THE AIR FORCE PUNDIT

Iraqi PM Al Maliki vows to form inclusive government

2010-11-26T21:19:00.001-05:00

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:21 GMT As Iraq’s government formation is on track, the different political parties stressed the necessity to have an inclusive government that engages all parties. After officially appointing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to form the new government, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani affirmed that the new government will be a partnership government that represents all parties in the country. President Talabani cautioned however of the present time sensitivity in Iraq. Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki vowed to form an inclusive government that would be charged of ascertaining security in the country and providing services to the people. Al Maliki called on political parties to name upright candidates.

UK-based Taliban spend months fighting Nato forces in Afghanistan

2010-11-25T13:42:00.001-05:00

Taliban fighter reveals he lives for most of year in London and heads to Afghanistan for combat British-based men of Afghan origin are spending months at a time in Afghanistan fighting Nato forces before returning to the UK, the Guardian has learned. They also send money to the Taliban. A Taliban fighter in Dhani-Ghorri in northern Afghanistan last month told the Guardian he lived most of the time in east London, but came to Afghanistan for three months of the year for combat. "I work as a minicab driver," said the man, who has the rank of a mid-level Taliban commander. "I make good money there [in the UK], you know. But these people are my friends and my family and it's my duty to come to fight the jihad with them." "There are many people like me in London," he added. "We collect money for the jihad all year and come and fight if we can." His older brother, a senior cleric or mawlawi who also fought in Dhani-Ghorri, lives in London as well. Intelligence officials have long suspected that British Muslims travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan each year to train with extremist groups. Last year it was reported that RAF spy planes operating in Helmand in southern Afghanistan had detected strong Yorkshire and Birmingham accents on fighters using radios and telephones. They apparently spoke the main Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, but lapsed into English when they were lost for the right words. The threat was deemed sufficiently serious that spy planes have patrolled British skies in the hope of picking up the same voice signatures of the fighters after their return to the UK. The dead body of an insurgent who had an Aston Villa tattoo has also been discovered in southern Afghanistan. British military officials say there have been no recent reports of British Taliban in Helmand in southern Afghanistan and that the overwhelming majority of foreign fighters are Pakistanis. Not since John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was captured in late 2001, has the US admitted to having successfully captured an insurgent from a western country. In the main US-run prison near Bagram airfield, there are just 50 "third country nationals" being held, a spokeswoman said. "Most of these are Pakistani, with small numbers from other countries in the region," she said. According to a senior officer at the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's equivalent of MI5, foreign fighters tend to be Arabs, Chechens, Pakistanis or from central Asia's former Soviet republics such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Colonel Allan West heads to Washington

2010-11-24T10:33:00.000-05:00

Allen West, one of two black Republicans just elected to House, goes against grain By Krissah Thompson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 24, 2010; 12:42 AM Allen West, a 22-year Army veteran, is preparing for Washington a bit like he would for a battlefield. His "high and tight" hairstyle will be one of the only buzz cuts in Congress. He plans to carry a camouflage bag, not a briefcase. And on a recent morning, while others in the Republican Party's large incoming freshman class jockeyed for office space, he declared himself largely indifferent. "I've lived in tents," said West, who in January will become the first black Republican to represent Florida since 1876. Since its last black lawmaker retired from the House in 2003, the GOP has been eager to elect high-profile African Americans. The party's desire to demonstrate inclusiveness has been especially pressing since the election of Barack Obama and the rise of the predominantly white tea party movement. West is one of two black Republicans elected to the House this year. The other, Tim Scott, a longtime politician in South Carolina, was quickly drafted into the GOP leadership as a representative of the freshman class. West brings to the party a strong personality and, with repeat appearances on Fox News and a spot this past Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," a profile that many incoming members of Congress would covet. But he's also an unpredictable force, inclined to be an outsider - even within the GOP. In an interview, he said he doesn't admire anyone in Washington. On the campaign trail, West found support among anti-establishment groups, including the tea party and motorcycle clubs. He briefly hired as his chief of staff Joyce Kaufman, a local conservative talk radio commentator. She resigned amid controversy over inflammatory comments she made, including disparaging illegal immigrants and referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as "garbage." West responded by saying he is "even more focused that this liberal, progressive, socialist agenda, this left-wing, vile, vicious, despicable machine that's out there is soundly brought to its knees." 'Truth in boldness' West, 49, sees himself stepping to the front lines of an ideological war in which he is fighting liberals who want "a country that creates victims where we enslave the American spirit," he said. Cris Kurtz, the leader of USA Patriots, a tea-party-affiliated group in Tulsa, likened West's influence in the movement to that of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who has sometimes bucked his party's leadership. Kurtz described West as "awesome" after hearing him speak at a Kansas rally to support U.S. troops imprisoned for killing Iraqis in violation of U.S. policy. "He speaks truth in boldness,"Kurtz said. West was charged by military authorities and forced to retire after firing a handgun near the head of an Iraqi police officer during an interrogation in 2003. The officer was suspected of having information about attacks on U.S. forces in the area. West admitted wrongdoing and paid a fine. His case became a cause celebre for conservative media personalities, and 95 members of Congress signed a letter to the Army secretary in support of him. "I've been there," West said in a video recorded after the Kansas rally. "We've got to get away from political correctness on the battlefield. Stop believing we can treat the enemy in such a kind and benevolent way." Timothy Johnson, a leader of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, which brings together black Republicans, said West is independent thinker. "You don't become a black Republican or get into going against the grain without being real strong about who you think you are and what you believe," said Johnson, an associate of West's and a vice chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party. "Despite the perceptions, the black community is not monolithic looking, thinking or voting. Allen is working on making sure people know that." 'Fight for America' West ran for the same House seat two years ago. He received little attention from the Republican establishment and had trouble raising money. This year, national Republicans invested heavily in promoting a diverse slate of candidates for House races. Michael S. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has noted in speeches that the party recruited 32 African Americans for public office, more than ever. Most lost in primaries. West was named one of the National Republican Congressional Committee's Young Guns, a designation given to newcomers whom the committee considers viable. His campaign raised $5.3 million, and he was among a handful of conservative military veterans who were endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. West won comfortably in a district that is 83 percent white. Race played little role in his campaign against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein, who worked to convince voters in the South Florida district - including Broward and Palm Beach counties - that West was too extreme. Voters in the district lean Republican and have traditionally been represented by moderates, said Kevin Wagner, a political science professor at Florida Atlantic University. "This was one of the few years where a candidate who has said some of the things that West said could have been successful in this district," Wagner said. Even before Palin's endorsement, West became a tea party phenomenon because of an impromptu speech he gave at a 2009 Tea Party Express rally in Fort Lauderdale. A video of the speech, in which he invokes the Revolutionary War, has been viewed more than 2.3 million times on YouTube. It is vintage West. The crowd of a few hundred had been bored by a series of dry speeches, West recalled, and the organizer asked him to say a few words. With three minutes to compose his thoughts, West took the microphone and shouted: "You better get your butts out there and understand it's a fight, and you better fight for America. "You need to leave here understanding one simple word and that word is 'bayonet.' You need to leave here and charge this enemy for your freedom." A 'role model,' 'example' West was raised in inner-city Atlanta. His father was a World War II veteran who worked at the local veterans hospital. His mother held a job at the Marine barracks. "No question I was going into the military," he said. He joined the Army at age 21, straight out of college, where he studied political science and later military strategy. West's family home was not far from Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. preached, and he remembers walking along Auburn Avenue with his folks and marveling at the "black entrepreneurial spirit." His parents voted for Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and civil rights hero, but they also taught him conservative values, West said. "One of the implied responsibilities that I do have as a black member up here is to be a role model and an example," West said. Scott, the other African American Republican joining Congress, has said he will not join the Congressional Black Caucus because he's not interested in groups that separate people by race. J.C. Watts (Okla.), the last black Republican to serve in Congress, took the same stance. West told Fox News commentator Juan Williams recently that his late parents would be "absolutely appalled" if he won a seat in Congress but refused to join the black caucus. The group said it would welcome both Republicans, though at least two members of the caucus campaigned against West. West seems unconcerned about any tension that might arise from his presence in the caucus. "You want to talk about bipartisanship?" he said. "Well, I'll bring it to the CBC."

