Bipartisan Defense Panel Urges Naval Buildup in Asia

Washington Times A bipartisan, congressionally mandated defense panel on Thursday challenged the Pentagon to broaden its focus beyond counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq and expand the Navy to deal with threats from rising powers in Asia. The report by the independent panel, headed by former White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and former Defense Secretary William Perry, calls for the U.S. military to shift its long-term focus to five areas, ranging from "radical Islamist extremism and the threat of terrorism" to confronting "an accelerating global competition for resources." The panel report also said U.S. maritime power should be increased to deal with "the rise of new global great powers in Asia," an indirect reference to China's growing military and political power. It said the U.S. military must prepare for the "continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East" and "persistent problems from failed and failing states." In reviewing the Pentagons Quadrennial Defense Review strategy, the panel, in recommendations made public on Capitol Hill, also said that the United States should merge the budgeting process for the military, intelligence and foreign-assistance spending. To beef up U.S. maritime power in Asia, the report calls for expanding the Navy from its current fleet of 282 ships to 346 ships. "In order to preserve U.S. interests, the United States will need to retain the ability to transit freely the areas of the Western Pacific for security and economic reasons," the report said. "The United States must be fully present in the Asia-Pacific region to protect American lives and territory, ensure the free flow of commerce, maintain stability and defend our allies in the region. A robust U.S. force structure, one that is largely rooted in maritime strategy and includes other necessary capabilities, will be essential." "The aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force means that a train wreck is coming in the areas of personnel, acquisition and force structure," the report said. The recommendation for a bigger Navy is at odds with the policies of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has questioned the need for building up naval forces because they currently are unrivaled by any challengers. "This latest QDR continues the trend of the last 15 years," the report stated in an introduction. "It is a wartime QDR, prepared by a department that is focused - understandably and appropriately - on responding to the threats America now faces and winning the wars in which America is now engaged." However, the independent panel said instead long-term planning is needed in the five areas. Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, echoed the independent panel's critique of the current Pentagon QDR. Mr. Skelton said Mr. Gates "rightly in my opinion, focused his effort on winning the wars we are in today." "But we cannot do that at the expense of preparing for the future, and there, I am concerned that the QDR came up a bit short." Mr. Skelton's GOP counterpart on the committee, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California Republican, also praised the report. "While it has become en vogue to bemoan the militarization of foreign policy, I think the report gets the balance correct," Mr. McKeon said. "You rightly state that 'the last 20 years have shown, America does not have the option of abandoning a leadership role in support of its national interests.' Military decline is not an option." The Obama administration has recently asked the Pentagon to make cuts to some key weapons systems. Asked about the report, Mr. Gates said on Thursday it has some "important contributions." "They've made some suggestions that I think we need to follow up on," he said. John Nagl, the president of the Center for a New American Security and a member of the independent panel, said he thinks the most important recommendation of the panel is the recommendation to make changes in the national-security planning and budgeting systems. On the naval buildup, Mr. Nagl said: "Given the rising powers in Asia, we are going to have to continue policing the global commons and maintaining freedom of the seas."

New Squadrons of Joint Strike Fighter moving to Eglin AFB

59 F-35s coming to Eglin First two Joint Strike Fighters expected in November Bart Jansen • News Journal Washington bureau • July 29, 2010 WASHINGTON — The Air Force plans to base 59 of its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at Eglin Air Force Base, the Pentagon announced Wednesday. The Air Force initially planned to bring more than 100 F-35 aircraft to the base. But last year, following concerns from surrounding communities about noise from the new jets, officials lowered the initial number to 59 aircraft, and ordered additional research be conducted before more aircraft were assigned to Eglin. The announcement confirms the Air Force's cap of 59 aircraft, and brings the base one step closer to finalizing staffing levels and details of the F-35 training program — a move which is expected by spring. The first two planes are expected to arrive at the base in November. Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Chumuckla, said he toured construction at the base about two months ago for the schoolhouse and for the pilots, and that "everything is on schedule." "It is something that was expected," Miller said of the decision, although other studies still must be completed. "In these economic times, getting close to finality is very important." Flight operations will also be conducted at Duke and Choctaw fields. The planes will be used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The base-closing commission decided that instructor pilots and support staff should be moved to Eglin from Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in California and Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia. Some staff will also relocate from Naval Air Station Pensacola. The community there recognized that consolidation at Eglin was the best move for the Gulf Coast region.

Alternate QDR: Boost Equipment Modernization, U.S. Force Size

Defense News By JOHN T. BENNETT Pentagon spending plans and cost-saving efforts would fall short of fielding the kind of modern combat arsenal likely needed to fight future foes, including a rapidly modernizing Chinese military, according to a high-level bipartisan group of defense experts. Increasing the size of the U.S. Navy, especially to deal with the volatile Pacific Ocean, is one recommendation of a mandated alternative to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Above, the amphibious assault ship Essex steams through the Pacific. (MCSN ADAM K. THOMAS / U.S. NAVY) "We are concerned by what we see as a growing gap between our interests and our military capability to protect those interests in the face of a complex and challenging security environment," according to a congressionally mandated alternative to the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Related Topics Americas Air Warfare Land Warfare Naval Warfare Defense News obtained a summary of the "alternative QDR," set to be unveiled July 29. The U.S. military continues to rely on 30-year-old combat equipment, largely because of the staggering costs of two ongoing wars, including the expense of keeping aging platforms in operational shape for those conflicts, the independent QDR study team concluded. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has charged each military service with freeing up between $10 billion and $15 billion annually over the next few years, ordering them to roll the "savings" into hardware modernization efforts, the independent QDR panel doubts that will generate enough new monies to build the kind of force America will need for decades to come. "We cannot reverse the decline of shipbuilding, buy enough naval aircraft, recapitalize Army equipment, buy the F-35 requirement, purchase a new aerial tanker, increase deep strike capability, and recapitalize the bomber fleet just by saving $10-15 billion dollars that the Department of Defense hopes to save through acquisition reform," states the summary of the alternative QDR. Last year's defense authorization act tasked the panel with assessing the contents of the 2010 QDR and issuing its own national defense plan. It was led by William Perry and Stephen Hadley. Perry was defense secretary under President Clinton, and Hadley was President George W. Bush's last national security adviser. Lawmakers, congressional aides and defense analysts have questioned the force-sizing construct and future force descriptions contained in the Pentagon's quadrennial review. House lawmakers and aides say the 2010 QDR was too shortsighted, alleging senior Pentagon officials simply chose to ignore the 20-year mandate. For instance, a classified annex to the 2010 quadrennial review acknowledged "a bulk of the analysis only looked five years out," one senior House Armed Services Committee aide told Defense News in March. An unreleased QDR annex reviewed by Defense News confirms that charge. "This QDR is even more shortsighted than the last QDR," the aide said. "We are concerned that the QDR force structure may not be sufficient to assure others that the U.S. can meet its treaty commitments in the face of China's military capabilities," states the summary of the alternate QDR. The Perry-Hadley independent panel also concluded that "the force structure needs to be increased in a number of areas, including the need to counter anti-access challenges." Like the Pentagon's quadrennial study, the independent panel envisions a large U.S. ground force in line with the current sizes of the Army and Marine Corps. But the Perry-Hadley panel also feels the U.S. will need "a larger Navy and Air Force," according to the summary. While the QDR endorses an equipment force structure about the size of today's U.S. air, ground and naval forces, the independent study team thinks modernization of existing platforms should be carried out "on at least a one-for-one basis, with an upward adjustment in the number of naval vessels and certain air and space assets." To the Perry-Hadley panel, "military power is a function of quantity as well as quality - numbers do matter." The independent QDR will also call for a future U.S. arsenal more capable than the one vaguely described in the Pentagon's 2010 QDR. "Perhaps the greater difference between the QDR force and the one that we recommend is qualitative," according to the summary of the Perry-Hadley report. "First, it is a fully modernized force. ... Second, it is a force that emphasizes long-range platforms to a greater extent than the current force." The summary obtained by Defense News also shows the independent panel is concerned the 2010 defense strategy would put in place a force unable to carry out U.S. commitments in the ever-volatile Pacific region. "The force structure in the Asia-Pacific area needs to be increased," states the summary. "A robust U.S. force structure, largely rooted in maritime strategy but including other necessary capabilities, will be essential.

