the aid [10] of President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, who is described as a “Chavez ‘Mini-Me’” by one American diplomat. The cables show that Ortega’s top officials are given “suitcases full of cash” when they visit Venezuela and release drug traffickers from prison in return for funding. This drug money along with oil cash from Venezuela was put into secret accounts, amounting up to $500 million in 2008 when municipal elections marred with fraud [11] resulted in a major Sandinista victory.

The West may be engaged in a battle with radical Islam, but it cannot forget about the spread of neo-Marxism in Latin America of the Castro-Chavez ilk. The Castro regime is one that deserves to be challenged, not wined and dined.

URLs in this post:

[1] reveal: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/18/world/americas/18wikileaks-cuba.html

[2] predicts: http://www.valleynewslive.com/Global/story.asp?S=13652223

[3] announced: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-cb-cuba-raul-castro,0,1512384.story

[4] Humberto Fontova: http://www.hfontova.com/

[5] assurance: http://justf.org/blog/2009/05/06/state-departments-country-reports-terrorism-2008

[6] says: http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2010/05/farcs-geopolitical-base.html

[7] infiltrated and compromised: http://bigpeace.com/hfontova/2010/07/12/u-s-intelligence-on-cuba-consistently-wrong/

[8] prevent Zelaya from establishing a dictatorship.: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35426

[9] confirmed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023843828913256.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[10] come to the aid: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B60RU20101207

[11] marred with fraud: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748875503551983.html

Original URL:http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/29/cuddling-with-cuba/

Ryan Mauro

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Top “Big Nannies” of 2010


by Michelle Malkin

It was a nefarious year for nettlesome nosy-bodies employed by the Nanny State. Here are the top power-grabbers of 2010 who just can’t leave us alone:

— New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Two feet of snow paralyzed trains, buses, plows and emergency vehicles [1] in the Big Apple this week. Perhaps if Bloomberg — the nation’s top self-appointed municipal food cop — spent more of his time on core government duties instead of waging incessant war on taxpayers’ salt, soda, trans-fat and sugar intakes, his battered bailiwick would have been better equipped to weather the storm.

— Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. He proposed meddling mileage [1] taxes, mused about a system to track drivers’ routes, lobbied for high-speed rail boondoggles and promoted a “livability initiative” to limit suburban growth and force dwellers into public transportation. Then America’s driving czar floated a plan earlier this fall to disable cell phones through some kind of centralized government mechanism. LaHood backed off that creepy crusade, but he is still intent on waging war against drivers who choose to use cell phones, entertainment systems and GPS devices on the road. Just last week, the unstoppable control freak proposed a new rule banning truck and bus drivers from any use of cell phones while driving — including emergency calls on hands-free devices. His anti-car agenda is stuck in overdrive.

— The city of Cleveland. The green police in this Midwestern metropolis made headlines in February with an intrusive plan to roll out electronic snooping trash cans — “smart” rubbish bins bugged with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes to monitor residents’ recycling [1] habits. Violators can be fined $100. Federal stimulus money has gone to fund similar programs in Dayton, Ohio. The technology originated in Germany, was adopted by eco-authoritarians in England (where at least 500,000 trash cans are now embedded with snitch chips) and has spread across Europe. Welcome to the age of Bin Brother.

— The city of San Francisco. The city board of supervisors recently took the “Happy” out of McDonald’s [1] Happy Meals by banning all restaurants from serving toys with children’s meals that exceed arbitrary limits on calories, fat, salt and sugar. Even the mayor of the People’s Republic of San Francisco opposes the latest food-control scheme. But the bossy City by the Bay continues to assault consumer freedom with bans on everything from plastic bags to pet sales and soda pop. By executive order this summer, Mayor Gavin Newsom outlawed Coke, Pepsi and Fanta Orange drinks from vending machines on city property.

The decree dictates that “ample choices” of water, “soy milk, rice milk and other similar dairy or non dairy milk” must instead be offered. It’s not clear how vendors will be able to circumvent the city’s hostility toward plastic bottles. Maybe beverages will be served straight out of those noxiously trendy reusable cloth bags?