Korean Clash Forces the U.S. to Weigh Options

2010-11-23T22:36:00.000-05:00

DAVID E. SANGER and MARK McDONALD WASHINGTON — President Obama’s top national security aides met Tuesday to develop a response to North Korea’s deadly shelling of a South Korean military installation as the United States struggled for the second time this year to keep a North Korean provocation from escalating into war. Mr. Obama, who attended the end of the emergency session after a trip to a Chrysler plant, called South Korea’s president, Lee Myung-bak, to express American solidarity and talk about a coordinated response. That response is likely to start with pressing China, which has sought to maintain its influence with the North during what could be a struggle over leadership succession. But as a former national security official who dealt frequently with North Korea in the Bush administration, Victor Cha, said just a few hours before the attack began, North Korea is “the land of lousy options.” Mr. Obama is once again forced to choose between equally unpalatable choices: responding with verbal condemnations and a modest tightening of sanctions, which has done little to halt new attacks, and reacting strongly, which could risk a broad war in which South Korea’s vibrant capital, Seoul, would be the first target. As top American officials gathered in the Situation Room late Tuesday, the South Korean military went into what it termed “crisis status.” President Lee said he would order strikes on a North Korean base if there were indications of new attacks. North Korea’s artillery shells fell on Yeonpyeong Island, a fishing village whose residents fled by ferry to the mainland city of Inchon — where Gen. Douglas MacArthur landed 60 years ago this fall, three months after the outbreak of the Korean War. Today, Inchon is the site of South Korea’s main international airport, symbolizing the vulnerability of one of the world’s most vibrant economies to the artillery of one of the world’s most isolated and poorest nations. A senior American official said that an early American assessment indicated that a total of about 175 artillery shells were fired by the North and by the South in response on Tuesday. But an American official who had looked at satellite images said there was no visible evidence of preparations for a general war. Historically, the North’s attacks have been lightning raids, after which the North Koreans have backed off to watch the world’s reaction. This one came just hours after the South Koreans had completed a long-planned set of military exercises, suggesting that the North Korean attack was “premeditated,” a senior American official said. Television reports showed large plumes of black smoke spiraling from the island, as dozens of houses caught fire. The shelling killed two Marines and wounded 18 people. The South put its fighter planes on alert — but, tellingly, did not put them in the air or strike at the North’s artillery bases. President Obama was awakened at 3:55 a.m. by his new national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, who told him of the attack. Just 11 days before, North Korea had invited a Stanford University nuclear scientist to Yongbyon, its primary nuclear site, and showed him what was described as a just completed centrifuge plant that, if it goes fully operational, should enable North Korea to enrich uranium into nuclear fuel and add to its arsenal of 8 to 12 nuclear weapons. Taken together, the nuclear demonstration and the attack were widely interpreted as an effort to bolster the credentials of Kim Jong-un, the heir apparent as the country’s leader, and the son and grandson of the only two men who have run the country. When his father, Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s ailing leader, was establishing his credentials, the North conducted a similar series of attacks. “They have a 60-year history of military provocations — it’s in their DNA,” said a senior administration official. “What we are trying to do is break the cycle,” a cycle, he said, that has North Korea’s bad behavior rewarded with “talks, inducements and rewards.” He said that the shelling would delay any effort to resume the six-nation talks about the North’s nuclear program. While Mr. Obama was elected on a promise of diplomatic engagement, his strategy toward the North for the past two years, called “strategic patience,” has been to demonstrate that Washington would not engage until the North ceased provocations and demonstrated that it was living up to past commitments to dismantle, and ultimately give up, its nuclear capacity. The provocations have now increased markedly, and it is not clear what new options are available. Beijing’s first reaction on Tuesday was to call for a resumption of the six-nation talks involving North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and the United States. The last meeting was two years ago, at the end of the Bush administration. Mr. Obama’s aides made it clear in interviews that the United States had no intention of returning to those talks soon. But its leverage is limited. When North Korea set off a nuclear test last year just months after Mr. Obama took office, the United States won passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution that imposed far harsher sanctions. The sanctions gave countries the right, and responsibility, to board North Korean ships and planes that landed at ports around the world and to inspect them for weapons. The effort seemed partly successful — but the equipment in the centrifuge plant is so new that it is clear that the trade restrictions did not stop the North from building what Siegfried S. Hecker, the visiting scientist, called an “ultramodern” nuclear complex.

Al-Qaeda's 'sword of justice' and the coming war of attrition with the West

2010-11-12T11:14:00.000-05:00

By Praveen Swami World Last updated: November 12th, 2010 22 Comments Comment on this article His name could be Muhammad Ibrahim Makkawi or Ibrahim al-Madani and some people used to call him Omar al-Somali. The Federal Bureau of Investigations, which wants him for murder and conspiracy to kill, says he’s dark-eyed, olive-skinned and was born in 1960. Or perhaps it was 1963. Bar his vainglorious pseudonym Saif al-Adel – which means ‘the sword of justice’ – there is little public-domain knowledge about the man Osama bin-Laden has picked as al-Qaeda’s new chief for operations targeting the West. We know this much, though: he’s among the most skilled and dangerous operatives al-Qaeda has ever had. Al-Adel wants to conduct a prolonged war of attrition against the West, built around low-cost, low-risk operations, like the bombs planted on cargo flights out of Yemen. He hopes this will push Western governments to retreat from Afghanistan, and to back away from brewing conflicts in north Africa, the middle-east and central Asia. If the plan works, it will open the way for al-Qaeda to wield power in an Islamist-run state, like Afghanistan was before 9/11 . Al-Adel opposed those attacks on the reasonable grounds that it would provoke US retaliation, strip al-Qaeda of a safe base, and thus inflict long-term damage on the jihadist movement. Parts of al-Adel’s thinking can be pieced together from a memoir he wrote in 2005. In 1987, the memoir records, al-Adel was a colonel in Egypt’s special forces. He was arrested that year on charges of aiding the Egyptian terror group al-Jihad. Prosecutors said he had planned to drive a bomb-laden truck into Egypt’s parliament, and to crash an aircraft into the building – tactics that al-Qaeda would later use to effect. But al-Adel was less than impressed by his al-Jihad brothers-in-arms, holding them guilty of “over-enthusiasm that resulted in hasty action.” For reasons that remain unclear, al-Adel was let out of prison and travelled to Peshawar in Pakistan. In 1991-1992, he trained al-Qaeda jihadists at camp near Khost, in Afghanistan. Later, he travelled to Khartoum, providing explosives training at bin-Laden’s Damazine Farm base. Mohammed Odeh, a jihadist jailed in the US, recalls al-Adel telling him that as the fighting in Afghanistan was winding down, it was time to “move the jihad to other parts of the world.” For the next several years, al-Adel hopped between al-Qaeda training facilities in Asia and Africa. He negotiated an alliance with jihadists in Iraq, and plotted to assassinate Australian mining magnate and orthodox Rabbi Joseph ‘Diamond Joe’ Gutnick Like other top al-Qaeda operatives, al-Adel was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks. In July, 2001, however, al-Qaeda leaders were told the operation did not have the support of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader. The US’s official investigation of the 9/11 strikes, records Mullah Omar’s dissent was endorsed by al-Adel and his associates Mahfouz al-Walid and Mustafa Uthman. Following the US invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001, al-Adel left for Iran. US intelligence believes he masterminded several attacks on US targets while based there. In response to US pressure, Iran later detained al-Qaeda leaders operating from its soil. Al-Adel lived under house arrest near Tehran with his wife and children until April, when he was released in return for a kidnapped Iranian diplomat. There are two big reasons why the world needs to be paying special attention to al-Adel’s new project. First, as the Australian counter-terrorism analyst Leah Farrall has been pointing out, the top al-Qaeda leadership holed out in the war-torn Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands is still key to the global jihadist project. US intelligence officials had been claiming to have degraded al-Qaeda to the point of no-return, but that’s starting to sound suspiciously like a declaration of victory intended to hide a precipitate retreat. “Like a snake backed into a corner,” the terrorism expert Peter Bergen pointed in a review of al-Qaeda’s capabilities, “a weakened al-Qaeda isn’t necessarily less dangerous.” That means the West needs to prepare itself to deal with the war of attrition al-Adel is planning – which, like all wars of attrition, will be messy and unpopular. Second, a resurgent al-Qaeda could tip the balance of power in an ongoing struggle between a battered Taliban leadership open to talking peace and a new generation of radicals. In November, 2009, Mullah Omar, issued a statement assuring “all countries that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as a responsible force, will not extend its hand to cause jeopardy to others.” That statement is the foundation of hopes for a dialogue that could lead to peace. But Afghanistan analyst Anand Gopal recently noted that a new generation of Taleban commanders were increasingly bucking their leadership, and raised the prospect that the organisation’s top leadership in Pakistan may not be able “to enforce decisions on its rank-and-file.” Even an the end of war with the Taliban, this suggests, might not mean the beginning of peace. In a 1939 essay, Abul Ala Mawdudi, the ideological patriarch of the global jihadist movement, argued that the pursuit of power, rather than what he called a “hotchpotch of beliefs, prayers and rituals”, constituted the essence of Islam. The religion, he wrote in Jihad Fi’Sabilillah [Jihad in the Way of God], was in fact “a revolutionary ideology which seeks to alter the social order of the entire world.” This made it imperative, in Mawdudi’s view, for Islamists to “seize the authority of state”. Al-Adel is working to that end. The world must decide on the price it’s willing to pay to stop him.

Osama bin Laden appoints new commander to spearhead war on West

2010-11-11T08:37:00.001-05:00

Osama bin Laden has appointed a new commander to spearhead al-Qaeda's offensive of operations against the West. By Praveen Swami, Diplomatic Editor Known to western intelligence services by the alias Saif al-Adel, or "Sword of the Just", al-Qaeda's new chief of international operations is believed to have conceived of the wave of strikes that set off terror alerts across Europe recently, as well as last week's mid-air parcel-bomb plot. US and Pakistani sources have told The Daily Telegraph that al-Adel is running several similar operations as part of a war of attrition intended to persuade Western public opinion that the war against terror is unwinnable. This would clear the road for al-Qaeda to capture power in fragile states such as Somalia and Yemen. "His strategy", said Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani expert on al-Qaeda, "is to stage multiple small terror operations, using the resources of affiliates and allies wherever possible." Related Articles Inside Yemen's al-Qaeda heartland 06 Nov 2010 Yemen terrorist charged 02 Nov 2010 Security raised around Bruni 08 Nov 2010 Cargo plane plot: Yemen and al-Qaeda in focus10 Nov 2010 Al-Qaeda 'plotted to take hostages in Mumbai-style attacks on Britain?10 Nov 2010 Osama bin Laden issues warning to France over Afghanistan war10 Nov 2010 A US counter-terrorism official said the idea was for "small-but-often attacks" that would hurt the West more than a "one-off terror spectacular". In 2005, al-Adel authored an al-Qaeda planning document that holds clues to his thinking. The document said that Islamist movements failed because their "actions were mostly random". It called for al-Qaeda to focus on "the greater objective, which is the establishment of a state". The new attrition strategy marks the triumph of a minority faction within al-Qaeda who had opposed the 9/11 attacks, arguing that the inevitable US retaliation against Afghanistan would cost the jihadist movement its only secure base. In 2002, jihadist internet forums carried a letter purported to have been written by al-Adel, criticising bin Laden's leadership. Little was heard of al-Adel, who was held by Iran with a group of al-Qaeda fugitives, for several years thereafter. The fugitives were housed in villas along Iran's Caspian coast and in Lazivan, north-west of Tehran. Al-Adel lived there with his five children and wife Wafa, who is the daughter of Mustafa Hamid, another top al-Qaeda figure. But in April this year, he was released from Iranian custody along with Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's son, and top al-Qaeda operatives Suleiman al-Gaith and Mahfouz al-Walid. Iran swapped the terrorists for Heshmatollah Attarzadeh, a Pakistan-based diplomat kidnapped by al-Qaeda last year. Little is known about the shadowy al-Adel, who is also known by the names Muhammad al-Makkawi and Ibrahim al-Madani. Born in Egypt, al-Adel is said to have served as a colonel in its Special Forces. He was, however, arrested in 1987 along with several jihadists. Egyptian prosecutors claimed that al-Adel's plans included crashing an aircraft into the Egypt's parliament, or driving a bomb-laden truck into the building – both tactics al-Qaeda later used to devastating effect. Later, documents filed by US prosecutors show, al-Adel worked as an instructor at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Somalia, and participated in several attacks. In 2000, Austrian investigators found he played a key role in a plot to assassinate Joseph "Diamond Joe" Hicks – a mining magnate who is also a leading member of a religious Jewish group.