Reports Bolster Suspicion of Iranian Ties to Extremists

Wall Street Journal By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JAY SOLOMON WASHINGTON—Cooperation among Iran, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremist groups is more extensive than previously known to the public, according to details buried in the tens of thousands of military intelligence documents released by an independent group Sunday. Associated Press In this March 8, 2007 file photo, Afghan rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is seen in this photo grab from a video received by Associated Press Television in Karachi, Pakistan. U.S. officials and Middle East analysts said some of the most explosive information contained in the WikiLeaks documents detail Iran's alleged ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the facilitating role Tehran may have played in providing arms from sources as varied as North Korea and Algeria. The officials have for years received reports of Iran smuggling arms to the Taliban. The WikiLeaks documents, however, appear to give new evidence of direct contacts between Iranian officials and the Taliban's and al Qaeda's senior leadership. It also outlines Iran's alleged role in brokering arms deals between North Korea and Pakistan-based militants, particularly militant leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and al Qaeda. WikiLeaks released a cache of intelligence documents Sunday that detail raw intelligence reports over a five-year period. The information is fragmentary, and its not known how many reports were corroborated by other sources. "Some parts are more believable than others, but this sort of raw stuff could be gold or a dud," said a senior U.S. official working on both Pakistan and Iran. The apparent links are striking because Iran has historically been a foe of the Taliban, who generally view the followers of Shiite Islam—Iran's predominant faith—as heretics. The Iranian mission to the United Nations condemned the allegations of ties to extremists. "Any allegation about any collaboration or relation between Taliban and al Qaeda is absolutely false and baseless," a spokesman said. Journal Community In recent years the Taliban toned down their sectarian rhetoric and reached out to Iran, pledging friendly relations with all of Afghanistan's neighbors should they return to power. Iran has long called for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from Afghanistan. One of the more remarkable reports describes a November 2005 trip that departed from Iran in which Mr. Hekmatyar, the militant leader, and Osama bin Laden's financial adviser traveled to North Korea to close a deal with the North Korean government to obtain remote-controlled rockets to use against coalition aircraft in Afghanistan. "The shipment of said weapons is expected shortly after the new year," the report said. Several reports describe Iran as a hub of planning activity for attacks on the Afghan government. A May 2006 report describes an al Qaeda–Hekmatyar plot to equip suicide bombers and car bombs to attack Afghan government and international targets—using cars and equipment obtained in Iran and Pakistan. By April 2007, the reports show what appears to be even closer collaboration. A report that month describes an effort two months earlier in which al Qaeda, "helped by Iran," bought 72 air-to-air missiles from Algeria and hid them in Zahedan, Iran, in order to later smuggle them into Afghanistan. Mr. Hekmatyar, the leader of Afghanistan's Hezb-i-Islami insurgent group, lived in exile in Tehran when the Taliban governed Kabul. He resettled on the Afghan–Pakistani border after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and established a tenuous alliance with the Taliban and al Qaeda. More recently, he sent a delegation to Kabul to negotiate a peace deal with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the U.N. PM Report: Documents Could Galvanize War Doubts 9:12 Like the Pentagon Papers' impact on Vietnam, the recent leak of documents about America's war effort in Afghanistan has the potential to crystallize public doubts. Jerry Seib discusses. Also, Liam Denning discusses Robert Dudley, who will soon take over as CEO of BP. Dudley, who had been forced out by Russia from a key BP venture, risks hurting the company's frail relations with Moscow. More Leak Sets Off Effort to Control Damage Capital Journal: Papers Could Feed War Doubts WikiLeaks Rolled Dice to Raise Its Profile Pentagon Eyes Analyst in Leaks Pakistani Ex-Spy Depicted as Taliban Link WikiLeaks.org: See the Full Report Continuing WikiLeaks Coverage Some reports highlight the political sensitivities Afghanistan is trying to balance between its chief backer, the U.S., and its neighbor to the west. An April 2007 memo notes that the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to "keep the issue of the Iranian-made weapons recently found in Kandahar under the radar screen in the lead up to the June visit of the Iranian President to Afghanistan" because Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants to avoid "additional friction with Afghanistan's neighbors." Several reports provide new details of the extent of Iran's reach, including apparent payments to kill some Afghan officials and attempts to buy others off. A report from 2005 describes Iran offering compensation of between $1,700 and $3,400 to a group of former Afghan government officials and Taliban members residing in Iran to kill soldiers and Afghan government officials. Another report two years later shows growing U.S. concern about Iran meddling, including reports from Afghan officials that Iran paid a total of $4 million to as many as 90 members of the Afghan parliament. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul said, however, it found members of parliament were more motivated to support Iran because of local issues, such as the Afghan government's "poor performance on the issue of Afghans deported from Iran." In September 2009, reports continue of Taliban fighters using Iranian-made rocket-propelled grenades to successfully shoot down helicopters belonging to coalition forces. As proof, the report says, "the RPG launcher had markings in Persian Farsi that read//made in Iran//." Some of the plots described in the memos stretch credulity, such as one from February 2007 describing U.S. reports that Iran has supplied the Taliban with poison that can be slipped into the food or tea of government officials.

Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

New York Times By MARK MAZZETTI, JANE PERLEZ, ERIC SCHMITT and ANDREW W. LEHREN Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday. The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders. Taken together, the reports indicate that American soldiers on the ground are inundated with accounts of a network of Pakistani assets and collaborators that runs from the Pakistani tribal belt along the Afghan border, through southern Afghanistan, and all the way to the capital, Kabul. Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan— cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants. Some describe plots for attacks that do not appear to have taken place. But many of the reports rely on sources that the military rated as reliable. While current and former American officials interviewed could not corroborate individual reports, they said that the portrait of the spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence. Some of the reports describe Pakistani intelligence working alongside Al Qaeda to plan attacks. Experts cautioned that although Pakistan’s militant groups and Al Qaeda work together, directly linking the Pakistani spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, with Al Qaeda is difficult. The records also contain firsthand accounts of American anger at Pakistan’s unwillingness to confront insurgents who launched attacks near Pakistani border posts, moved openly by the truckload across the frontier, and retreated to Pakistani territory for safety. The behind-the-scenes frustrations of soldiers on the ground and glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Pakistan as an ally by American officials, looking to sustain a drone campaign over parts of Pakistani territory to strike at Qaeda havens. Administration officials also want to keep nuclear-armed Pakistan on their side to safeguard NATO supplies flowing on routes that cross Pakistan to Afghanistan. This month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in one of the frequent visits by American officials to Islamabad, announced $500 million in assistance and called the United States and Pakistan “partners joined in common cause.” The reports suggest, however, that the Pakistani military has acted as both ally and enemy, as its spy agency runs what American officials have long suspected is a double game — appeasing certain American demands for cooperation while angling to exert influence in Afghanistan through many of the same insurgent networks that the Americans are fighting to eliminate. Behind the scenes, both Bush and Obama administration officials as well as top American commanders have confronted top Pakistani military officers with accusations of ISI complicity in attacks in Afghanistan, and even presented top Pakistani officials with lists of ISI and military operatives believed to be working with militants. Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said that Pakistan had been an important ally in the battle against militant groups, and that Pakistani soldiers and intelligence officials had worked alongside the United States to capture or kill Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Still, he said that the “status quo is not acceptable,” and that the havens for militants in Pakistan “pose an intolerable threat” that Pakistan must do more to address. “The Pakistani government — and Pakistan’s military and intelligence services — must continue their strategic shift against violent extremist groups within their borders,” he said. American military support to Pakistan would continue, he said. Several Congressional officials said that despite repeated requests over the years for information about Pakistani support for militant groups, they usually receive vague and inconclusive briefings from the Pentagon and C.I.A. Nonetheless, senior lawmakers say they have no doubt that Pakistan is aiding insurgent groups. “The burden of proof is on the government of Pakistan and the ISI to show they don’t have ongoing contacts,” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who visited Pakistan this month and said he and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman, confronted Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, yet again over the allegations. Such accusations are usually met with angry denials, particularly by the Pakistani military, which insists that the ISI severed its remaining ties to the groups years ago. An ISI spokesman in Islamabad said Sunday that the agency would have no comment until it saw the documents. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, said, “The documents circulated by WikiLeaks do not reflect the current on-ground realities.” The man the United States has depended on for cooperation in fighting the militants and who holds most power in Pakistan, the head of the army, Gen. Parvez Ashfaq Kayani, ran the ISI from 2004 to 2007, a period from which many of the reports are drawn. American officials have frequently praised General Kayani for what they say are his efforts to purge the military of officers with ties to militants. American officials have described Pakistan’s spy service as a rigidly hierarchical organization that has little tolerance for “rogue” activity. But Pakistani military officials give the spy service’s “S Wing” — which runs external operations against the Afghan government and India — broad autonomy, a buffer that allows top military officials deniability. American officials have rarely uncovered definitive evidence of direct ISI involvement in a major attack. But in July 2008, the C.I.A.’s deputy director, Stephen R. Kappes, confronted Pakistani officials with evidence that the ISI helped plan the deadly suicide bombing of India’s Embassy in Kabul. From the current trove, one report shows that Polish intelligence warned of a complex attack against the Indian Embassy a week before that bombing, though the attackers and their methods differed. The ISI was not named in the report warning of the attack. Another, dated August 2008, identifies a colonel in the ISI plotting with a Taliban official to assassinate President Hamid Karzai. The report says there was no information about how or when this would be carried out. The account could not be verified. General Linked to Militants Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul ran the ISI from 1987 to 1989, a time when Pakistani spies and the C.I.A. joined forces to run guns and money to Afghan militias who were battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After the fighting stopped, he maintained his contacts with the former mujahedeen, who would eventually transform themselves into the Taliban. And more than two decades later, it appears that General Gul is still at work. The documents indicate that he has worked tirelessly to reactivate his old networks, employing familiar allies like Jaluluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose networks of thousands of fighters are responsible for waves of violence in Afghanistan. General Gul is mentioned so many times in the reports, if they are to be believed, that it seems unlikely that Pakistan’s current military and intelligence officials could not know of at least some of his wide-ranging activities. For example, one intelligence report describes him meeting with a group of militants in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, in January 2009. There, he met with three senior Afghan insurgent commanders and three “older” Arab men, presumably representatives of Al Qaeda, who the report suggests were important “because they had a large security contingent with them.” The gathering was designed to hatch a plan to avenge the death of “Zamarai,” the nom de guerre of Osama al-Kini, who had been killed days earlier by a C.I.A. drone attack. Mr. Kini had directed Qaeda operations in Pakistan and had spearheaded some of the group’s most devastating attacks. The plot hatched in Wana that day, according to the report, involved driving a dark blue Mazda truck rigged with explosives from South Waziristan to Afghanistan’s Paktika Province, a route well known to be used by the insurgents to move weapons, suicide bombers and fighters from Pakistan. In a show of strength, the Taliban leaders approved a plan to send 50 Arab and 50 Waziri fighters to Ghazni Province in Afghanistan, the report said. General Gul urged the Taliban commanders to focus their operations inside Afghanistan in exchange for Pakistan turning “a blind eye” to their presence in Pakistan’s tribal areas. It was unclear whether the attack was ever executed. The United States has pushed the United Nations to put General Gul on a list of international terrorists, and top American officials said they believed he was an important link between active-duty Pakistani officers and militant groups. General Gul, who says he is retired and lives on his pension, dismissed the allegations as “absolute nonsense,” speaking by telephone from his home in Rawalpindi, where the Pakistani Army keeps its headquarters. “I have had no hand in it.” He added, “American intelligence is pulling cotton wool over your eyes.” Senior Pakistani officials consistently deny that General Gul still works at the ISI’s behest, though several years ago, after mounting American complaints, Pakistan’s president at the time, Pervez Musharraf, was forced publicly to acknowledge the possibility that former ISI officials were assisting the Afghan insurgency. Despite his denials, General Gul keeps close ties to his former employers. When a reporter visited General Gul this spring for an interview at his home, the former spy master canceled the appointment. According to his son, he had to attend meetings at army headquarters. Suicide Bomber Network The reports also chronicle efforts by ISI officers to run the networks of suicide bombers that emerged as a sudden, terrible force in Afghanistan in 2006. The detailed reports indicate that American officials had a relatively clear understanding of how the suicide networks presumably functioned, even if some of the threats did not materialize. It is impossible to know why the attacks never came off — either they were thwarted, the attackers shifted targets, or the reports were deliberately planted as Taliban disinformation. One report, from Dec. 18, 2006, describes a cyclical process to develop the suicide bombers. First, the suicide attacker is recruited and trained in Pakistan. Then, reconnaissance and operational planning gets under way, including scouting to find a place for “hosting” the suicide bomber near the target before carrying out the attack. The network, it says, receives help from the Afghan police and the Ministry of Interior. In many cases, the reports are complete with names and ages of bombers, as well as license plate numbers, but the Americans gathering the intelligence struggle to accurately portray many other details, introducing sometimes comical renderings of places and Taliban commanders. In one case, a report rated by the American military as credible states that a gray Toyota Corolla had been loaded with explosives between the Afghan border and Landik Hotel, in Pakistan, apparently a mangled reference to Landi Kotal, in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The target of the plot, however, is a real hotel in downtown Kabul, the Ariana. “It is likely that ISI may be involved as supporter of this attack,” reads a comment in the report. Several of the reports describe current and former ISI operatives, including General Gul, visiting madrasas near the city of Peshawar, a gateway to the tribal areas, to recruit new fodder for suicide bombings. One report, labeled a “real threat warning” because of its detail and the reliability of its source, described how commanders of Mr. Hekmatyar’s insurgent group, Hezb-i-Islami, ordered the delivery of a suicide bomber from the Hashimiye madrasa, run by Afghans. The boy was to be used in an attack on American or NATO vehicles in Kabul during the Muslim Festival of Sacrifices that opened Dec. 31, 2006. According to the report, the boy was taken to the Afghan city of Jalalabad to buy a car for the bombing, and was later brought to Kabul. It was unclear whether the attack took place. The documents indicate that these types of activities continued throughout last year. From July to October 2009, nine threat reports detailed movements by suicide bombers from Pakistan into populated areas of Afghanistan, including Kandahar, Kunduz and Kabul. Some of the bombers were sent to disrupt Afghanistan’s presidential elections, held last August. In other instances, American intelligence learned that the Haqqani network sent bombers at the ISI’s behest to strike Indian officials, development workers and engineers in Afghanistan. Other plots were aimed at the Afghan government. Sometimes the intelligence documents twin seemingly credible detail with plots that seem fantastical or utterly implausible assertions. For instance, one report describes an ISI plan to use a remote-controlled bomb disguised as a golden Koran to assassinate Afghan government officials. Another report documents an alleged plot by the ISI and Taliban to ship poisoned alcoholic beverages to Afghanistan to kill American troops. But the reports also charge that the ISI directly helped organize Taliban offensives at key junctures of the war. On June 19, 2006, ISI operatives allegedly met with the Taliban leaders in Quetta, the city in southern Pakistan where American and other Western officials have long believed top Taliban leaders have been given refuge by the Pakistani authorities. At the meeting, according to the report, they pressed the Taliban to mount attacks on Maruf, a district of Kandahar that lies along the Pakistani border. The planned offensive would be carried out primarily by Arabs and Pakistanis, the report said, and a Taliban commander, “Akhtar Mansoor,” warned that the men should be prepared for heavy losses. “The foreigners agreed to this operation and have assembled 20 4x4 trucks to carry the fighters into areas in question,” it said. While the specifics about the foreign fighters and the ISI are difficult to verify, the Taliban did indeed mount an offensive to seize control in Maruf in 2006. Afghan government officials and Taliban fighters have widely acknowledged that the offensive was led by the Taliban commander Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, who was then the Taliban shadow governor of Kandahar. Mullah Mansour tried to claw out a base for himself inside Afghanistan, but just as the report quotes him predicting, the Taliban suffered heavy losses and eventually pulled back. Another report goes on to describe detailed plans for a large-scale assault, timed for September 2007, aimed at the American forward operating base in Managi, in Kunar Province. “It will be a five-pronged attack consisting of 83-millimeter artillery, rockets, foot soldiers, and multiple suicide bombers,” it says. It is not clear that the attack ever came off, but its planning foreshadowed another, seminal attack that came months later, in July 2008. At that time, about 200 Taliban insurgents nearly overran an American base in Wanat, in Nuristan, killing nine American soldiers. For the Americans, it was one of the highest single-day tolls of the war. Tensions With Pakistan The flood of reports of Pakistani complicity in the insurgency has at times led to barely disguised tensions between American and Pakistani officers on the ground. Meetings at border outposts set up to develop common strategies to seal the frontier and disrupt Taliban movements reveal deep distrust among the Americans of their Pakistani counterparts. On Feb. 7, 2007, American officers met with Pakistani troops on a dry riverbed to discuss the borderlands surrounding Afghanistan’s Khost Province. According to notes from the meeting, the Pakistanis portrayed their soldiers as conducting around-the-clock patrols. Asked if he expected a violent spring, a man identified in the report as Lt. Col. Bilal, the Pakistani officer in charge, said no. His troops were in firm control. The Americans were incredulous. Their record noted that there had been a 300 percent increase in militant activity in Khost before the meeting. “This comment alone shows how disconnected this particular group of leadership is from what is going on in reality,” the notes said. The Pakistanis told the Americans to contact them if they spotted insurgent activity along the border. “I doubt this would do any good,” the American author of the report wrote, “because PAKMIL/ISI is likely involved with the border crossings.” “PAKMIL” refers to the Pakistani military. A year earlier, the Americans became so frustrated at the increase in roadside bombs in Afghanistan that they hand-delivered folders with names, locations, aerial photographs and map coordinates to help the Pakistani military hunt down the militants the Americans believed were responsible. Nothing happened, wrote Col. Barry Shapiro, an American military liaison officer with experience in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, after an Oct. 13, 2006, meeting. “Despite the number of reports and information detailing the concerns,” Colonel Shapiro wrote, “we continue to see no change in the cross-border activity and continue to see little to no initiative along the PAK border” by Pakistan troops. The Pakistani Army “will only react when asked to do so by U.S. forces,” he concluded.