— The architects of Obamacare. After ramming a trillion-dollar package of unconstitutional federal health mandates down our throats, they said children and seniors would be saved, we could keep our doctors, costs would go down, and the economy would be boosted. Reality: Premiums have continued to skyrocket. Insurers nationwide have dropped child-only plans in the individual market. Obamacare taxes forced the AARP to raise its members’ rates. Hospitals have stepped up layoffs and shutdowns. And millions of Americans have only been able to keep their doctors and coverage after their employers, unions or health providers begged the feds for special waivers. Heckuva job, health bureaucrats.

— First lady Michelle Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee. Mrs. Obama first played the anti-childhood obesity card in September 2009, as a rationale for using her office to crusade for taxpayer subsidies supporting her hometown Chicago’s failed Olympics bid. Her argument: Kids would stay fat, lazy and uninspired if the Daley machine didn’t get its share of massive sports corporate welfare.

Next came Mrs. O’s push for the $5 billion expansion of federal child nutrition programs. As I first reported in February 2010, the legislation was a pet project of the Service Employees International Union, which seeks to swell the ranks of dawn-to-dusk year-round public school food service workers who organize under the progressive activist slogan “serving justice, and serving lunch.” In addition to school breakfast and lunch, the kiddie food patrol is now pushing subsidized dinner plans and summer food service to create a “stronger nutrition safety [1] net.”

Nanny State Republican Mike Huckabee, who used his bully pulpit position as Arkansas governor to campaign for Big Government-endorsed “healthier living” in public schools and private life, naturally sided with Mrs. Obama — and took a swipe at Sarah Palin last week for criticizing the White House usurpation of parental responsibility and rights. Huckabee scoffed at the idea that the feds are “trying to force the government’s desires on people.” But school bake sales are already under siege, and Mrs. Obama’s childhood obesity task force has already called for new and dramatic controls on the marketing of unhealthy foods. Did Huckabee miss (or does he agree with) Mrs. Obama’s officious rallying cry on child nutrition: “We can’t just leave it up to parents”?

God save us from more busybody bipartisanship in 2011.

URLs in this post:

[1] vehicles: http://www.creators.com/opinion/michelle-malkin.html#


Original URL:http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/29/the-top-big-nannies-of-2010/

Michelle Malkin

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama Bypasses Senate, Appoints Envoy to Syria


by AP


WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama has bypassed the US Senate and directly appointed four new ambassadors, including Robert Ford, who will become the first US envoy to Syria since 2005.

Specific senators had blocked or refused to consider the confirmations of the nominees for various reasons, including questions about their qualifications. But in the most high-profile case, that of the new envoy to Syria, a number of senators objected because they believed sending an ambassador to the country would reward it for bad behavior.

"Making undeserved concessions to Syria tells the regime in Damascus that it can continue to pursue its dangerous agenda and not face any consequences from the US," Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement. "That is the wrong message to be sending to a regime which continues to harm and threaten US interests and those of such critical allies as Israel."

The administration had argued that returning an ambassador to Syria after a five-year absence would help persuade Syria to change its policies regarding Israel, Lebanon and Iraq as well as its willingness to support extremist groups. Syria is designated a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the State Department.

Former President George W. Bush's administration withdrew a full-time ambassador from Syria in 2005 after terrorism accusations and to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, killed in a Beirut truck bombing that his supporters blamed on Syria. Syria denied involvement.

Obama nominated Ford, a career diplomat and a former ambassador to Algeria, to the post in February but his nomination stalled after his confirmation hearings and was never voted on.

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama would use his power to make recess appointments to fill envoy posts to Azerbaijan, Syria and NATO allies Turkey and the Czech Republic.

Recess appointments are made when the Senate is not in session and last only until the end of the next session of Congress. They are frequently used when Senate confirmation is not possible.

The other Obama nominees announced Wednesday are Matthew Bryza for Azerbaijan, Norman Eisen for the Czech Republic and Francis Ricciardone for Turkey.

Original URL:http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=201497

AP

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US Against Anti-Settlement Resolution in Security Council


by Herb Keinon, Khaled Abu Toameh and Hilary Leila


The US is against efforts to bring the settlement issue to the UN Security Council, a State Department spokesman said Wednesday, soon after PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians intended to ask the Security Council to condemn the settlements as “illegal.”