Let's Help out our Navy Brothers..

2010-11-09T17:01:00.004-05:00

I have recently been informed of this situation through some other officers- and think all of us Milbloggers should try and bring some assistance where we can. Four Sailors were accused, tried, and convicted of raping and murdering a woman in Norfolk, Virginia. All of them "confessed" to the crime under the interrogation of an infamous policeman who is now convicted and facing jail himself for breaking the law (official corruption and making false statements to the FBI) in another case. Shockingly, none of the "confessions" actually matched the crime, none of them matched one another, and several sailors gave confessions that contradicted their earlier confessions: one confessed to beating the victim, when she was actually stabbed and strangled; some confessed to sex acts that didn't actually happen; some of them claimed the crime occurred in the wrong location; one claimed they broke into the apartment by forcing the door open using a claw hammer when there was actually no sign of forced entry; etc. Still worse, the same prosecutor tried all four guys. Most shocking, none of the sailors DNA matched and the crime scene cried out that this was a single-offender crime, not a gang rape. To top it all off, the actual murderer (already in jail for two other violent assaults against women, including the rape of a 14 year old girl) came forward, his DNA matched that found on/in the victim, and he has sworn under oath that he committed the crime by himself. So, the appeals began. Unfortunately, it is VERY hard to undo a conviction based on a confession, and basically impossible if the habeas clock has run out and claims of judicial nullification on the basis of actual innocence are extremely difficult. Governor Kaine of Virginia let the N4 out of prison with a partial pardon, but they're still tagged with the sex offender yoke and other problems. They should receive a full pardon and the current Governor McDonnell should vacate their false convictions. Let's try and make it happen!

Countering China, Obama Backs India for U.N. Council

2010-11-09T08:26:00.000-05:00

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JIM YARDLEY New York Times NEW DELHI — By endorsing India for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, President Obama on Monday signaled the United States’ intention to create a deeper partnership of the world’s two largest democracies that would expand commercial ties and check the influence of an increasingly assertive China. Mr. Obama’s announcement, made during a nationally televised address to the Indian Parliament, came at the end of a three-day visit to India that won high marks from an Indian political establishment once uncertain of the president’s commitment to the relationship. Even as stark differences remained between the countries on a range of tough issues, including Pakistan, trade policy, climate change and, to some degree, Iran, Mr. Obama spoke of India as an “indispensable” partner for the coming century. “In Asia and around the world, India is not simply emerging,” he said during his speech in Parliament. “India has emerged.” Mr. Obama’s closer embrace of India prompted a sharp warning from Pakistan, India’s rival and an uncertain ally of the United States in the war in Afghanistan, which criticized the two countries for engaging in “power politics” that lacked a moral foundation. It is also likely to set off fresh concerns in Beijing, which has had a contentious relationship with India and has expressed alarm at American efforts to tighten alliances with Asian nations wary of China’s rising power. But warmer ties between the United States and India, in the making for many years, come at a crucial time for Mr. Obama. He and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are headed to South Korea later this week for a meeting of the Group of 20, apparently in agreement on what is expected to be a significant clash between the world’s big powers over the United States Federal Reserve’s plan to boost the American economy by pumping $600 billion into it. China, Brazil and Germany have sharply criticized the move by the independent Fed, which they see as intended to push down the value of the dollar to boost American exports. Germany’s finance minister equated the move to currency manipulation “with the help of their central bank’s printing presses.” But at a Monday news conference, Mr. Obama defended the Fed’s move and won backing from Mr. Singh, who spoke about the United States’ critical importance to the global economy. “Anything that would stimulate the underlying growth and policies of entrepreneurship in the United States would help the cause of global prosperity,” he said. The good will between Mr. Obama and Mr. Singh, as well as the almost giddy reaction to the president and his wife, Michelle, in the Indian press, lent a glossy sheen to a United States-India relationship that is still evolving. India remains deeply protective of its sovereignty, while the United States is accustomed to having the upper hand with its foreign partners. On Monday, Mr. Singh emphasized the need for the two countries “to work as equal partners in a strategic relationship.” “For India, going back to the earliest days since independence, there has always been a very strong attachment to strategic autonomy,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Americans throw around the word ‘ally’ with gay abandon.” Mr. Obama arrived in India on Saturday bearing a big gift: his decision to lift longstanding export controls on sensitive technologies, albeit with some of the specifics still unclear. And the president also made several small-bore announcements about new collaborations between the nations on everything from homeland security to education, agriculture and open government. Many Indian analysts said Mr. Obama had big shoes to fill, given the popularity here of his two predecessors. President George W. Bush is viewed with admiration, largely for his work securing a civil nuclear cooperation pact. And former President Bill Clinton, who in 2000 became the first American president to visit India in two decades, is fondly remembered for his gregarious personality and his own speech in Parliament, credited for reviving the relationship. The headline moment of the trip was Mr. Obama’s announcement on the United Nations seat, even though the endorsement is seemingly as much symbolic as substantive, given the serious political obstacles that have long stalled efforts to reform membership of the Security Council. All the major powers have said the post-World War II structure of the Security Council, in which the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China have permanent seats with veto power, should be changed to reflect a different balance of power. But it could take years for any changes to be made, partly because there is no agreement on which countries should be promoted to an enlarged Security Council. The United States has promised to support a promotion for Japan and now India. China is viewed as far less eager for its Asian neighbors to acquire permanent membership in the Council. But administration officials and independent analysts emphasized the significance of the president’s political message. Ben Rhodes, a top foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, said the endorsement was intended to send a strong message “in terms of how we see India on the world stage.” Meanwhile, in Washington, even critics who had blamed Mr. Obama for letting the relationship with India drift reacted with praise — and surprise. “It’s a bold move — no president has said that before,” said Richard Fontaine, a former adviser to Senator John McCain who wrote a critical report of Mr. Obama’s India policy last month for the Center for New American Security. “It’s a recognition of India’s emergence as a global power and the United States’ desire to be close to India.” But any outreach to India is bound to cause problems for Mr. Obama in Pakistan. In Islamabad, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry warned that Mr. Obama’s decision would further complicate the process of reforming the Security Council. Pakistan, the ministry said in a statement, hopes the United States “will take a moral view and not base itself on any temporary expediency or exigencies of power politics.” For Mr. Obama, the Pakistan-India-United States nexus creates a delicate dance. The Obama administration is selling warplanes to Pakistan, a move viewed with suspicion here. During his three-day visit, the president faced criticism for being too soft on Pakistan; during a question and answer session with college students, one demanded to know why he had not declared Pakistan a “terrorist state.” And even Mr. Singh, standing by the president’s side at a joint news conference Monday, reiterated India’s position that it could not have meaningful talks with Pakistan until it shut down the “terror machine” inside its borders. But if Mr. Obama’s cautious language on Pakistan provoked initial unease, his speech at Parliament seemed to put the matter to rest when he called on the Pakistani government to eradicate “safe havens” for terrorism groups and prosecute the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai that killed at least 168 people. “Indians were keen to listen to two ‘p’ words,” said Rajiv Nayan, a strategic affairs analyst in New Delhi. “Permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and, second, on Pakistan.”

Disputes, disappointment strain U.S.-China relations

2010-11-08T09:32:00.001-05:00

By Keith B. Richburg Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 8, 2010; A04 BEIJING - When President Obama came to China a year ago, on his first official Asian trip, he spoke of the "deep and even dramatic ties" between the two powers that would work as partners on shared global burdens such as climate change, nonproliferation and the world economy. On his return to Asia - a trip that pointedly bypasses China - the talk of partnership and shared burdens has been largely replaced by a deep mutual mistrust, with widespread disappointment on both sides. In the intervening 12 months, Chinese leaders became infuriated when Obama met with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, whom China has branded a separatist criminal, and when Washington announced plans to sell sophisticated weapons to Taiwan. U.S. officials tried in vain to get China's leaders in May to condemn its ally North Korea for the sinking of a South Korean warship, and then became alarmed at Beijing's bellicose response to a September incident involving a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol ship around a group of disputed, uninhabited islands. In between there have been disputes over trade - involving tires, car parts and chicken - and questions of whether China is manipulating its currency. What happened over the past year, experts agree, was a case of heightened expectations on both sides crashing into realities on the ground - to the point where relations now between the United States and China are at one of the lowest points in years. President Hu Jintao's planned state visit to Washington in January could help reset the relationship with China, according to experts on both sides. The deterioration has come against a backdrop of a China that is feeling increasingly emboldened - having weathered the global financial crisis while the United States continues to struggle - and that has become more confident in pressing its interests in the region and around the world, Chinese and American analysts said. Several experts agreed that there was no single issue that caused the downturn, but rather an accumulation of unrelated events combined with some crossed signals and big misunderstandings of each other's positions. "Each side has been concerned about what it's seen the other side doing," said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China specialist with the Brookings Institution in Washington. "What you have is a cascading set of developments that have no single cause or linear connection." At the center of the initial misunderstanding, both U.S. and Chinese analysts said, was the Obama administration's early outreach to China to become a partner in tackling such issues as Iran and North Korea. The U.S. administration saw this as giving China a greater voice in global affairs commensurate with its new status as an economic giant. But the Chinese leaders' response was essentially: Okay, but what do we get out of it? "Early on, when the Obama administration took office, they promised China more face and status in global affairs," said Shi Yinhong, director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University. "Later, the Chinese government found that the Obama administration wanted so many things from China." Shi said many of the U.S. demands "can seriously harm China's interests, for example the appreciation of renminbi, and asking China to sell out Iran." He added, "A big promise comes with a big price." As the price for that cooperation on global issues, Chinese leaders assumed they would make progress on two core issues - stopping U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, and not giving a White House platform to the Dalai Lama - and thought they had extracted U.S. concessions on both last year, analysts said. First, Obama decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama in Washington in October 2009 - breaking a precedent of U.S. presidents seeing the spiritual leader going back to 1991. Administration officials at the time said they were only "postponing" meeting the Dalai Lama until after Obama's China trip. But Chinese leaders apparently saw the move as more permanent, analysts said. Also, this January, the administration announced plans to sell $6 billion worth of Patriot antimissile systems, helicopters and communications equipment to Taiwan - provoking a furious response from China, which then canceled planned military exchanges. The U.S. side was clearly surprised by the reaction - every U.S. president had sold arms to Taiwan. The package did not include the most sensitive weapons Taiwan wants, which are F-16 fighter jets. And U.S. officials had forewarned their Chinese counterparts of the pending sale. Besides, U.S. officials believed, the global issues on the table were far too important to be disrupted by a minor perennial irritant such as arms sales to Taiwan. But Chinese leaders clearly saw a link between their cooperation on global issues such as climate change, Iran and North Korea, and American arms sales to Taiwan. "The U.S. thinks China's recent reactions are provocative or even arrogant," said Yuan Peng, director of the Institute of American Studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. "But China thinks that China didn't change. Taiwan and meeting the Dalai Lama have always been the core interests of China. These are never minor issues. "China is disappointed by the Obama administration," Yuan added. "Before, China thought Obama was the president for change, and he would have some new thoughts about cooperation between great nations. However, he has no essential difference from other previous presidents." Tao Wenzhao, a fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said Washington should get used to the fact that China and the United States are two different counties. "There will be different opinions and different interests in some areas."