State Department planning to field a small army in Iraq

By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — Can diplomats field their own army? The State Department is laying plans to do precisely that in Iraq, in an unprecedented experiment that U.S. officials and some nervous lawmakers say could be risky. In little more than a year, State Department contractors in Iraq could be driving armored vehicles, flying aircraft, operating surveillance systems, even retrieving casualties if there are violent incidents and disposing of unexploded ordnance. Under the terms of a 2008 status of forces agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but they'll leave behind a sizable American civilian presence, including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, and five consulate-like "Enduring Presence Posts" in the Iraqi hinterlands. Iraq remains a battle zone, and the American diplomats and other civilian government employees will need security. The U.S. military will be gone. Iraq's army and police, despite billions of dollars and years of American training, aren't yet capable of doing the job. The State Department, better known for negotiating treaties and delivering diplomatic notes, will have to fend for itself in what remains an active danger zone. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, flew to Washington this week for a conference with the State Department on how to transition Iraq from soldiers to diplomats. He and Ambassador Christopher Hill "have built a joint plan to do this transition," Odierno said. "So we are now going to go through this (plan) and brief them on it and tell what they have to do to support this transition." Odierno said that one of the chief responsibilities of the remaining U.S. troops in Iraq is to help facilitate that transfer. The arrangement is "one more step in the blurring of the lines between military activities and State Department or diplomatic activities," said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington research center. "This is no longer (just) the foreign service officer standing in the canape line, and the military out in the field." "The State Department is trying to become increasingly expeditionary," he said. With public attention riveted on the war in Afghanistan, the coming transition of the U.S. mission in Iraq has gotten relatively little notice by the news media. American troops are pulling out of the country at an accelerating rate to meet President Barack Obama's interim ceiling of 50,000 noncombat troops remaining in Iraq by the end of next month. The stakes, however, could be enormous. The Obama administration has promised Iraqis that the United States won't abandon their country when American troops leave. If it can't keep that promise, U.S. influence in the unstable region could dissipate, despite a seven-year war that's cost more than $700 billion and the lives of at least 4,400 U.S. troops. Already, however, the State Department's requests to the Pentagon for Black Hawk helicopters; 50 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles; fuel trucks; high-tech surveillance systems; and other military gear has encountered flak on Capitol Hill. Contractors are to operate most of the equipment, and past controversies that involved Pentagon and State Department contractors, including the company formerly known as Blackwater, have left some lawmakers leery. "The fact that we're transitioning from one poorly managed contracting effort to another part of the federal government that has not excelled at this function either is not particularly comforting," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "It's one thing" for contractors to be "peeling potatoes" and driving trucks, McCaskill told McClatchy. "It's another thing for them to be deploying MRAPs and Black Hawk helicopters." "I know there's a lot of bad choices here," the senator said, adding that she'd choose using the U.S. military to protect diplomats in Iraq. "That's a resource issue." A report July 12 by the bipartisan legislative Commission on Wartime Contracting said that the number of State Department security contractors would more than double, from 2,700 to between 6,000 and 7,000, under current plans. "Particularly troubling," the report said, "is the fact that the State Department has not persuaded congressional appropriators of the need for significant new resources to perform its mission in Iraq." "We have to make the case to them. We hope that people recognize the importance of follow-through here," a senior administration official said, alluding to the long-term U.S. commitment to Iraq. Walking away from that "would be a terrible mistake," the official said. He spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk for the record. State Department and White House officials, while acknowledging the peculiarity of having a large civilian U.S. government presence in a war zone without American troops on the ground, said that the transition — already under way, in some cases _would go smoothly. Planning began in spring 2009, and the transition is being shepherded by teams in Washington and Baghdad that confer in weekly video teleconferences. "This is a major endeavor, and it is without precedent, I believe," said Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, the department's top management official, who's seen 37 years of management challenges. "We've defined what we have to do. And now we have to define where we're going to do it and how we're going to do it," he said in an interview. The State Department also will have to provide for its own basics, such as food, water and laundry, perhaps through existing Pentagon logistics contract known by the acronym LOGCAP. Kennedy and other officials noted that the department has experience operating aircraft in war zones, through a long-standing, Florida-based aviation wing that's conducted counter-narcotics missions in Colombia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the interview, Kennedy defended the decision to use contractors to operate military assets. The State Department doesn't have enough Diplomatic Security agents to do the job, and it makes little sense to undertake a mammoth hiring effort for a temporary need, he said. "This is the kind of surge activity that it seems very, very logical to use contractors for," he said. Critics say it would be more logical for the military to leave several thousand troops behind to protect government officials and property. However, that would require renegotiating the U.S.-Iraqi status of forces agreement, a sensitive step. There's "no thought of that right now," the senior administration official said.

Britain’s Leader Carves Identity as Budget Slasher

By JOHN F. BURNS New York Times LONDON — In the five years David Cameron spent rebuilding the Conservative Party in opposition, opinion polls showed that as he sought to rebrand it by offering a compassionate but persistently fuzzy image, voters had trouble defining what sort of a prime minister he would make. Not any longer. After 10 weeks in office, Mr. Cameron, who met with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday, has emerged as one of the most activist prime ministers in modern times, rivaling in some respects even Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” who as the Conservative leader in the 1980s attacked unions and government bloat while privatizing national industries and vigorously pursuing free-market policies. With a relentless battery of policy announcements, Mr. Cameron and his coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have proposed to couple the deep deficit cuts the conservatives sketched out during the May general election campaign with a wider effort to break the mold of big government in Britain that, despite Lady Thatcher’s best efforts, has largely prevailed since World War II. In so doing, they have charted an economic course of almost savage austerity, an approach that contrasts starkly with the policies of Mr. Obama, who wrote to Mr. Cameron and other leaders last month warning against premature cuts in government spending that might drive the world into a double-dip recession. Mr. Obama has chosen a different path for the United States, deferring the kind of sharp budget cuts now being rolled out across Europe, and at his meeting with Mr. Cameron the two leaders, in effect, agreed to disagree. In a radio interview with NPR before going to the White House, Mr. Cameron expressed his viewpoint diplomatically. “Every country has to deal with its budget deficit, but the time at which we do it can vary,” he said. And vary significantly, as Mr. Cameron’s government has shown. A budget last month proposed an austerity campaign of extraordinary severity, setting across-the-board cuts over the next five years of 25 percent and more. But that has proved to be only the scene-setter for an ambitious — and politically risky — bid to dismantle Britain’s sprawling bureaucracy. If successful, it will lift what the new leaders say is the state’s heavy hand on public life, restricting its reach into schools and hospitals, slashing welfare benefits and reviewing intrusive law-and-order Labour programs that have alarmed advocates for civil liberties. At 43, Mr. Cameron is Britain’s youngest prime minister in nearly 200 years, and he appears to have surprised even himself. As opposition leader, he developed a reputation for blandness, but all that changed after the May 6 general election, when the Conservatives’ cautious, middle-of-the-road campaign failed to win the outright majority many had thought was theirs for the taking. To achieve a parliamentary majority, Mr. Cameron reached out to the Liberal leader, Nick Clegg, and the two men vaulted ahead of their parties by drawing up a plan for a radical reshaping of the way Britain was governed. Their proposals for slashing spending go beyond anything Britain has experienced in its modern history, even under Lady Thatcher. They sharply reverse course from a Labour government that, for 13 years under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, expanded the state’s power at a pace never seen outside of wartime, turning Britain into one of the most heavily taxed, tightly regulated countries in the developed world, with government accounting for about half the work force and half of the economy. So far, the course charted by Mr. Cameron and his deputy prime minister, Mr. Clegg, remains largely visionary. At best, they face months, and potentially years, of slug-it-out battles with opponents, including skeptics in their own parties, as well as with newly restive labor unions and a recalcitrant bureaucracy. Their austerity drive alone could bring the coalition down, if people like Mr. Obama who fear that budget-slashing could drive economies like Britain’s back into recession prove to be right. The main hallmark of the coalition’s program is a plan to halve the annual budget deficit of $235 billion within five years, and to achieve that by across-the-board cuts in almost all government ministries. All the departments involved have been told to prepare a plan for cuts as high as 40 percent, and some may have to cut much deeper than others to compensate for high-spending ministries like those responsible for the military and for Britain’s $290 billion annual welfare outlays, which are unlikely to make even the 25 percent reductions. The National Health Service, while protected from cuts, has been ordered to shed thousands of jobs. The coalition’s plan is to hand real power — and 70 percent of the health budget — to general practitioners, who, in the coalition plan, would decide for the first time in the health service’s 60-year history what kind of treatment patients would get, and where they would get it. In a bid to lift some of the poorest standards for literacy and educational achievement in Europe, parents are to gain wider powers to establish so-called academies, independent but publicly financed schools in which head teachers and their staff would be freed from the stifling oversight of local councils and the central education authorities. A system of legal aid that is one of the world’s most expensive would be slashed, with deep cuts in lawyer’s fees and cases that could be paid out of the taxpayers’ pockets, including divorces. The BBC, financed by $5.3 billion in license fees paid by everyone in Britain with a television set, faces deep cuts as the coalition considers reducing the $220 annual license. Tens of thousands of government workers are likely to lose their jobs, and those who stay are likely to face a two-year wage freeze and potentially sharp pension cutbacks. In a country with 2.5 million long-term unemployed people, the coalition plans savings of tens of billions of dollars in welfare payments, including radical cuts in the rent the government would pay for subsidized housing. After newspaper accounts telling of immigrant families receiving more than $150,000 a year in taxpayer-paid rent to live in large houses in some of London’s most fashionable districts, the coalition has said that it will place a cap of $600 a week on such payments. A catalog of laws and practices that advocates of civil liberties have deemed intrusive are to be reviewed. These include 28-day detention orders for people suspected of terrorism, a Labour plan for national ID cards, and the wide use by the police and other enforcement agencies of an elaborate network of closed-circuit television cameras. Weakened and divided by its May election defeat and temporarily rudderless as it awaits the election this fall of a new leader to succeed Mr. Brown, Labour has resolved to halt many of the changes by all means possible. In the short term, that points to a new and prolonged season of labor unrest, particularly by public sector unions. Beyond that, Labour has said it will work to ensure that the new coalition is a one-term government, doomed to defeat in a popular backlash in the 2015 general election — and doomed much sooner if strains already showing within the coalition widen to the point of collapse.