“We have consistently opposed taking these kinds of issues to the UN Security Council,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said at a press briefing, though he declined to specify whether the US would actually veto a resolution should it be voted on.

Israeli officials said various draft resolutions on the matter were currently being discussed in New York, and the degree to which a resolution would run into US opposition would depend on its final language, and whether it called for operative steps such as sanctions.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a draft on Wednesday calling settlements a “major obstacle to the achievement of peace.” It does not, however, call for sanctions, and urges both sides to continue negotiations toward a final peace agreement.

The draft resolution reaffirms Palestinian claims that “Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

Additionally, the document demands that Israel “immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and that it fully respects all of its legal obligations in this regard.”

Israeli officials said the more watered-down the resolution, the less likely that the US would use its veto to block it.

While the Europeans consistently say that settlements are illegal under international law, the US – with the exception of the Jimmy Carter administration – has generally refrained from adopting that language, instead characterizing the settlements as “illegitimate.”

Toner emphasized that “final-status issues can only be resolved” through direct negotiations rather than a UN vote, a long-standing US position.

However, he also reiterated America’s continued opposition to Israeli settlements.

“We don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity,” Toner stated, labeling such continued construction “corrosive to our peace efforts,” as well as to Israel’s future.

Erekat, meanwhile, denied earlier reports that claimed the Palestinians were planning to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state early next year.

He said that the Palestinians had no intention of making such a request in the near future.

The PA also rejected on Wednesday any talk about an interim solution with Israel. The announcement came in response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s remarks in an interview with Channel 10 on Tuesday.

Netanyahu, in that interview, said that if direct negotiations with the Palestinians “hit a wall” over core issues such as security, Jerusalem or refugees, it may be necessary to aim for a long-term interim agreement. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, however, said this week that a long-term interim agreement should be the goal from the outset.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said that the Palestinians were opposed to an interim agreement because it would exclude the issues of Jerusalem and the refugees.

“Renewed talk about a Palestinian state with temporary borders is completely unacceptable and wouldn’t lead to real peace,” Abu Rudaineh said. “The time has come for decisions on final-status issues and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders, including east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

Erekat, in discussing the PA move to take the settlement issue to the UN, was quoted by the German press agency DPA as saying that “the Israeli government is witnessing an international isolation that it hasn’t witnessed before.”

He said this was “due to the efforts exerted by the Palestinian leadership” and by Abbas.

But Palestinian boasts that its policies were successfully isolating Israel were dismissed in Jerusalem, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor saying that for all the “isolation” talk, “patients from the Arab world seeking treatment for their ailments were coming to Israel.”

Palmor said that “isolation was very much in the eye of the beholder.”

Wealthy patients from countries such as Iraq, Jordan and the Persian Gulf come to Israel to take advantage of its advanced medicine, government officials said Wednesday, unwilling to provide numbers or indicate whether this included political elites.

Palmor said that even as Erekat talked about an isolated Israel, it was attracting more investment than the financial support the Palestinian Authority was getting from the Arab world.

One diplomatic official cautioned the Palestinians against becoming “intoxicated” by the fact that four South American countries had either recognized a Palestinian state, or declared their intention to do so in the near future.

“Diplomatic fireworks will not bring about a state,” the official said. “Fireworks look spectacular momentarily in the sky, but then disappear.”

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in response to Erekat’s threat to take a resolution to the Security Council that “desperate attempts by the Palestinians are the result of a dead end that they led into because of their preconditions. A real Palestinian state, and not a virtual one, will be established only through negotiations with the elected government of Israel.”

Ayalon called on the international community to “show responsibility” and not create illusions for the Palestinians.


Original URL:http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=201488

Herb Keinon, Khaled Abu Toameh and Hilary Leila

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US Losing Its Ability to Dominate the Skies (and Save Jobs)


by Taylor Dinerman

A few years ago a US Air Force pilot bragged that since 1943 no American ground soldier has had to fight under enemy air superiority. Strong fighter squadrons equipped with state of the art aircraft flown by well-trained pilots have long been a unique US strength. Ever since the end of World War Two no enemy has been able to dispute US air supremacy over the battlefield. The US Air Force has occasionally been challenged over the enemy homeland, as it was in the early days of the Korean and Vietnam wars, but in the end the US dominated the skies over their capital cites, Pyongyang and Hanoi.