Ahmadinejad accuses Russia of being influenced by 'Satan'

2010-11-04T15:40:00.000-04:00

Russian ban on sale of S-300 missiles By Ali Akbar Dareini (CP) – 1 day ago TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized Russia on Wednesday for banning the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Tehran, accusing Moscow of having caved in to "Satan." In comments broadcast on state TV, Ahmadinejad said the 2007 contract Tehran signed with Moscow for the S-300 remains valid and warned that Russia must pay compensation and penalties for unilaterally cancelling the deal. The Iranian leader's remarks come after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a decree in June banning all sales of the S-300 systems to Iran, saying the latest round of U.N. sanctions prevent it from delivering the system to Tehran. The U.N. Security Council sanctions ban Iran from developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, investing in nuclear-related activities and buying certain types of heavy weapons. But they do not specifically prohibit Russia from supplying the S-300. The anti-defence system is capable of shooting down aircraft and missiles at ranges of over 90 miles (144 kilometres) and at altitudes of about 90,000 feet (27,432 metres). The system could have boosted Iran's ability to defend against airstrikes. Israel and the United States had objected to the deal. "Some people are influenced by Satan. They thought the Iranian nation will be harmed if they unilaterally and illegally stop or cancel defence contracts they signed with us," Ahmadinejad said. He did not mention Russia by name, but it was clear that he was referring to Medvedev and the Russian leadership. Ahmadinejad said Moscow must pay compensation for cancelling the deal. "The contract is valid. They must implement it. If they don't, the Iranian nation will obtain its rights including compensation and penalties," he said. Sergei Chemezov, the head of Russia's state-controlled Russian Technologies, said last month Moscow will return $166.8 million it received as payment from Iran. But he insisted that Russia owes nothing else to Iran, since the 2007 contract for the delivery of the S-300 missiles was cancelled because of UN sanctions on Iran. Ahmadinejad said Iran's security won't be at risk without the missiles.

GOP seizes control of House, as economy drives party gains

2010-11-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 3, 2010; NaN Just four years after surrendering power, Republicans recaptured control of the House and made gains in the Senate on Tuesday night, in a major rebuff of President Obama and the Democrats by an electorate worried about the economy and the size of the government. But in the most closely watched race of the year, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid defeated Sharron Angle, the tea party Republican who carried the hopes of conservatives across the country to beat the Senate's most powerful Democrat. In Washington, Republicans staged a jubilant victory party. "Across the country right now, we are witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people," said an emotional Rep. John A. Boehner (Ohio), who is now poised to become the next House speaker. Obama called Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) once it was clear that the House had fallen to the GOP. The president said he looked forward to working with Republicans "to find common ground, move the country forward and get things done for the American people," according to the White House. Boehner, according to aides, said he will deal with the president in a "straightforward and honest" way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who became the target of Republicans in their campaigns, issued a statement early Wednesday. "The outcome of the election does not diminish the work we have done for the American people," she said. "We must all strive to find common ground to support the middle class, create jobs, reduce the deficit and move our nation forward." Republican candidates were propelled by a combination of voter anxiety about the economy and a significant shift in sentiment among independents, who were critical to Obama's 2008 victory and to the Democrats' takeover of Congress in 2006. Democratic efforts to rally young people and minorities also fell short. Both groups voted in smaller percentages than two years ago. In House races, Democratic incumbents fell throughout the night as, from the moment the polls began to close, Republicans marched steadily toward the 39 seats they needed to win the majority. The GOP crossed that threshold before midnight and continued to pick up seats as the counting went on in the West. By 1 a.m., Republican gains hit 55 seats. That wiped out all the gains that Democrats made in 2006 and 2008 and slid past the 54 seats the GOP achieved in its 1994 landslide. Republicans picked up at least three seats in Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The GOP wave in the House spared few of the most vulnerable Democrats. Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee who was bidding for his 15th term, lost his race, as did 17-term Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.) , chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and 10-term Rep. Chet Edwards (Tex.). Newer Democrats who embraced Obama's agenda were turned out, including Rep. Tom Perriello in Virginia and Rep. John Boccieri in Ohio. But some Democrats who did not embrace all of the president's major initiatives were also defeated. Democrats hold on to Senate Republicans gained at least six Senate seats but were blocked from winning the 10 needed to take control of that chamber as Democrats held enough of their most endangered states. Early in the evening, Republicans picked off a Democratic seat in Arkansas, where Rep. John Boozman defeated Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln, who survived a tough primary, was the first Senate incumbent to lose. Later, Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who began the year on no one's list of endangered incumbents, lost to Republican businessman Ron Johnson. In Indiana, former congressman Dan Coats (R) scored an easy victory over Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) for a seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. Another Republican gain came in North Dakota, where Gov. John Hoeven easily captured the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Byron L. Dorgan. Republicans also won a Senate seat in Pennsylvania - where Republican Pat Toomey defeated Rep. Joe Sestak, who had beaten party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary - and just after midnight they added the Senate seat Obama once held in Illinois. There, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R) defeated Alexi Giannoulias (D) in one of the year's nastiest campaigns. But in West Virginia's Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin III (D), who appeared in trouble only a few weeks ago, defeated Republican businessman John Raese. And Democratic control of the Senate was assured just before midnight, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) was declared the winner in her bitter contest against former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina. That meant that, for the first time in eight decades, the House changed hands without the Senate following suit. The final balance of the Senate remained in doubt Tuesday night, with several Democratic incumbents in contests too close to call, including races in Illinois, Colorado and Washington. The other race still outstanding was in Alaska, where Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), waging a write-in campaign, was leading over tea party favorite Joe Miller, who won the GOP primary. Democrat Scott McAdams was running third. In Kentucky's Senate race, tea party favorite Rand Paul (R) handily defeated state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) to keep the seat in the GOP column. "There's a tea party tidal wave, and we're sending a message," Paul told cheering supporters at his victory party. In Florida, Republican Marco Rubio, another tea-party-backed candidate, cruised to a Senate victory against Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) and Gov. Charlie Crist, who quit the GOP to run as an independent. O'Donnell loses in Delaware One of the most prominent tea party Republicans, Christine O'Donnell, lost her bid for the Senate in Delaware, as Democrat Chris Coons won the seat once occupied by Vice President Biden. O'Donnell had been a surprise winner over Rep. Michael N. Castle in the GOP primary. But her quirky style - in her first television ad she declared, "I am not a witch" - instantly converted a likely Republican pickup into a seat that was firmly in the Democrats' hands. Her loss was a reminder that while the tea party helped fuel the GOP surge this year, some of the candidates most favored by tea party activists proved shaky in general election contests. In Connecticut, Republican Linda McMahon, the former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, lost her Senate race against state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), despite spending about $50 million of her own money. Republicans held their Senate seat in Ohio, where former congressman and George W. Bush administration budget director Rob Portman cruised past the Democrat, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher. In Missouri, another House veteran, Rep. Roy Blunt (R), kept for his party the seat held by retiring Sen. Christopher S. Bond. In New Hampshire, Republican state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte won the seat of retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R), while in Kansas, Rep. Jerry Moran (R) took the seat of Sen. Sam Brownback (R), who won the governor's race there. Republican incumbents won their reelection bids in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota. Democrats were reelected in Maryland, in New York (both Senate seats) and in Vermont. Republicans also made gains in governor's races, picking up at least nine seats while surrendering two, including one to an independent candidate, Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee. Republicans won the major industrial and Midwestern states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. They won two conservative bastions, Kansas and Tennessee, that had been in Democratic hands, as well as New Mexico. In Texas, Democrats fell far short in their effort to unseat Gov. Rick Perry (R). Democrats regained the governorship of California, however, when former governor and current state Attorney General Jerry Brown defeated former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, despite the roughly $160 million she spent on her candidacy, most of it from her own pocket. Races in Florida, Illinois, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon and Vermont were still being counted. Economy is the main worry With the unemployment rate at 9.6 percent nationwide, economic issues dominated the voters' agenda Tuesday. More than six in 10 called the economy their top concern, according to preliminary national exit poll data. About nine in 10 said the economy is in bad shape, and more than three times as many said they believe it is getting worse. About half of all voters said they are "very worried" about the national economy, and most of them backed Republican House candidates. Just 44 percent of voters said they approve of Obama's performance as president, according to preliminary findings, with 55 percent saying they disapprove. Significantly more voters said their vote was a message of opposition to the president than a sign of support - 37 percent to 24 percent.