Israel: Anti-Rocket System Is Ready for Deployment

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A system that can shoot down approaching rockets has passed its last tests and will be ready for deployment by November outside Sderot, near the Gaza border, Israel’s Defense Ministry said Monday. The “iron dome” system uses sophisticated radar to track, intercept and destroy rockets that are still far from their targets. The iron dome system was developed to protect Israel from rockets fired by Palestinian militants.

Traumatic Brain Injury & the Military

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is all too commonly associated with modern warfare, particularly the War on Terror. Many veterans suffer from these injuries without realizing it, until serious problems develop. Through awareness, we can help our military friends and family members avoid the serious implications of a traumatic brain injury. Military men and women are continually involved in situations where risk of injury is high. One silent war wound that often goes unnoticed is a traumatic brain injury (TBI). A TBI affects the function of the brain and can often cause life-altering damage ranging from personality and behavioral changes to complete loss of brain function and the ability to communicate. Therefore, some of the affects are not just life-altering, but also life threatening, and wind up requiring, long-term, specialized traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. According to the Veterans Health Initiative, active male members of the military were hospitalized due to TBI related injuries at a rate of 231 per 100,000. The rate for female members of the military was 150 per 100,000. Based on these statistics, over 4,000 military personnel are hospitalized on average each year for traumatic brain injuries. Some are diagnosed as a mild TBI (aka concussions), while others result in moderate to severe TBI. As family members and friends of military veterans, understanding the symptoms of a TBI can sometimes aid a victim in recognizing the warning signs that a potential brain injury might exist. Pointing these symptoms out could help them decide to seek immediate treatment giving them the best chance at avoiding serious, long-term implications and enjoying the most comfortable lifestyle possible post active duty. Mild TBI refers to loss of consciousness, confusion and/or disorientation for a duration less than 30 minutes. They are often overlooked at the time of injury but in at least 15% of cases can still have effects that last longer than 1 year. Symptoms associated with a mild TBI are fatigue, headaches, impaired vision, memory loss, inability to focus or pay attention, impaired sleep, dizziness, emotional impairment, depression and seizures. They are not always experienced right away and behavior changes are usually noticed by friends and family members before the victim realizes there is a problem. Therefore, it is important that any soldier suffering a physical blow to the head get examined immediately even though they might feel fine at the time of the injury. Since symptoms are not always apparent immediately after a blow to the head occurs, it is possible that neither the victim, nor the military personnel immediately in contact with him/her at the time of the injury and/or throughout the rest of their active duty assignment would ever recognize a problem. Therefore, it is possible that the spouse or other family members and friends of a veteran returning home from war could be the first possible line of defense able to help prevent a soldier from suffering long term damage stemming from a mild TBI by recognizing the difference between the “normal behavior” of their significant other and the occurrence of the abnormal symptoms listed above. Since a returning war vet often will spend the majority of time with their spouse immediately upon their return, the spouse could wind up being the first to notice the symptoms should the symptoms have been dormant while the soldier was still active, thus making them unrecognizable to fellow military personnel working alongside them at the time. If family members and friends closest to a patient suffering a TBI understand the symptoms and know what to look for, they can recognize potential problems early on and encourage their loved one to seek treatment immediately for a proper diagnosis from a skilled nursing facility. It is important that a soldier returning home doesn’t dismiss any warning signs they notice themselves, or health concerns mentioned to them by others. Early treatment of a mild TBI will allow a patient to have the best chance at a full recovery and give the entire family an opportunity to maintain (or return to) a normal lifestyle as it was prior to the victim suffering the injury. Moderate TBI refers to loss of consciousness, confusion and/or disorientation between a range of 30 minutes and 6 hours with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 9 to 12 (15 being the least severe). Severe TBI refers to a brain injury resulting in loss of consciousness, confusion, and/or disorientation for a duration longer than 6 hours and a GCS of 3-8 (1 being the most severe but 3 being the lowest score achievable while considered non-vegetative). The GCS is a cumulative point system that combines three different scores determined by a patient’s eye, verbal and motor responses. In cases of severe TBI, patients suffer cognitive damage including all of the symptoms of a mild TBI with the additional difficulty with impulsiveness, language processing and executive functions. Severe TBI patients may have difficulty speaking, understanding words, reading or writing and may alter the speed at which they try to communicate. Impairments to their sense of sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste are likely. Seizures can ensue and damage to the individuals’ physical and emotional health can be devastating, including physical paralysis, chronic pain, bowel disorders, malnutrition, menstrual difficulties, anti-social behavior, lack of motivation, aggression, depression and denial. A patient and the friends/family members of a patient suffering from a severe TBI will undoubtedly experience significant changes to their lifestyle throughout the recovery process and especially in the event that the patient cannot recover. The best way to prevent TBI is through awareness. Recognizing and responding to the early symptoms of a TBI can often aid in preventing further damage caused by the injury. So it is vital that serviceman and their families are aware of TBI so that they can recognize the symptoms and help the victim seek medical treatment if symptoms are present. Written by Chelsea Travers Chelsea is a communications representative for CareMeridian, a well-known subacute care facility located throughout the western United States for patients suffering from traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, or medical complexities such as neuromuscular or congenital anomalies.

Transfer of Prison in Iraq Marks Another Milestone

By TIM ARANGO New York Times BAGHDAD — The United States plans on Thursday to transfer to the government of Iraq the last American-run prison, another milestone in the winding down of America’s war here but also dredging up memories of one of its most serious misdeeds. The United States will retain control over about 200 prisoners, including some former members of Saddam Hussein’s government who have already been sentenced to death, and some members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other militants, Gen. Ray Odierno, the top United States military commander in Iraq, told reporters this week. A day before a ceremony to turn over Camp Cropper, a maximum security prison on an American military base near the Baghdad International Airport that houses about 1,700 detainees, an Iraqi government official said Wednesday that several former members of the Hussein government, including Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister under Mr. Hussein who was often the public face in the Western news media of the brutal dictatorship, had already been transferred to Iraqi authority. The United States is in the middle of a long process of reducing its troop levels here, to about 50,000 by the end of next month from about 165,000 at the height of the troop increase in 2007. The transfer of Camp Cropper is another step toward President Obama’s vow to end the war, but one that comes with inevitable reminders of the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, as well as lesser-known allegations of abuse at Camp Cropper in 2003 that were made by the International Committee for the Red Cross. General Odierno reflected on that legacy this week. “Abu Ghraib was a lesson that we weren’t prepared to handle large masses of detainees when we came in to this operation back in 2003,” he said. “We made some real errors in thinking that it would be like Desert Storm and we would just hold prisoners of war for a period of time and we’d release them.” He added: “We didn’t properly anticipate a counterinsurgency which would require us to handle a large number of detainees for a significant amount of time. And frankly we weren’t trained or prepared to do it. And we ended up having significant issues. But we’ve learned from it; we’ve moved on from that.” The Iraqi government has also abused prisoners during the war, and in April news broke that a branch of the security forces that answered directly to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had been running a secret prison, where officials tortured dozens of Sunni Muslims from northern Iraq. General Odierno said the military had been working closely with Iraqis, training them to properly run Camp Cropper. “We have been working for a year on the turnover of Camp Cropper, so this isn’t something that happened overnight,” he said. Mr. Aziz, whose health is failing, was sentenced last year to 15 years in prison for his role in the executions of several Baghdad men for profiteering when the country was under international sanctions in the 1990s. He was acquitted on a more serious charge related to the killings of Shiite protesters. Mr. Aziz’s lawyer, Badea Araf Azzit, said in a telephone interview from Amman, Jordan, that Mr. Aziz feared for his own life now that he was in the hands of the Iraqi government. Mr. Azzit said Mr. Aziz had called him this week and said, “It is necessary to see you, and you should come to visit me in the Iraqi prison. There are important matters I want to tell you. I am sure they are going to kill me.”