Until recently the US commitment to making sure that the Air Force was the best in the world has been unmistakeable. In 2002, the 71st Fighter Squadron was equipped with 24 F-15Cs, which, before the F-22A, was America's premier air superiority fighter. The 71st was one of three squadrons of the elite 1st Fighter Wing based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. Even after the post Cold War reductions, the Defense Department deliberately chose too keep this Fighter wing at full strength and fully trained.Then, in September of this year, the 71st Fighter Squadron was disbanded. This leaves the 1st Fighter wing with just two weak squadrons of F-22As. For any administration to put our critical US advantage in air superiority fighters at risk is an act of extreme recklessness.

Now the top leaders at the Pentagon are beginning to wonder if they have not been a bit hasty in their drive to shut down the production of the F-22A air superiority fighter. They recently gave orders to preserve the tool needed to build the aircraft and to make an extraordinary video record of the skills and methods used by the man and women who actually work on the assembly line -- a sign that the administration may realize that they will need to restart F-22A production at some future point.

If the White House and the Defense Department choose to do so, they will have plenty of political cover. The original decision to cut F-22A production was made by George W. Bush's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and has been supported over the years by Senator John Mac Cain (R Arizona) -- so the decision to cancel the aircraft can be easily presented as a bipartisan mistake. Everyone involved in saving the F-22A is acutely aware that they will be saving tens of thousands of jobs. They will also find that keeping the production line going will send a message of renewed strength and determination to America's adversaries overseas. Making this move now instead of waiting for a dangerous foreign crisis to erupt would be in stark contrast to President Jimmy Carter's dismal final years in office. In 1979-1980 the hostage crisis in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan pushed Carter into announcing a major increase in the Defense budget. By then it was far too late for him to change the perception of wimpiness that he had projected during the first part of his term.

In its time the F-15 was an awesome flying and fighting machine with an outstanding combat record in the hands of mostly American and Israeli pilots, Yet it was designed more than 40 years ago. It has been updated with better electronics, engines and weapons, but it remains the same basic aircraft it was when it was first deployed, as the F-15A ,in 1975.

The Air Force planned to replace the F-15C with the F-22A, a superior aircraft whose capabilities are only now being understood. The F-22A is the first true air-to-air stealth fighter, and one of the very few planes ever that can fly supersonically without rapidly running out of fuel. Most importantly, it is one of the very few planes in the US arsenal that can be counted on to survive attacks by the latest generation of Surface-to-Air-Missiles. In the hands of well-trained pilots, it should be able to dominate the skies in the same way as the F-15.

The key to the F-15's success was not only that it was a superior aircraft, but also that it was available in adequate numbers. Its replacement, the F-22, no matter how good a fighter, cannot succeed if it is purchased in minimal numbers. According to current plans, only 187 F-22As are being built. These may be the best fighters in the world, but they cannot be in two places at the same time.

The Air Force originally wanted more and 700 F-22As, but during the budget fights of the early years of the Bush administration the number was cut to fewer than 400 -- just barely enough to create 10 strong squadrons, one for each of the 10 Air Expeditionary Forces, and extras for training, maintenance and reserves. In 2005, however, this was cut by OMB to just 180.

The dramatic reduction in US air superiority forces was challenged by the Air Force's leaders. In 2008, fed up with their constant lobbying for more F-22As Secretary of Defense Bob Gates fired both Michael Wynne the Secretary of the Air Force, and General Michael Mosley the Air Force Chief of Staff. The rest of the Air Force leadership got the message and quieted down.

Meanwhile, Secretary Gates and his team promised that the Ar Force would soon receive the new F-35A previously known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF program, begun by Bill Clinton's first Defense Secretary, Les Aspin was supposed to be the ultimate affordable aircraft; versions of it are planned for the Marines and the Navy, as well as for many of our NATO allies, Israel and others.Like many complex programs with an international component, however, the price has gone up dramatically, and the the first operational units will not be available until at least 2016. Another problem that will undoubtedly add to the overall cost of the program is that many nations which had planned to buy a large number of F-35s in various versions are now cutting back. The UK, for example, has just announced a major cut in their plans to buy F-35, and it appears that Italy may follow suit.