Cargo plane bombs more lethal than Christmas Day attempt; Yemen charges Aulaqi in absentia

2010-11-02T10:18:00.001-04:00

By Peter Finn and Greg Miller Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, November 2, 2010; 5:36 AM The two package bombs discovered on cargo flights last week contained far more explosive material than the device that the alleged would-be underwear bomber planned to use last Christmas to down a Detroit-bound jetliner, according to German security officials. The officials said the bombs were so expertly built that the wiring was difficult to detect even when seen in an X-ray image. The German officials, who briefed reporters in Berlin, said the bomb found on a UPS plane in England, which also passed through the Cologne-Bonn airport, contained 15.11 ounces, or 400 grams, of the explosive PETN. The second device, found at a FedEx facility in Dubai, contained 10.58 ounces of the material, a powerful plastic explosive. The PETN-based bomb found on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of attempting to bring down a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, weighed 2.82 ounces. Meanwhile, U.S. officials disclosed Monday that authorities had tracked earlier suspicious packages from al-Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate in September, attempts now seen as potential test runs for the foiled bombing attempt a month later. A U.S. official said that three September shipments were also sent to an address or addresses in Chicago and contained books and religious literature, but no explosives. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said that the packages were intercepted because of intelligence indicating that they had been sent by a person affiliated with AQAP. One or more of the packages was allowed to continue to Chicago, but the U.S. official said that the concerns raised by that episode - first reported by ABC News - help to explain why the U.S. reaction was so swift to the Saudi intelligence tip last week. The shipments of earlier packages might have enabled AQAP to monitor their delivery using tracking services commonly available on shippers' Web sites, information that might have been used in connections with timers or other devices to maximize the damage caused by bombs. Both of the bombs discovered last week were encased in ink cartridges. One German official described the design as "highly professional," saying that some of the wires were so well disguised they they looked like cables for a printer. Other wires were so thin they couldn't be seen on an X-ray, the official said, echoing other analyses in recent days that the bombs could beat X-ray machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. The bombs are believed to be the handiwork of Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, a Saudi national active in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group behind the Christmas Day plot, among other conspiracies. Explosive experts say that the amount of PETN in the ink cartridges could have brought the planes down. Jimmie Oxley, co-director of the Center of Excellence for Explosives Detection, Mitigation and Response at the University of Rhode Island, said that if the packages ended up on a pallet surrounded by other cargo, the planes could have survived an explosion, but that if they had been placed near the skin of the planes, detonations could have destroyed the aircraft in mid-air. "I've been involved in blowing up luggage, and placement determines everything," Oxley said. Both packages were addressed to synagogues in Chicago, and Oxley said either could have killed someone if it had exploded while being opened. On Tuesday, prosecutors in Yemen announced that they had charged Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi with "promoting violence and the killing of foreigners," the Associated Press reported. The whereabouts of Aulaqi, who U.S. intelligence officials believe was involved in the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt and has long promoted violence against the United States, are not known. Yemeni officials said he was being charged in absentia in the "Specialized Criminal Court" in Sanaa, the capital. It is the first formal legal action Yemen has taken against Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico. On Monday, Germany said it would halt direct passenger flights between Germany and Yemen; Britain took a similar step in January after the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt. There are no direct flights between the United States and Yemen. Britain said Monday that it would extend a ban on unaccompanied freight from Yemen to Somalia, citing links between terrorists in both countries. Home Secretary Theresa May said Britain's security services had no information that other bombs have eluded detection. "At this stage, we have no information to suggest that another attack of a similar nature by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is imminent," May told parliament. Meanwhile, investigators in the United Arab Emirates tried to head off speculation of a link between the package bombs and the crash of a UPS cargo plane in Dubai in September. There was no evidence that the plane was brought down by an explosion, UAE officials said this week. The explosives in Dubai and England were intercepted after Saudi officials tipped off the United States and other countries that bombs were in transit and provided tracking numbers of the shipments to help intercept them. Yemeni officials said Monday that the Saudis were told of the plot by Jabir al-Fayfi, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who fled the kingdom after his release in 2006. But Gregory Johnsen, a doctoral candidate at Princeton University and an expert on Yemen, noted in his blog, Waq al-Waq, that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula announced Fayfi's arrest on Sept. 6, which seems too far removed from the latest plot to make him a credible informant. A U.S. official concurred.

UPS Cargo Bomb Plot Is More Sophisticated Al Qaeda Attack

2010-11-01T09:13:00.000-04:00

Cargo plane bomb plot: Cobra review 'could lead to new security measures' The al-Qaeda parcel bomb plot could leave passengers facing a raft of safeguards as the Government undertakes a new review of security on passenger jets. By Gordon Rayner, Duncan Gardham and Andrew Hough Published: 9:30AM GMT 01 Nov 2010 Previous1 of 8 ImagesNext Airport security official uses sniffer dog to search for food in luggage of incoming passengers. Industry figures fear new wave of measures. Photo: REUTERS A man undergoes a security the airport: it could lead to more stringent checks. Photo: AP A security officer checks luggage, while others view x-ray check results: the government is reviewing security. Photo: AP Police and investigators look at what remains of the flight deck of Pan Am 103 on a field in Lockerbie, Scotland Photo: AP The devices contained a highly explosive combination of PETN (Pentaerythritol tetranitrate) and lead azide. The packages travelled on a Qatar airways flight. Photo: ALAMY Women protest outside the university in Sana'a where Hanan al Samawi is studying medicine Photo: AFP/GETTY US and British security officials believe Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born figurehead of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was behind the foiled attack Both bombs found last week were transported in the hold of passenger flights, suggesting that the terrorists were targeting tourists and other travellers, rather than simply trying to bring down cargo planes, as had previously been thought. David Cameron is today chairing a crisis meeting of Cobra, the government's emergency planning committee, to discuss the plot and what implications it could have on air transport. Related Articles Al-Qaeda plot: passengers face 'ludicrous' safeguards Passengers at risk as cargo not X-rayed Sir David Richards: Afghanistan cannot 'become new Yemen' Profile of Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri Cargo plane bomb plot in pictures Telegraph's terror coverage in full Industry figures fear it could lead to a new, and unneccesary, overhaul of airport security after investigators concluded that the terrorists had designed a package to blow up passenger jets in a Lockerbie-style terrorist outrage. Ministers and officials are expected to discuss tougher checks on freight. The review could lead air passengers to be subjected to "ludicrous" new security measures, the boss of budget airline Ryanair. Michael O'Leary, the airline's chief executive, said authorities might now make travel "even more uncomfortable and tedious" for travellers. The device found at East Midlands airport on Friday had left Yemen on a passenger aircraft, The Daily Telegraph has learnt, before it was switched to a UPS cargo plane. The second device, found in Dubai, was carried on two Qatar Airways passenger flights before it was intercepted. Sources close to the investigation in Yemen said because there were no scheduled cargo flights out of the country it was likely the terrorists knew the bombs would be loaded on to passenger planes for at least part of their journey. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, also admitted it was possible that the US-bound bomb found at East Midlands could have detonated over Britain if it had not been found, because of the unpredictability of freight routes. In further developments: * A woman was being hunted in Yemen after posting the bombs, using an identity stolen from a student. * Investigators in Yemen said they were examining 26 other suspect packages. * British police faced criticism from the US over their failure to find the East Midlands device during their initial search. * Downing Street was forced to defend David Cameron’s decision to say nothing about the bomb plot for more than 24 hours. * The airline pilots’ union said it had been warning for years of cargo being a weak link in air travel that could be exploited by terrorists. * A former head of security at airport operator BAA, Norman Shanks, said checks on freight were not as stringent than those on passengers. The two bombs, concealed inside computer printers, were virtually impossible to detect by X-ray screening because they contained an odourless explosive and used timers that would have looked like part of the printers’ electronics. They were designed to explode in mid-air and would have been as capable of bringing down an aircraft as the device that blew up PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, killing 270 people. More than half of all freight to the US is carried on passenger flights and Lord Carlisle of Berriew, the former government adviser on terrorism, said there was every chance a parcel bomb could end up on a passenger plane. “If you put a parcel into UPS, you have no way of knowing what flight it is going to go on,” he said. “It could end up on a passenger flight.” One of the bombs went to Dubai via Doha in Qatar on a passenger aircraft. The device that was found at East Midlands airport left the Yemeni capital of Sana’a on a passenger aircraft, which is also thought to have stopped at Doha, before it travelled to Cologne in Germany and Britain in cargo planes. Mrs May said: “What became clear overnight on Friday and into Saturday was that it was indeed a viable device and could have exploded. “It could have exploded on the aircraft, and it could have exploded when the aircraft was in mid air. Had that happened it could have brought the aircraft down.” Mrs May said it was “difficult” to say whether the explosion would have happened over Britain or America. “With these freight flights sometimes the routing can change at the last moment so it is difficult for those who are planning the detonation to know exactly where — if it is detonated to a time, for example — the aircraft will be,” she added After investigators in Yemen confirmed that they were examining 26 other packages, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, said “it would be very imprudent … to presume that there are no other [bombs]". Mr Brennan described the bombs as “sophisticated”, adding: “They were self-contained. They were able to be detonated at a time of the terrorists’ choosing.” He said the plot “bears the hallmark” of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the terrorist organisation’s Yemeni-based operation, whose leaders include Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born preacher. The most likely bomb maker is said to be Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, who made the device used in the foiled Christmas airline attack over Detroit. The bombs, which were addressed to two synagogues in Chicago, contained the contact details of a 22-year-old computing student, Hannan al-Samawi, who was arrested on Saturday night. However, investigators released her at the weekend and said they were now seeking another woman who it was thought had posted the devices using Miss al-Samawi’s personal details. Intelligence that foiled the plot may have come from Jabir Jubran al-Fayfi, a former leading member of AQAP, who surrendered to the Saudi authorities last month. In light of the plot, the US National Transportation Safety Board is re-examining the wreckage of a UPS cargo jet that crashed in Dubai in September, although sources in Dubai said there was no evidence of an explosion. American officials expressed concern at the fact that the bomb at East Midlands was discovered only during a second police search. David Cameron said the Government would “take whatever steps are necessary” to keep British people safe, but Downing Street was forced on to the defensive after the Prime Minister took until 6pm on Saturday – 26 hours after he was first briefed on the incident – to make a public statement. It was left to Mr Obama, and later Mrs May, to break the news that viable devices had been found. Sources said Mr Cameron “wanted ministers to take the lead”. Balpa, the pilots’ union, said it had warned for years of the threat from cargo, suggesting that the focus on checking passengers and their luggage “left the door open” for attacks by other means. Mr Shanks, now an aviation consultant, called for a fundamental review of security. "We're looking at introducing the explosive detection systems that we currently use for passengers' baggage which goes into the hold," he told the BBC. "Now this really can't be introduced for every package, but it could be used for packages coming from areas where there is a known risk."