Americans joining Al-Shebab terrorists in Somalia

A number of Americans have traveled to Somalia to join up with al Shabab as well as al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. administration official. The official, in a background briefing with reporters on Tuesday evening, said this is something "we have watched very, very closely." Al Shabab has claimed responsibility for the bombings in the Ugandan capital Kampala on Sunday that claimed the lives of 76 people, including one American. The official said U.S. law enforcement is "very vigilant for any indication of individuals from Somalia coming here to the United States to engage in these types of extremist and terrorist activities." The Obama administration has indications to prove al Shabab was responsible for the attacks in Uganda, but the U.S. had no forewarning of these attacks. "Al Shabab was very much on our radar screen… but we didn't have any advance warning about that attack," the official said. New Mexico-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is the most high-profile of U.S. citizens to have joined al Qaeda. He is affiliated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and is believed to be based in Yemen. President Obama earlier this year approved the targeted killing of Mr. al-Awlaki. A number of individuals within al Shabab have close links with al Qaeda and its affiliates — al Qaeda in East Africa (AQEA) and AQAP. "These links between the organizations have existed for quite some time," the senior U.S. official said, adding, "[Al Shabab's] agenda is very similar to al Qaeda's agenda. It advances a distorted and perverted version of Islamic goals." The official said there is a "blending together of these different individuals who are at the top of these organizations" and they are bringing young Somalis and others who are engaged in local conflicts into the al Qaeda orbit. Al Shabab was formed in 2006 and since then has threatened the U.S. as well as carried out a number of violent attacks inside Somalia. But the attack in Uganda is its first outside Somalia. The group has a domestic agenda that is focused on overthrowing the government in Somalia. The U.S. official said al Shabab has a "dual persona" with a domestic agenda inside Somalia as well as a larger terrorist agenda. Al Shabab has been responsible for deadly attacks on a number of Somali peace activists, journalists and the African Union's peacekeeping mission, which has lost about 35 soldiers since 2007. Mr. Obama has offered Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni support and all assistance. The FBI has sent a special team to help at the crime scene. Al Shabab was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department in 2008 and was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council earlier this year.

Deadly Uganda bombings could indicate new roles for al-Qaeda affiliates

By Sudarsan Raghavan Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, July 13, 2010; A01 KAMPALA, UGANDA -- The bombings orchestrated by Somalia's al-Shabab militia that killed at least 74 people watching the World Cup finals on television Sunday night are the latest sign of the growing ambitions of al-Qaeda's regional affiliates outside the traditional theaters of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The attacks, intended to inflict maximum damage on civilian targets, mark the first major international assault by Somali militants in a region where the United States and its allies are attempting to stem the rise of Islamist militancy. At least one American was killed and several were wounded in Sunday's strikes. The United States has provided millions of dollars in military and economic aid, training, equipment, logistical support and intelligence to regional counterterrorism allies such as Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya. Uganda is a training ground for soldiers for Somalia's transitional government, which al-Shabab is seeking to overthrow, in a program backed by the United States and European nations. Troops from Uganda and Burundi make up a U.S.- and Western-backed African Union peacekeeping force in the Somali capital of Mogadishu that protects the fragile government. A top spokesman for al-Shabab, speaking from Mogadishu, said the militia carried out the bombings, and he alluded to the group's aspiration to use Somalia as a launching pad for international attacks. Ali Mohamud Raghe, the spokesman, threatened further attacks if Uganda and Burundi continue to supply troops to the African Union force. A Ugandan military spokesman vowed that his nation's soldiers will not leave Somalia. "It increases our resolve to make sure Somalia is pacified. These criminals cannot have room to expand and grow because they are a threat to regional and international peace," said Felix Kulayige, the spokesman. "If they have hoped this cowardly act will make us leave Somalia, they are totally mistaken." Importing violent tactics Al-Shabab's new boldness comes as foreign fighters trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan are gaining influence inside the movement and importing their violent tactics. Suicide bombers, including foreigners of Somali descent, have in recent months staged several attacks in Mogadishu. The militia also continues to attract Americans to the Somali conflict, including two New Jersey men arrested last month by U.S. authorities and charged with intending to join al-Shabab. The United States has deemed al-Shabab a terrorist organization. Sunday's attacks come seven months after al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen -- al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- showed its global aspirations with its failed Christmas Day attack on a Detroit-bound airliner. Another group with al-Qaeda links, the Pakistani Taliban, helped orchestrate the botched attempt to bomb Times Square in May. Top al-Shabab leader Mukhtar Abdurahman Abu Zubeyr last week accused the African Union forces of committing "massacres" against Somalis. He warned that his forces would take revenge against the people of Uganda and Burundi. Banning soccer The militia, which seeks to create an Islamic emirate and has imposed Taliban-like dictates, has banned soccer in many areas and prohibited broadcasts of the World Cup, describing the sport as "a satanic act" that corrupts Muslims. The explosions in Kampala tore through the Kyadondo Rugby Club and the Ethiopian Village restaurant, where boisterous soccer fans, including clusters of foreigners, had gathered to watch Spain beat the Netherlands in the World Cup final. Among the dead at the rugby club was Nate Henn, 25, of Wilmington, Del., a worker for Invisible Children, a California-based aid group that helps child soldiers, the organization said on its Web site. Emily Kerstetter, 16, of Ellicott City was injured, according to WMAR-TV in Baltimore. She was in Kampala with her grandmother's church group from Pennsylvania. Joanne Lockard, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, said there were no directives for embassy staff members or other U.S. citizens to leave Kampala, which is widely considered one of the safest capitals on the continent. Unlike neighbors Kenya and Tanzania, where al-Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in 1998, Uganda had never been a target of international terrorism. During a visit to the rugby club Monday, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni vowed to pursue those responsible. "If you want to fight, go and look for soldiers. Don't bomb people watching football," he told reporters. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the attacks and offered their condolences. "The United States stands with Uganda," Clinton said. "We have a long-standing, close friendship with the people and government of Uganda and will work with them to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice." At the rugby club, witnesses and police said two explosions killed at least 43 people who had gathered on the rugby field to watch the soccer final on a large-screen television. As people went to help the victims of the first blast, a second, more powerful bomb detonated, witnesses said. "It sounded like a massive tire blowout. There was dust and smoke everywhere," said Simon Peter Lubagasa, 28, who operates a motorcycle taxi and was at the club. "People were on the ground crying. Some had cracks on their heads. I saw one person with his ear blown off." Police said they suspect that a suicide bomber set off the second blast. A police official said investigators found the head of a man who appeared to have Somali features. As of Monday afternoon, cars belonging to the victims were still parked on the field, where organizers had set out rows of white plastic chairs. "I was picking up bodies until 7 a.m.," said Alphonse Motebasi, a police commander whose pants were splattered with blood. At the Ethiopian Village restaurant, crowds of Ugandans gathered Monday, peering over the walls at the carnage inside as police stood guard and investigators combed through debris that looked like the aftermath of a tornado. Onlookers shook their heads at the overturned tables on the restaurant's patio, the shattered glass and shreds of clothing. "How can someone kill innocent Ugandans?" demanded Godfrey Ivimba, 34, the owner of a printing business. Residents said the restaurant was popular with Ethiopians and Eritreans, as well as other foreigners. At Mulago Hospital, Betty Nbagire, 37, lay on a bed, eyes closed, tubes attached to her body, struggling to survive. She was at the rugby club. Her sister Salome sat next to her. She said Uganda's soldiers should pull out of Somalia. "If that was the cause of this attack, our soldiers should come home," she said, her voice almost a whisper. "They should be here to protect us and not to protect those people in Somalia."