Given the delays in F-35 development and production, a decision to continue building F-22As would not only make sense, but would send a strong signal that the US is determined to keep its ability to establish air superiority over just about any battlefield on the planet. The sooner the decision is made, the less it will cost to restart production of those F-22 components whose production has already stopped: the more aircraft built ,the lower the cost per plane.

There is a story that a few weeks after D Day, when General Eisenhower was visiting the beachhead with his son, who had just graduated from West Point, the young lieutenant turned to his father and said "Without air superiority you'd never have been able to do this." His father replied "Hell, without air superiority we wouldn't be here." Years later it is still true: without air superiority, American victory is not possible.

Original URL:http://www.hudson-ny.org/1752/us-losing-ability-to-dominate-skies

Taylor Dinerman

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Sweetheart of Venezuela and the Radicalization of the Bolivarian Revolution


by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

During a State event, in the presence of all branches of the government, President Hugo Chavez said,"We can no longer be a docile Revolution, we must radicalize our position." He then presented the "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto" that will be signed by supporters throughout the country during special events to be held during the next few days in defense of Venezuela's sovereignty.

Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American attorney, was the keynote speaker at the event. Golinger, called by Chavez "La Novia de Venezuela" ("The Sweetheart of Venezuela"), is the editor of the Correo del Orinoco International; a newspaper financially backed by the Venezuelan government. A graduate of Sarah Lawrence College (1994), and the City University of New York School of Law, where she completed her Juris Doctorate (JD) in international human rights law in 2003, she grew up in the US and moved to Venezuela in the mid-1990s to discover her Venezuelan roots. She currently resides in Caracas and is one of the staunchest supporters of Chavez's regime.

At the "historic" event, Golinger claimed that the US is employing strategies against the Chavez administration: "At the beginning of 2010, the US Director of National Intelligence, who coordinates all 16 agencies of the US intelligence community, classified President Chavez as 'Anti-US Leader in the region,': she said. "Saying 'anti-US' is the same as saying 'enemy'...This is language of war."

She also highlighted how during the "past five years, the US government and mass media have conducted a severe media campaign attempting to demonize President Chavez and his government". This effort, said Golinger, "tries to justify the escalation in hostility and aggression against Venezuela, as well as provide reasons for an ever-increasing amount of funding US agencies provide to Venezuelan opposition groups".[1]

She also proposed the Venezuelan government enact a law to "regulate, control or prohibit foreign funding for political activities" in the nation. According to the Correo del Orinoco, President Chavez heard Golinger's request for a foreign funding law loud and clear. "I implore the National Assembly to urgently pass a law to end US and foreign funding of NGOs and political parties in our country," he exclaimed. He also called on the other branches of government present to act against threats and violations of Venezuela's laws and sovereignty.

The presidents - all women - of Venezuela's Supreme Court, National Assembly, Electoral Power and Citizens Power, affirmed their commitment to defending the nation against any external or internal threat, and at the conclusion of the event, signed the "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto."

"In this bicentennial period, we ratify our unwavering commitment to the culmination of our Independence through the consolidation of our sovereignty and the construction of unity amongst our peoples, and we proclaim that our response to the imperialist threat will be: more unity, more independence and more integration," the Manifesto stated. It was ratified by Venezuela's state powers last week.[2]

Below are excerpts of Golinger's article on the event, published in Correo del Orinoco. Promoting the Bolivarian Revolution, she defined it in previous interviews as "an inspiration and hope to those in the US and around the world, alternatives to US capitalism do exist and can be successful. […] Every nation has its moment in history. This is the time of Latin America. But there is great hope that the people of the US will soon unite with their brothers and sisters south of the border to bring down Empire and help build a true world community based on social and economic justice for all."

From the press:

"Republican-dominated Congress will increase hostility towards Latin America"

[...] President Hugo Chavez presided over a state event in the presence of all branches of government and regional representatives, to express the nation's rejection of threats and attempts to undermine Venezuela's democracy.