Air Force gives air bridge 30-day reprieve

2010-10-29T10:17:00.001-04:00

By David Sharp - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Oct 29, 2010 5:38:37 EDT PORTLAND, Maine — The Air Force has delayed dismantling a National Guard program that provides in-air refueling of military aircraft headed to and from Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe, giving a 30-day reprieve to more than 400 personnel in Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Sen. Susan Collins said Thursday. Gen. Raymond Johns, commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., will visit the Maine National Guard’s 101st Air Refueling Wing in Bangor on Nov. 4 as part of an assessment that will determine the future of the so-called air bridge program, said Collins, R-Maine. The Air Force had notified National Guard and Reserve personnel that they would stand down at month’s end under a budget-cutting directive, but those orders are now being extended until Nov. 30, she said. Related reading • Funds low for standby reservists • Cost reductions could affect vital air bridge Collins, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, said she hopes the general’s visit will lead to the vast majority of personnel being retained through October 2011. “I am hopeful that we’re making progress on the vast majority of the jobs, but I recognize that there will be some individuals for whom the active duty order won’t be renewed past Nov. 30,” Collins told The Associated Press after being briefed by the Air Force undersecretary. The program is called the “air bridge” because it contributes to the flow of military personnel, equipment and materiel that’s needed to support the war in Afghanistan, and continuing operations in Iraq. For critical flights, military aircraft can continue flying while taking on jet fuel from an aerial tanker as the two aircraft fly in tandem at more than 400 mph. About 1,000 planes in the past year have received fuel in this way under the air bridge program, officials say. In Bangor, the Maine National Guard’s 101st Air Refueling Wing holds a strategic location as the last U.S. base for outgoing flights and the first for incoming flights. Its KC-135 tankers can reach the primary refueling route over Nova Scotia in just 18 minutes flying time. The decision to cut the program caused consternation for the program’s supporters because most active-duty refueling tankers are located farther away in the Midwest. It costs $100 a minute to keep a KC-135 in the air, Collins said, so extra time and travel to reach the refueling zones over the North Atlantic would carry a steep price tag. Contributing to the uncertainty is the fact that Congress adjourned without approving a budget. The Air Force asked for an extra $378 million, much of which would go to Air Mobility Command; the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved the extra money but the House has not, Collins said.

U.S. operations in Kandahar push out Taliban

2010-10-27T12:22:00.000-04:00

By Joshua Partlow and Karin Brulliard Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, October 25, 2010; 9:37 PM KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN - With 2,000-pound bombs, 12,000 troops, and one illiterate but charismatic Afghan border police commander, the American military has forced insurgents to retreat from key parts of this strategically vital region, according to U.S. and Afghan commanders. The developments are far from decisive, but senior military leaders believe they have made progress on the western outskirts of Kandahar city and in the pomegranate orchards of the Argandab valley. The ground remains treacherous, seeded with bombs that reverberate daily through the city. The Taliban departure from some areas could be a strategic response to an operation NATO has trumpeted for months. Or insurgents could be lying low, developing new avenues of attack. NATO forces have cleared villages before, including in Kandahar province, and failed to hold them. Whether insurgents can be kept away this time, or prevented from grabbing new parts of the city or its surroundings, remains to be seen. The most unexpected, and potentially risky, aspect of NATO's resurgence is Abdul Razziq, the 32-year-old police colonel best known for allegations of pocketing millions of dollars in illegal customs dues, who has left the border to lead hundreds of his militiamen into Taliban-held villages that have bedeviled NATO troops for years. Behind Razziq's hardened fighters - who possess a local knowledge that police officers and soldiers from Afghanistan's national security forces cannot match - American soldiers have taken back territory previously out of reach. He's led clearing operations in all of the areas central to the American campaign here - Panjwayi, Zhari, Argandab and Kandahar city - and has captured hundreds of Taliban fighters. "He's like a folk hero now," said Col. Jeffrey Martindale, who commands an American army brigade in Kandahar. "The Taliban fear him." Afghans who live in these areas, and have witnessed earlier clearing operations give way to Taliban comebacks, often do not share the U.S. military's optimism. And some believe insurgents may be moving into the city to avoid U.S. troops on the periphery. "Security in the city is now drastically worse," said Samsor Afghan, 27, a university student who runs a computer software store downtown, across the street from where a suicide bomber attacked the day before. "The Taliban are everywhere. We don't feel safe even inside the city." American commanders have nevertheless been buoyed by changes in areas where the bulk of their forces are located. Among the shifts is what they describe as a new assertiveness from Afghan security forces, which now outnumber NATO troops in this operation. A late-night call Officers trace the change to one night in mid-August, when Kandahar governor Toryalai Wesa called President Hamid Karzai to report that Taliban forces were blocking a road and searching cars in Malajat, an insurgent stronghold in western Kandahar city. "Could you, Mr. President, order NATO to come and help us?" Wesa asked, according to an Afghan official present in the palace. "Shame on you," Karzai replied. Karzai had recently issued a decree instructing governors to act as the commander of all Afghan security forces in their provinces. He told Wesa to assemble his own force and respond. "Go after them. Don't wait for NATO," he said. Just hours later, Wesa had cobbled together a few hundred Afghan police, soldiers and intelligence officers, and sent them into Malajat, a move that surprised the Americans in Kandahar. The operation began with Afghan government forces capturing 11 insurgents, but the contingent was soon trapped in a minefield. Five Afghans were killed getting out. Wesa emerged chastened from the operation, U.S. officials said. For a second run at Malajat, the solution was Razziq. On the border, he developed an outsize reputation - part Robin Hood, part warlord. He was a close ally of the Karzais with thousands of tribal warriors at his command. "If you need a mad dog on a leash, he's not a bad one to have," said a U.S. official in Kandahar. U.S. troops hastily planned support and coordinated to have Afghan forces ring the neighborhood, while Razziq, cellphone and satellite phone in hand, roared up from the southern desert with a few hundred men. They arrested about 20 suspected insurgents and found scores of explosives. There was little violence, but U.S. troops noted Razziq's style. At one point his men spotted a stolen Afghan police truck. They fired at it with a rocket-propelled grenade, which deflected off the truck, and exploded in the trees. Suddenly a man in white robes fell from the branches, himself blowing up when his suicide vest hit the ground, which then blew up the truck - a story that Razziq chuckles in recalling, U.S. officials said. As this partnership has developed, Razziq has been partnered with a U.S. Special Forces commander to help coordinate his moves. He's been called on elsewhere, including particularly treacherous parts of the Argandab valley, where whole villages had been rigged with explosives that had made them impenetrable to previous American units. The Afghan operations have stunned U.S. troops, accustomed to years of prodding along their reluctant allies. At 3 a.m. on Sept. 15, Capt. Mikel Resnick, a company commander in Argandab, learned that 1,000 Afghan forces were moving into his area. "I don't know if they're going to go burn the orchards down and leave me to clean it up," he said of his initial reaction to the plan. The Afghans, who took 72 hours to capture 50 detainees, five large bombs and 500 pounds of explosives, required only advice and air support from the Americans, said Lt. Col. Rodger Lemons, the battalion commander at the Argandab district center. "We basically sat in here and monitored the fight," Resnick said, referring to his outpost at the village of Sarkari Bagh. "They essentially cleared this entire place out." U.S. military officials acknowledge that it is not ideal to have the border police leading the operation, because the goal is for the Afghan army and police to provide security in their own areas. "We need to make sure this is not undermining the legitimacy of the Afghan government," said a senior NATO military official in southern Afghanistan. â??The fight in Kandahar, unlike the previous U.S.-led operation in Marja, has also benefited from a more intensive campaign by U.S. Special Operations forces to hunt down Taliban commanders and bomb-making networks before the infantry push. The local victims During the Kandahar operation, Americans have unleashed ferocious air bombardments. In some parts of the Argandab, U.S. troops discovered the Taliban had cleared out whole villages and rigged each house with homemade explosives. In one October operation to clear the way for Razziq's troops, American aircraft dropped about 25 2,000-pound bombs and twice as many 500-pound bombs, while also firing powerful rockets over the ridge from the Kandahar Air Field miles away. "We obliterated those towns. They're not there at all," Martindale said. "These are just parking lots right now." Martindale said civilians had long ago fled the Taliban-dominated area, and that the U.S. attacks did not cause civilian casualties - a claim that could not be independently verified. Faced with the NATO and Afghan push, American commanders believe that many Taliban leaders have retreated to Pakistan, leaving lower-level fighters to stage attacks in Kandahar. Part of this appears to be the normal ebb of fighting in Afghanistan, as insurgents slow their tempo in the colder months. Afghans living in Zhari and Panjwayi cited many complaints with the current operations, including homes and orchards damaged by American troops, no government support for the people and elusive Taliban guerrillas who dodge the conventional armies. "Who are the victims of these operations? Just the local people. If the Taliban comes, the people suffer, if the foreign forces come, the people suffer," said Mohammad Rahim, a member of Panjwayi's district council. "The Taliban always leave, and the Taliban always come back."