Marine Hero's Brother Makes Good On Promise

By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times Reporting from Camp Pendleton — At his brother's funeral nearly six years ago, Ricardo Peralta made him a promise: He would join the Marine Corps and carry on in his example. On Friday, Peralta, now 19, fulfilled that promise as he graduated from the school of infantry. He will now report to a battalion in Twentynine Palms, Calif., and, like his brother, probably deploy to a war zone as an infantry "grunt." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- » Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have big shoes to fill," Peralta, a Marine private first class, said quietly. His brother, Sgt. Rafael Peralta, was killed at age 25 during the battle for Fallouja, Iraq, in November 2004. He is revered by the Marine Corps as one of the true heroes of the long battle in Iraq. His story is told to every recruit at boot camp in San Diego — how he saved the lives of fellow Marines by smothering an enemy grenade with his body. Marine brass, famously stingy in recommending battle citations, nominated him for the Medal of Honor. At Friday's ceremony, Capt. Robert Gill told the 226 graduates and dozens of family members that Rafael Peralta's bravery and sacrifice were the essence of the Marine Corps' motto: Semper fidelis, Latin for "always faithful." Rosa Peralta nodded and her eyes filled with tears as Gill told how her son had taken the lead as his squad sought to clear heavily armed insurgents from a barricaded house. Struck immediately by gunfire, Peralta fell to the floor, Gill said. Five Marines who were there would later testify that when insurgents rolled a grenade into the room, Peralta found the strength to pull the grenade toward his body, absorbing the blast, saving lives. After the graduation ceremony, as Ricardo Peralta received hugs from his mother and teenage sister, he reflected on his promise. His brother had always urged him to enlist in the Marine Corps, but he had rejected the idea. But at Rafael's funeral in San Diego, as Ricardo looked into his brother's casket and touched his hand, he made the promise to become a Marine. "I would never have disrespected him and not enlisted as he wanted me to," Ricardo said. "I just hope that wherever he is now, he is proud of me, like I'm proud of him." The day after the Peralta family was notified of Rafael's death, a letter arrived that the Marine had written to his brother. Rafael, who was born in Mexico City and joined the Marine Corps the day he received his green card, told his brother to appreciate their adopted country. "You should be proud of being an American," he wrote. "Our father came to this country and became a citizen because it was the right place for our family to be. If anything happens to me, just remember I've already lived my life to the fullest." Rafael Peralta posthumously received the Navy Cross, rather than the Medal of Honor, because of conflicting medical analysis about whether he consciously pulled the grenade toward him or whether it was an automatic reflex of somebody already dead. The decision, made by the secretary of Defense, has angered Marines. In her grief, Rosa Peralta has refused to accept the lesser award. After his brother's death, Ricardo Peralta attended the 10-day Devil Pups program at Camp Pendleton. He enlisted just days after graduating from high school -- over his mother's objections. "I'm very proud of being a Marine, but sometimes I don't think I deserve this," he said, pointing to his name tag. "My brother is such a part of Marine history. I'm just hoping that I can live up to him." A Marine sought out Ricardo Peralta to shake his hand. "I knew your brother, you hear what I'm saying," said 1st Sgt. Daniel Santiago, locking a firm gaze at his eyes. "Make things happen." Rafael was a weightlifter and athlete, an extrovert by personality. He had become the head of the family when his father died in a workplace accident. Ricardo is more introverted, smaller and less athletic. When he gets into a difficult situation — like boot camp — he tries to decide what his brother would have done. Since his brother's death, he has become more attached to his Catholic faith and the belief in an afterlife. "I know that someday my brother and I will meet again; our whole family will meet," he said.

PM Netanyahu meets with SECDEF Gates in DC

By Jonathan Ferziger July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu followed up his fence-mending White House visit by meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates to discuss security arrangements that would underlie a Middle East peace treaty. Netanyahu met Gates today at Blair House, the official presidential guesthouse, and said in a television interview that he wants to be sure Israel won’t face missile attacks if it signs a peace agreement with the Palestinians. He later flew to New York to meet United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “We’ll have to have very strong security arrangements so that the areas that we vacate do not turn into Iranian strongholds for firing rockets and sending terrorists against us,” Netanyahu said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “That’s happened before in Lebanon and in Gaza.” Netanyahu told President Barack Obama yesterday he will take “concrete steps” to ease conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while challenging Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to engage in direct peace talks. The Israeli leader conferred with Gates on ways to improve security “in the face of regional threats toward the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace,” the Defense Department said in an e-mailed statement. Gates committed in the 75-minute meeting to help Israel “develop new defenses against emerging threats,” the Pentagon said, without elaborating. The U.S. is already helping Israel improve its defenses against ballistic missile and rocket attacks, the Pentagon said. Obama has requested $205 million from Congress for a defense system known as Iron Dome that is intended to protect Israel from rockets and mortars fired from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Shift in Talks After yesterday’s White House encounter with Netanyahu, Obama said he hoped face-to-face negotiations will soon replace indirect talks being mediated by his Middle East envoy, former Senator George Mitchell. Obama and Netanyahu, speaking to reporters at the White House yesterday, both said they wanted to dispel concerns that the U.S. commitment to Israel has been weakened by disputes over construction in West Bank settlements and east Jerusalem. “Reports about the demise of the special United States- Israel relationship aren’t just premature, they’re flat wrong,” Netanyahu said. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking today during a visit to Vilnius, Lithuania, said direct talks can begin “in about September.” Palestinians Seek ‘Signal’ Abbas said during a visit to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, today that Palestinians are waiting for “a signal from the Israeli government,” which must agree to stop building settlements and show willingness to negotiate on a two-state solution, Zuhair Alshun, the Palestinian ambassador in Ethiopia, said in a telephone interview. U.S. officials say that relations with the Israeli government have grown closer since March, when Israel’s announcement of an east Jerusalem housing plan during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden drew criticism from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “I think we can say with some degree of encouragement that the relationship between the United States and Israel is back on track,” Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman said at a press conference today while visiting Jerusalem. Netanyahu told ABC that Israel is prepared to “take risks” for peace as long as it doesn’t have to face a threat such as the 2007 seizure of the Gaza Strip by Hamas. The Islamic movement rejects Israel’s right to exist and fired about 3,200 rockets and mortars into Israel in 2008, according to the Israeli army. Israel cited the attacks as the reason for its military offensive in Gaza in December 2008, which left more than 1,000 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead. Hamas, classified as a terrorist group by the U.S. and Israel, continued to fire rockets after the operation. The number of projectiles fired from Gaza totaled 708 last year and about 160 so far this year, the army said June 8.

Hyping Hypersonic Missiles: Do We Need All That Speed?

By Mark Thompson / Washington Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 Time Is it a good thing for the U.S. military to be able to hit any target anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes? That used to be a sci-fi question, but it's becoming reality as the Air Force develops a new class of long-range hypersonic missiles. Back when the U.S. was pitted against the Soviet Union in a half-century-long quest to prove what was better — capitalism or communism? — pushing the technological envelope was vital for bragging rights and military superiority, as well as to buff up each side's political system. The atom bomb: U.S. 1, U.S.S.R. 0. Then came Sputnik, and the score was tied at 1 apiece. Then Apollo and putting a man on the moon — game, set, match. On June 30, Air Force boosters gathered to discuss the impact of adding to the Pentagon's arsenal hypersonic missiles, which can reach at least Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound. The topic has grown serious since the May 26 test flight of the X-51A Waverider aircraft over the Pacific, following a six-year, $250 million effort to develop a missile capable of flying 600 miles in 10 minutes. Such a missile could be developed in a decade with adequate funding, backers say. May's flight was a giant leap toward that goal. "This test opens the door for hypersonic weapons capable of prompt global strike," said Brigadier General William J. Thornton, a key Air Force weapons tester. (See pictures of life in Colorado's NORAD bunker.) Carried under the wing of a B-52, the 14-ft., tungsten-nosed X-51A looks like a flying Dustbuster, designed to let it ride the shock wave its speed generates. In its first-ever flight, a scramjet engine — cooled ingeniously by its own fuel — pushed it to about 3,000 m.p.h. for three minutes before falling into the ocean. (The longest previous flight of such technology had lasted only 12 seconds.) Keeping an engine operating at such speeds has been likened to keeping a match burning in a hurricane. "We equate this leap in engine technology as equivalent to the post–World War II jump from propeller-driven aircraft to jet engines," Air Force program manager Charlie Brink said after the brief — but historic — flight of the Boeing-Rocketdyne vehicle. But the notion of a missile capable of traveling a mile a second raises a question: Just because something can be done, should it be done? The U.S. military's challenge has never been hitting a target so much as it has been hitting the right target. Recall its inability to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. Back then, it was using relatively slow-moving cruise missiles. "It is worth noting that the 80-minute fly-out time of the conventional cruise missiles used in the attack would have been cut to just over 12 minutes if a Mach-6 hypersonic-missile system had been available," Air Force scholar Richard Hallion noted in a paper presented at the recent hypersonic confab in Arlington, Va. (See pictures of the U.S. military in the Pacific.) But time isn't usually the problem. There was that bombing that missed Saddam Hussein in the opening salvo of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although it destroyed the house where U.S. intelligence said he was hiding. Then there was the cruise-missile strike against a Sudanese drug factory in 1998 because the U.S. thought it was making nerve agent, a claim never proven and disputed worldwide. In 1999, a B-2 bomber mistakenly hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war because of an out-of-date map. The missed opportunity to kill bin Laden is a constant theme when hypersonic weapons are discussed. The U.S. military loves new and improved technology and is always looking for shortfalls that could have been bridged if only the nation had invested in better weapons. When the Soviet Union collapsed, for example, many experts felt President Reagan's Star Wars missile shield would die too. But it limped along for several years, until the North Koreans saved it in 1998 by launching a three-stage missile. (See the 10 most expensive military planes.) While the flight didn't achieve its purported goal of putting a satellite into orbit, it did succeed in pumping additional billions of U.S. dollars into the nation's $100 billion investment in missile defense. Likewise, the failure of a fleet of eight U.S. military helicopters to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran in 1980 led to the $50 billion V-22 program. The military was profoundly embarrassed by the Iran-hostage snafu, in which three short-range helicopters broke down, and wanted to make sure it would never happen again. So far it has succeeded in that effort. But that's not because the Pentagon now has a fleet of V-22s capable of long-range missions; it's because such missions are extraordinarily rare, and there hasn't been a similar one since. Hallion's report concluded by a warning that the Pentagon's current arsenal is "not sufficiently timely to meet the growing challenges of 21st century rogue states and irresponsible actors who have access to advanced weaponry and a willingness to use it against America and its friends." But, unlike many weapons boosters, he added a key admonition about how things might have turned out that day when the U.S. tried to kill bin Laden with a barrage of those slow-moving — 550 m.p.h. — cruise missiles. "It must be emphasized that one cannot say with certainty," he noted, "that a hypersonic-missile attack would have had any greater luck." Given our inability to find bin Laden in the 12 years since, it's a caveat worth remembering before the nation spends billions on another quicksilver bullet. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2001638,00.html#ixzz0suY3EAWS