"The people of Venezuela, the people of ALBA nations, the people of our America and the world will defeat the pretensions of US imperialism that seek to escape its own crisis by provoking more war and violations against the people of the world," stated an "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto" signed by all heads of the five branches of government during a special event held in the historic and prestigious Elliptical Room of Venezuela's National Assembly [...].

The state event "in defense of the sovereignty of the nation and against hegemony and imperialism" was convened by President Chavez in reaction to an event held [...] in the US Congress, titled "Danger in the Andes: Threats to Democracy, Human Rights and Inter-American Security," during which several US members of Congress called for harsh, direct action to be taken against Chavez and other presidents from member nations of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA). [...]

The Congressional event was interpreted by many throughout the region as a sign that a now republican-dominated Congress will increase hostility towards countries in Latin America such as Venezuela and Bolivia, which already have tense and difficult relations with Washington. At the conference, US Representative Connie Mack (Republican from Florida) declared, "Now that Republicans are a majority...we should confront Hugo Chavez directly," implying that the House Sub-Committee on Foreign Relations for the Western Hemisphere, to be headed by Mack, will initiate actions against Venezuela in 2011.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen wants to increase aggression against Chavez

The new Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Miami, also indicated efforts would be undertaken to increase aggression against President Chavez, stating, "We should work closer with regional allies to confront the danger against democracy in Venezuela".

Ros-Lehtinen, well known for her close relations with anti-Castro Cuban terrorists Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, both responsible for the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed all 73 passengers aboard, as well as a series of other terrorist acts in the region, later referred to Chavez as a "repressive leader" and reiterated her calls to work for his "removal from power."

In 2006, the Florida congresswoman declared during a television interview that she would encourage and "welcome anyone who assassinates Fidel Castro or any other repressive leader". Such language was perceived by Venezuela and other Latin American nations as a clear and direct threat.

[...] Bolivian President Evo Morales directly charged Representative Connie Mack with the responsibility "should anything happen to President Hugo Chavez." Morales's comments were made during the inauguration of last week's meeting of defense ministers from the Americas, during which US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, was present. "This Congress member, Connie Mack, made statements that could be interpreted as a call to assassinate President Chavez", said Morales. "Should anything happen to Chavez, Connie Mack will be one of the people responsible". [...]

Correo del Orinoco (Venezuela), November 30, 2010

[1] Correo del Orinoco, November 26, 2010
[2] Ibid.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1761/radicalization-bolivarian-revolution

Anna Mahjar-Barducci

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Al Qaeda’s New Stronghold


by Frank Crimi

When President Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, announced [1] recently that the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had surpassed Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan-based Al Qaeda as America’s greatest terrorist threat, it was confirmation of what intelligence analysts have already long suspected [2].

Brennan’s pronouncement of AQAP’s rise came shortly after the release of the Obama administration’s annual review on the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation. With its strongholds in northwest Pakistan under increased assault [3] from the Pakistani Army, and its senior leadership rapidly depleted by US predator drones, Al Qaeda in Pakistan was reported to be in its most weakened condition since September 2001.

The report concluded [4] that “Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has been depleted, the group’s safe haven is smaller and less secure, and its ability to prepare and conduct terrorist operations has been degraded in important ways.” Days later, Brennan told [1] a forum audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that AQAP “is now the most operationally active node of the al Qaeda network.”

AQAP’s activity has included its involvement in two recent terrorist plots aimed at America: the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest airliner in 2009, and the October 2010 discovery of explosive devices in two cargo planes en route to the United States.

While both incidents were AQAP failures, it still hasn’t deterred the group from continuing on with its terrorist mission. Quite the contrary, as Brennan noted [5], “The group’s leadership clearly seeks to apply lessons learned from past attacks, including those of other groups. And their definition of success – stoking fear, even if their attacks fail – portends more such attacks.”

As if to confirm its newly elevated status, reports [5] circulated within days of Brennan’s speech at Carnegie that AQAP was planning to poison the US food supply by targeting hotels and restaurants. Specifically, AQAP’s plan was to introduce harmful agents, such as ricin and cyanide, into salad bars and buffets at these properties.