India, U.S. aim to lift defence ties during Obama trip

2010-10-26T14:25:00.000-04:00

By Krittivas Mukherjee NEW DELHI | Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:59pm IST NEW DELHI (Reuters) - When U.S. President Barack Obama arrives in India next month, he will face a key challenge of boosting defence ties that are on the upswing but mired by political suspicion over pandering to Washington's interests. Underlying the visit will be lobbying for billions of dollars in contracts to overhaul India's mostly Russian-supplied military, a relic of their Cold War era partnership. Those orders include a $11 billion deal for 126 fighter jets that could benefit U.S.' Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp. France's Dassault, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab and the Eurofighter Typhoon are also competing. But Washington faces a host of hurdles, including Indian worries that signing defence pacts which are necessary for the U.S. arms sales to go through may land New Delhi into a wider entanglement with the U.S. military. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has reached out to Washington over his last six years in powers, many within his own Congress party as well as his parliamentary allies are reluctant to embrace these pacts, pending over three years. "India is weighing to see if all these agreements are to give a wider room to manoeuvre for U.S. forces in the region," said Siddharth Varadarajan, strategic affairs editor at Hindu Newspaper in Delhi. "There is a mismatch in expectations from the relationship. India wants weapons sales as a transactional relationship, the U.S. is seeking exclusivity in partnership," he said, referring to any U.S. desire to make the Indian military an active element in its strategic expansion in the region. A KPMG report this month said the misgivings over the pacts were "roadblocks" in sustaining the momentum in the relationship. Obama's challenge is not as much in winning contracts as it is in lifting ties to a long-term military partnership in a region where Washington is now fighting a war and seeking ways to contain China's rise. And the defence pacts Washington wants India to sign underscore some of those challenges. One pact is the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), which would allow American military to use Indian facilities for operations like refueling. Indians fear India could be used as a launching pad for military operations in the region. Two other pacts are required under US domestic laws to transfer sensitive defence technology. India fears the military will have to share communications secrets with the United States. "These agreements need wider consultation. They have various implications," an Indian defence ministry official told Reuters. DEVELOPING TIES Once on the opposite sides of the Cold War, India and the United States began warming up to each other about a decade back, the paradigm shift coming with a 2008 civil nuclear deal that then President Bush pushed to end India's nuclear isolation.

Karzai Takes Iranian Cash, Just in Case

2010-10-25T15:11:00.001-04:00

Max Boot - 10.25.2010 - 10:22 AM Commentary Online Blog Give Hamid Karzai points for honesty. He has made no attempt to deny a report in the Saturday New York Times that he receives bags of cash from the Iranians. Instead he came right out and admitted it and vowed to continue accepting the cash that he said amounts to about $2 million a year. “They have asked for good relations in return, and for lots of other things in return,” he said of the Iranians. No kidding. In a way, this should hardly be a shocker. The Iranians have attempted similar dollar diplomacy in Iraq, Lebanon, and lots of other countries. No surprise that they should try the same thing with another neighbor. Nor should anyone be particularly shocked that the Iranians appear to be playing both sides of the street — giving both to Karzai and to the Taliban. In a way, what the Iranians are doing, while undoubtedly cynical, is not that far removed from conventional foreign-aid programs run by the U.S., Britain, and other powers that also seek to curry influence with their donations. Even the Iranian resort to cash — which is more than a bit seedy — is hardly all that different from what the U.S. does. The CIA, in particular, is known for handing out suitcases stuffed full of bills to our allies, including Karzai. I am more concerned about lethal aid that the Iranians provide to insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that is used to kill American troops — aid that has been highlighted once again by WikiLeaks. These cash payments hardly mean that Karzai is a dupe of Iran. He gets much more money and support from the U.S. than from the Iranians, and he knows that. He is, like most politicians, primarily looking out for numero uno and that means ensuring that he is not entirely reliant on a single ally that has proved fickle in the past. This should, however, alert us to the geopolitical stakes in Afghanistan. If we leave prematurely, Afghanistan will once again be the scene of a massive civil war, with neighboring states, and in particular Pakistan and Iran, doing their utmost to exert their influence to the detriment of our long-term interests. That is yet one more reason why it is important to prevail in Afghanistan

Afghan capital enjoys relative calm amid security crackdown

2010-10-21T10:18:00.000-04:00

Muhammed Rasoul, manager of the Kabul City Centre Mall, stands in front of the building on October 14, 2010. | Dion Nissenbaum/MCT By Hashim Shukoor and Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers KABUL, Afghanistan — Muhammad Rasoul was heading to work last February when a powerful explosion rocked his car and sent dust through the quiet, early morning Kabul streets. Within minutes, it became clear that a powerful car bomb had ravaged Kabul's first modern indoor mall — where Rasoul works as the manager — killing 17 people and putting the Afghan capital on edge again. It took Rasoul and his colleagues two months and $4 million to get the $35 million Kabul City Centre mall and adjacent four-star Safi Landmark hotel back in full operation last spring. These days, however, as workers construct an ugly steel security entryway for the mall, Rasoul worries less about another attack. "We are building this door for security," Rasoul said while standing next to the new barrier, "but security has gotten better." While insurgent violence has expanded steadily throughout the country, the capital has remained relatively quiet since that attack. The last major assault was in May, when a suicide bomber drove into a small military convoy in Kabul, killing 18 people, including four high-ranking NATO officers. The U.S. military and Afghan security officials said they'd killed or captured hundreds of would-be assailants around Kabul this year, significantly blunting the effectiveness of insurgent forces looking to target the capital. "Our capacity in Kabul is much better," said Abdul Manan Farahi, a special adviser in the Interior Ministry who served for more than four years as the head of the counter-terrorism unit. "Our focus now — the government focus — is on security for Kabul." Nestled in a high-altitude valley below the Hindu Kush mountains and with some 4 million inhabitants, Kabul has remained largely insulated from the worst violence over the past decade. The capital is akin to the crown jewel in the counterinsurgency strategy of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, who drafted the new doctrine focusing on protecting populations from insurgent attacks and instability. Relative calm in the capital is one of the key signs of success that Petraeus is touting as progress in the nine-year-old war. The capture of two U.S. sailors outside Kabul last June was one unexpected catalyst for the improved security. The intense search for the two, whom insurgents killed within days, churned up a number of significant leads. "A lot of stuff was coming actively and very heavily at that time," said a Western intelligence official, who received permission to discuss Kabul security only on the condition of anonymity. "We've been going after them aggressively since July." While Afghan forces are responsible for Kabul security, U.S. Special Operations Forces have been quietly supporting them by staging operations in the capital. From April through October, according to figures from the American military, special forces killed 13 people and detained six. Most of the big attacks to hit Kabul have been the work of the Haqqani network, a Taliban ally based in Pakistan's North Waziristan region that has ties to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency. This year, the U.S-led military coalition has focused more attention on the Haqqani forces. American forces said they'd killed 115 Haqqani members and captured 250 more from June to August. In September, U.S. officials said, they killed or captured more than 100 Haqqani and Taliban leaders. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser, told McClatchy that military operations around Kabul and in Haqqani's border sanctuaries in Pakistan had disrupted the network's operation. "The number of commanders that they have lost is significant," Spanta said. Afghan officials have tripled the number of police officers who guard Kabul and have expanded the so-called "Ring of Steel" checkpoints at key entrances to the city's power centers. Afghan and U.S. officials say they're doing better at sharing intelligence, which allowed them to thwart attempts to attack an international donors' conference in July, as well as track down insurgents responsible for an embarrassing mortar attack on the capital's closely watched peace conference in June. The Afghan police force that's responsible for Kabul has jumped from 5,000 officers to 18,000, and the Afghan army has established a new division with 7,000 soldiers to help protect the capital. The U.S. has demanded repeatedly that Pakistan rein in the Afghan insurgents it covertly supports, but American and Afghan intelligence officials said there were few signs of restraint. Spanta and other Afghan government leaders called for still more U.S. pressure on Pakistan to crack down on Haqqani operatives and Taliban leaders who orchestrate attacks on Afghanistan from their border sanctuaries. "This is other evidence for my central thesis: We have to fight the source," Spanta said. Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/20/102338/afghan-capital-enjoys-relative.html#ixzz130FaJ5y2