Risk-tolerant China investing heavily in Iraq as U.S. companies hold back

By Leila Fadel and Ernesto Londoño Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, July 2, 2010; A10 AL-AHDAB OIL FIELD, IRAQ -- China didn't take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the bloody military battles that followed. It hasn't invested in reconstruction projects or efforts by the West to fortify the struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East. But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the "coalition of the willing" are poised to cash in. These countries are expanding their foothold beyond Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- to areas such as construction, government services and even tourism, while American companies show little interest in investing here. "The U.S. really doesn't know what to do in Iraq," said Fawzi Hariri, Iraq's industry minister. "I have been personally, as the minister of industry, trying to woo U.S. companies into Iraq. There is nothing yet. Nothing tangible." In the past two years, Chinese companies have walked away with stakes in three of the 11 contracts the Iraqi Oil Ministry has signed in its bid to increase crude output by about 450 percent over the next seven years. They also renegotiated a $3 billion deal that dates to when Saddam Hussein was in power. Only two American firms won stakes in oil deals, an underwhelming showing that industry analysts and U.S. officials say reflects deep concerns about doing business in a country besieged by insecurity, corruption and political turmoil. "They made a mistake and overestimated the risk," said Ruba Husari, an oil analyst in Baghdad who runs the Iraq Oil Forum, a trade Web site. "I think they did not realize on the spot that it was the biggest window of opportunity, and they missed out." In an effort to meet the rising energy demands of its fast-growing economy, China has invested aggressively in oil-rich nations. Chinese companies have made notable inroads in the Middle East and Africa, in part because of a higher tolerance for risk and a savvy diplomatic corps that has laid the groundwork for advantageous deals. Iraqi officials say they are heartened by their expanding ties with China but are still pursuing investment from other nations. "They have gained a number of plum contracts for energy," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said of the Chinese. "Wherever there is an oil well in the world, you'll see a Chinese flag next to it." Working 'as partners' At al-Ahdab oil field in Wasit province, roughly 100 miles south of Baghdad, about 200 Chinese laborers have begun work under a contract renegotiated in 2008 by a Chinese state-owned consortium, Al Waha Oil Co. Workers in red jumpsuits operate imported oil rigs alongside their Iraqi counterparts. Their workplaces are heavily protected by barricades and guards. "People know they didn't participate in the invasion or the sanctions, and they have an old participation in Iraq that predates Saddam Hussein," said Ahmed Abdul-Redha al-Zanki, the senior engineer for Iraq's North Oil Co., which is working with the Chinese to develop the field. "They work with us as partners," in stark contrast to the condescending practices of Western companies, he said. The French and Chinese have also made forays into the cement industry. The Chinese have started building a billion-dollar power plant in the south. The Chinese and the United Arab Emirates are in advanced talks to build residential complexes. The French automaker Renault and Germany's Mercedes-Benz are in advanced talks to make trucks for industrial transport, according to Iraqi officials. The South Koreans signed a memorandum of understanding to build a multimillion-dollar steel mill in the south and a power plant, and the Turks have scored a series of construction and government services contracts. Except for a $3 billion General Electric contract to provide power-generating equipment and a Boeing deal, Iraqi and U.S. officials are hard pressed to point to any significant U.S. investment in Iraq. Outside of the two oil service contracts that American companies were awarded and U.S. government contracts, the United States "consistently ranks in the bottom" among investors, according to a 2009 study by Dunia Frontier Consultants, which tracks private investment in Iraq. The United Arab Emirates is Iraq's top private investor, with plans to invest $70 billion across the country, followed by South Korea, a 2010 study by the same firm said. Turkey and Iran also are major trade partners with Iraq. "We're coming off a financial crisis," a senior U.S. diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of embassy rules. "You have to look at your bottom line. It's not the best time to be suddenly in the market as a new place to invest." Worth the risk? U.S. companies will probably continue to shy away, particularly after the State Department's latest Iraq investment climate assessment, issued in March. "Potential investors should prepare themselves for significant security costs; cumbersome and confusing procedures for business visas or new business registrations; long payment delays on some Iraqi government contracts; and sometimes unreliable, non-transparent dispute resolution mechanisms," the assessment said. "Allegations of corruption are still endemic, and the legacy of central planning and inefficient state-owned enterprises continue to inhibit economic development." But several countries have come to see Iraq as an incredibly promising market despite the risks. The French government, which also did not participate in the war, recently set up a center in Baghdad to support French companies seeking to test the waters. "This is a rich country," French Ambassador Boris Boillon said. "In this world of recession, in this period of global crisis, we need to get growth and expansion wherever you can find it." Last fall, the French government helped arrange for 100 French businessmen to attend a five-day trade fair in Baghdad. Most other European and American delegations decided at the last minute that attending would be too risky. The French chartered five buses and ferried the businessmen daily to the fairgrounds. "I think Americans are fed up," Boillon said. "There is Iraq fatigue in the U.S. When you tell an American: 'You can go to Iraq and make business, because there are opportunities,' the guy thinks twice and says, 'Oh, Iraq -- that bloody country.' "

New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered

By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI ASPEN, Colo. — Michael E. Leiter, one of the country’s top counterterrorism officials, said Wednesday that American intelligence officials now estimated that there were somewhat “more than 300” Qaeda leaders and fighters hiding in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a rare public assessment of the strength of the terrorist group that is the central target of President Obama’s war strategy. Taken together with the recent estimate by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, that there are about 50 to 100 Qaeda operatives now in Afghanistan, American intelligence agencies believe that there are most likely fewer than 500 members of the group in a region where the United States has poured nearly 100,000 troops. Many American officials warn about such comparisons, saying that Al Qaeda has forged close ties with a number of affiliated militant groups and that a large American troop presence is necessary to helping the Afghan government prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a safe haven in Afghanistan similar to what it had before the Sept. 11 attacks. On Monday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that on a recent trip to the region he was struck by the “depth of synergies” between Al Qaeda and a number of other insurgent groups, including the Pakistani and the Afghan Taliban. Mr. Leiter, who is the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, concurred with Admiral Mullen’s judgment. But with the fighting in Afghanistan intensifying and few indications that the Taliban are weakening, the recent estimates of Al Qaeda’s strength could give ammunition to critics of President Obama’s strategy who think the United States should pull most of its troops from the country and instead rely on small teams of Special Operations forces and missile strikes from C.I.A. drones. Both Mr. Leiter and Admiral Mullen were speaking at the same homeland security conference at the Aspen Institute, sponsored in part by The New York Times. Mr. Panetta’s public remarks came last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” Mr. Leiter told the audience on Wednesday that “we’ve had some incredible successes” against Al Qaeda’s leadership. Echoing Mr. Panetta’s assessment, he said the group “is weaker today than it has been at any time since 2001.” But he quickly added, “Weaker does not mean harmless.” Administration officials talk increasingly about the dangers posed by militant groups affiliated with Al Qaeda, saying they have both the intent and the capabilities to attack the United States. The man accused of trying to detonate a vehicle in Times Square in May received training from the Pakistani Taliban, a group once thought to be interested only in attacking inside Pakistan. On Dec. 25, a young Nigerian man tried to blow up a transatlantic jetliner on its way to Detroit after being trained by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemen-based terror group, officials say. Mr. Leiter’s organization was one of those criticized for failing to thwart the Dec. 25 attack by placing the man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on a no-fly list. Mr. Leiter said that “the threshold has been lowered” for placing individuals with suspected links to terror groups on that list, though he would not describe the new criteria. He said that Mr. Abdulmutallab was on a list of suspects “available to 10,000 people” inside the United States government, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and others.