Administration officials were quick to point out [5] that AQAP did not have the capability to carry out such a plan. In fact, the plan itself falls outside of AQAP’s recently adopted strategy to forgo large, complex terrorist attacks in favor of smaller assaults on lesser –value targets.

That new terror tactic was announced [6] by AQAP in the November 2010 issue of Inspire, the group’s English online newspaper, which stated: “To bring down the U.S., we do not need to strike big. It is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch.”

However, while AQAP’s terrorist plots may be growing smaller in scope, its efforts to grow from a regional terrorist group to a transnational outfit have exponentially increased. These efforts have included an intensive campaign to recruit American Muslims, methods which include the widespread use of internet videos, online magazines such as Inspire, and the sermons of its most notorious cleric and top leader, the American Anwar Al Awlaki.

Awlaki, who is now hiding out in Yemen, has been linked [7] to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused Christmas Day bomber, as well as to Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people in 2009.

Awlaki has also been credited as being an inspirational leader to would-be Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad; and Abdulhakim Muhammad, arrested for shooting two army recruiters in Arkansas in November 2009, killing one soldier and wounding the other.

Mirroring the rapid rise of AQAP, Awlaki himself has now joined the ranks of Osama bin Laden in the eyes of administration and intelligence officials. In a recent television interview, Attorney General Eric Holder said [8] Al Awlaki was “on the same list with bin Laden. He’s on the list of people that worry me the most,” adding “We want to neutralize him. We’ll do whatever we can to do that.”

To underscore its commitment to neutralize Al Awlaki, the administration placed him on a CIA assassination hit list. However, much like its overall efforts to neutralize the entire AQAP organization, the results were unsuccessful.

For example, over the past year US military aid to Yemen increased from $70 million to $150 million. During that same period, a number of US airstrikes on Al Qaeda bases in Yemen were launched, ones long suspected, and ones just verified by the recent release [9] of Wikileaks documents.

Still, despite those efforts and the continuing application of American pressure on the Republic of Yemen Government (ROYG) to rein in AQAP, the outcomes have been less than stellar, producing more friction between the two governments than actual results.

That view [1] was neatly summed up by Brennan who said, “The relationship between Washington and Sanaa [Yemen’s capital] is, at times, marked by differences of view, tension, and even strong frustration by each side.”

Yet, if the ROYG’s ability and commitment to destroy AQAP is viewed as spotty in the eyes of the US, it may be understandable given the myriad of other problems that plague that poverty stricken nation.

For starters, in addition to fighting Al Qaeda forces, the ROYG finds itself engaged with open rebellion in its northern areas and a separatist movement in the south. The result has been a weakening of its control of the country, except for a tiny pocket outside the capital city of Sanaa.

Adding to Yemen’s internal strife is its incredibly high poverty level, one exacerbated by also having the world’s seventh highest population growth rate. The situation is so severe that, according [10] to a UN spokesman, “There is no single other country in the world where we ever have seen such high levels of malnutrition.

Unfortunately, while Yemen’s current economic situation is brutal, it only looks to get worse [10]. While oil constitutes 75% of Yemen’s revenue, oil production has been declining in recent years, with estimates that its entire oil reserves will be depleted by 2021.

For a nation swelled by a large swath of unemployed and desperately impoverished people, young Yemini men are ripe for terrorist recruitment. Mohammed Abdel-Malik Mutawakel, a Yemini political science professor, explains [11] the predicament of these men: “The economy is closed to them. They will fight then, either through al-Qaida, the southerners, or any other way.”

So, today, drenched in economic and political chaos, Yemen has now become the logistical and training center for global jihadists. As one intelligence official said [6] of Yemen, “It’s now Pakistan in the heart of the Arab world.”

For Americans, who have seen the War on Terror ebb and flow over the years, it’s a sobering reminder that closing one terrorist door only serves to open another.


Original URL:http://frontpagemag.com/2010/12/28/al-qaedas-new-stronghold/

Frank Crimi is a writer living in San Diego, California. You can read more of Frank’s work at his blog,www.politicallyunbalanced.com [12] or contact him at frankcrimi@sbcglobal.net [13].

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.