Taliban Elite, Aided by NATO, Join Talks for Afghan Peace

2010-10-20T10:13:00.000-04:00

By DEXTER FILKINS New York Times KABUL, Afghanistan — Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group’s leadership, who are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops, officials here say. The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Taliban war effort inside Afghanistan. Afghan leaders have also held discussions with leaders of the Haqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerrilla factions fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban leaders coming into Afghanistan for talks have left their havens in Pakistan on the explicit assurance that they will not be attacked or arrested by NATO forces, Afghans familiar with the talks say. Many top Taliban leaders reside in Pakistan, where they are believed to enjoy at least some official protection. In at least one case, Taliban leaders crossed the border and boarded a NATO aircraft bound for Kabul, according to an Afghan with knowledge of the talks. In other cases, NATO troops have secured roads to allow Taliban officials to reach Afghan- and NATO-controlled areas so they can take part in discussions. Most of the discussions have taken place outside of Kabul, according to the Afghan official. American officials said last week that talks between Afghan and Taliban leaders were under way. But the ranks of the insurgents, the fact that they represent multiple factions, and the extent of NATO efforts to provide transportation and security to adversaries they otherwise try to kill or capture have not been previously disclosed. At least four Taliban leaders, three of them members of the Quetta shura and one of them a member of the Haqqani family, have taken part in discussions, according to the Afghan official and a former diplomat in the region. The identities of the Taliban leaders are being withheld by The New York Times at the request of the White House and an Afghan who has taken part in the discussions. The Afghan official said that identifying the men could result in their deaths or detention at the hands of rival Taliban commanders or the Pakistani intelligence agents who support them. The discussions are still described as preliminary, partly because Afghan and American officials are trying to determine how much influence the Taliban leaders who have participated in the talks have within their own organizations. Even so, the talks have been held on several different occasions and appear to represent the most substantive effort to date to negotiate an end to the nine-year-old war, which began with an American-led campaign to overthrow the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks. “These are face-to-face discussions,” said an Afghan with knowledge of the talks. “This is not about making the Americans happy or making Karzai happy. It’s about what is in the best interests of the Afghan people.” “These talks are based on personal relationships,” the official said. “When the Taliban see that they can travel in the country without being attacked by the Americans, they see that the government is sovereign, that they can trust us.” The discussions appear to be unfolding without the approval of Pakistan’s leaders, who are believed to exercise a wide degree of control over the Taliban’s leadership. The Afghan government seems to be trying to seek a reconciliation agreement that does not directly involve Pakistan, which Mr. Karzai’s government fears will exercise too much influence over Afghanistan after NATO forces withdraw. But that strategy could backfire by provoking the Pakistanis, who could undermine any agreement. Mullah Muhammad Omar, the overall leader of the Taliban, is explicitly being cut out of the negotiations, in part because of his closeness to the Pakistani security services, officials said. Afghans who have tried to take part in, or even facilitate, past negotiations have been killed by their Taliban comrades, sometimes with the assistance of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. “The ISI will try to prevent these negotiations from happening,” the Afghan official said. “The ISI will just eliminate them,” he said, referring to the people who take part. Earlier this year, the ISI detained as many as 23 Taliban leaders residing in Pakistan after the intelligence service discovered that the Taliban leaders were talking secretly with representatives of the Afghan government. Cutting Mullah Omar out of the negotiations appears to represent an attempt by Afghan leaders to drive a wedge into the upper ranks of the Taliban leadership. Though there is some disagreement among Afghan officials, many regard Mullah Omar as essentially a prisoner of the Pakistani security establishment who would be unable to exercise any independence. Some American and Afghan officials believe that the Taliban is vulnerable to being split, with potentially large chunks of the movement defecting to the Afghan government. The Haqqani group is the namesake of Jalalhuddin Haqqani, a former minister in the Taliban government in the 1990s who presides over a Mafia-like organization based in North Waziristan, in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Haqqani network has sheltered several members of Al Qaeda and maintains close links to Pakistan’s security services. The group is believed to be responsible for many suicide attacks inside Kabul that have killed hundreds of civilians. Earlier this year, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of NATO forces here, asked the Obama administration to declare the Haqqani network a terrorist organization. That has not happened. Indeed, the endorsement of such talks presents the Americans with a paradox. Many if not most of the leaders of the Taliban and the Haqqani group are targets for death or capture. Many of the same individuals are also on the United Nations “black list,” which obliges governments to freeze their assets and prevent them from traveling. Waheed Omar, a spokesman for President Karzai, acknowledged that the government was in contact with a range of Taliban leaders, but he declined to discuss any details. “I cannot confirm that there have been discussions with the Quetta shura,” he said. The Taliban leadership and those in their immediate circle appear to be in the dark as well. A Pakistani cleric close to the Quetta shura and the Haqqani leadership said in an interview that he was unaware of any face-to-face discussions with Afghan leaders. But he said the Afghan government had recently sent out feelers to several Taliban commanders, with the proviso that Mullah Omar be left out. “The problem is, they want to exclude Mullah Omar,” the cleric said. “If you exclude him, then there cannot be any talks at all.” The Pakistani cleric said that some discussions among members of the Quetta shura may have taken place recently in Saudi Arabia, where many of the group’s leaders had traveled during the holy month of Ramadan. One Pakistani security official said he was aware of talks involving a member of the Quetta shura. But he said those discussions would likely come to nothing, because the Taliban leader did not any have official endorsement. “He’s useless,” the Pakistani security officer said of the Taliban leader. “This guy is not in a position to make a deal.” For their part, American officials say they are wary of investing too much hope in the discussions. In the past, talks — or, more accurately, talks about talks — have foundered over preconditions that each side has set: for the Taliban, that the Americans must first withdraw; for the Afghan government, that the Taliban must first disarm. Perhaps the biggest complication lies on the battlefield. As long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to want to make a deal. In recent months, as the additional troops and resources ordered up by President Obama have poured in, the American military has stepped up operations against Taliban strongholds. So far, the insurgents have shown few public signs of wanting to give up. That much was acknowledged Tuesday by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta. “If there are elements that wish to reconcile and get reintegrated, that ought to be obviously explored,” he said in Washington. “But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile.”

Post: How Obama sabotaged Middle East peace talks

2010-10-19T09:08:00.001-04:00

Jackson Diehl, Washington Post October 19 For 15 years and more, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas conducted peace talks with Israel in the absence of a freeze on Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Now, it appears as likely as not that his newborn negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu -- and their goal of agreement on a Palestinian state within a year -- will die because of Abbas's refusal to continue without such a freeze. The Palestinian president's stand has frustrated a lot of people -- including his own prime minister, Salaam Fayyad, and the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, both of whom have said that the settlement issue should not be an obstacle to the negotiations. At a recent dinner in Washington, Fayyad pointed out that any building in the settlements during the next year would have no effect on the outcome of the talks or the future Palestinian state. So why does Abbas stubbornly persist in his self-defeating position? In an interview with Israeli television Sunday night, he offered a remarkably candid explanation: "When Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped," he said. "If America says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?" The statement confirmed something that many Mideast watchers have suspected for a long time: that the settlement impasse originated not with Netanyahu or Abbas, but with Obama -- who by insisting on an Israeli freeze has created a near-insuperable obstacle to the peace process he is trying to promote. A standoff between Obama and Netanyahu over settlements paralyzed Middle East diplomacy for more than a year, while Abbas happily watched from the sidelines. Netanyahu finally announced a 10-month, partial moratorium on new settlement construction. In July, following a meeting at the White House, it looked like the U.S. and Israeli leaders had overcome their differences. Obama said nothing about settlements afterward, and instead urged Abbas to begin direct talks with Netanyahu. Yet to the surprise of both Netanyahu and some in his own administration, Obama reintroduced the settlement issue. First in a press conference and then in his September address to the UN General Assembly, he called on the Israeli government to extend the settlement moratorium, which expired on Sept. 26. In doing so, he made it impossible for Abbas not to make the same demand. In his television interview, Abbas said that Netanyahu had told him that he could not extend the settlement moratorium without causing his right-wing government to collapse. So both leaders are trapped. Netanyahu is a hostage to his cabinet; and Abbas is the prisoner of Obama's misguided rhetoric.

Pentagon bracing for new WikiLeaks release

2010-10-18T08:30:00.000-04:00

By Olivia Hampton (AFP) – 5 hours ago WASHINGTON — The Pentagon scoured through an Iraq war database Monday to prepare for potential fallout from an expected release by WikiLeaks of some 400,000 secret military reports. The massive release, possibly early this week, is set to dwarf the whistleblower website's publication of 77,000 classified US military documents on the war in Afghanistan in July, including the names of Afghan informants and other details from raw intelligence reports. Another 15,000 are due out soon. In order to prepare for the anticipated release of sensitive intelligence on the US-led Iraq war, officials set up a 120-person taskforce several weeks ago to comb through the database and "determine what the possible impacts might be," said Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. The Department of Defense is concerned the leak compiles "significant activities" from the war, which include incidents such as known attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, civilians or infrastructure in the country. The data was culled from an Iraq-based database that contained "significant acts, unit-level reporting, tactical reports, things of that nature," said Lapan, noting that Pentagon officials still do not know how many and which documents would be released. He urged WikiLeaks to return the documents to the US military, which he said found no need to redact them in the interim. "Our position is redactions don't help, it's returning the documents to their rightful owner," Lapan said. "We don't believe WikiLeaks or others have the expertise needed. It's not as simple as just taking out names. There are other things and documents that aren't names that are also potentially damaging." For the Iraq leak, Wikileaks is believed to be teaming up with the same news outlets as it did for the Afghanistan document dump -- The New York Times, Britain's Guardian and Der Spiegel of Germany -- and Newsweek magazine has reported that all partners would release the material simultaneously. The July release caused uproar in the US government, with director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director Michael Hayden warning it could undermine the post-9/11 effort to break down walls between rival intelligence agencies. Difficulties in sharing intelligence information have been repeatedly identified as a problem plaguing spy and law enforcement services since the attacks of September 11, 2001. In a speech this month, Clapper said President Barack Obama was full of "angst" over a "hemorrhage" of leaks of sensitive intelligence from government officials. "I think it's going to have a very chilling effect on the need to share," he said. WikiLeaks has not identified the source of the documents it has released so far but suspicion has fallen on Bradley Manning, a US Army intelligence analyst who is in military custody. Manning was arrested in May following the release by WikiLeaks of video footage of a US Apache helicopter strike in Iraq in which civilians died, and he has been charged with delivering defense information to an unauthorized source. Launched in 2006, WikiLeaks is facing internal troubles amid criticism its releases harm US national security and an ongoing investigation into its founder, Julian Assange, over an alleged sex crime in Sweden. It also has some money problems. Assange told The Guardian that British firm Moneybookers, an online payment company it uses to collect donations, closed his website's account in August after the US and Australian governments blacklisted WikiLeaks in the days following the initial release of Afghan documents. The website has been undergoing "scheduled maintenance" since September 29, but promises to "be back online as soon as possible."

U.S. and Vietnam Build Ties With an Eye on China

2010-10-13T10:53:00.001-04:00

By SETH MYDANS HANOI, Vietnam — A visit to Vietnam this week by Robert M. Gates, the United States defense secretary, is just the latest step in a bilateral relationship that is at its warmest since diplomatic ties were established 15 years ago. A steady progression of careful gestures has eroded the enmities of the Vietnam War, built a basis of increasing trust and turned the two nations’ attention, in large part, from issues of the past to the present. It is the second American cabinet-level visit to Vietnam in four months; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton came in July. Exchanges at this level have become almost common, if not routine. Mr. Gates was here for a gathering of defense chiefs from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations and partner countries. “I would say that relations are at their highest point in 15 years,” said Hung M. Nguyen, director of the Indochina Institute at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. “We have basically removed the major hurdles of suspicion in military-to-military relations, and I would expect things to proceed quite fast,” he said. The main concern shared by the two nations underscores the shifts in alliances in the 35 years since the war came to an end: Chinese claims in the South China Sea. It is an issue with some historical paradox. While the United States sought during the war to contain an expansion of Chinese Communism into Vietnam, it is aligned with Vietnam today in concern over an escalation of China’s maritime claims. China was an ally of North Vietnam in its war against South Vietnam and the United States in the 1960s and ’70s and is now a partner of a unified Vietnam in an uneasy relationship between Communist nations of vastly different size. “Vietnam worries about Chinese in the South China Sea, and America worries about interference in freedom of navigation,” Dr. Hung said. “Because of this, the strategic interests of Vietnam and the United States converge.” On Tuesday, Vietnam announced that China had released a Vietnamese fishing boat and crew it had seized near the disputed Paracel Islands a month ago, ending the latest flare-up between the nations. China earlier said that the crew must pay a fine, and Vietnam said that the crew members had been mistreated. By Vietnam’s count, 63 fishing boats with 725 crew members have been seized since 2005 in areas claimed by China. In March, China raised the level of its territorial claim, asserting that the South China Sea was a “core concern,” a phrase that placed it on a par with Taiwan and Tibet, its most politically contentious territorial interests. In response, during a visit to Hanoi in July, Mrs. Clinton hardened Washington’s stance by saying the United States had a “national interest” in freedom of navigation in the area. In balancing its relations between the two major powers, Vietnam has been at pains to reassure China, the giant on its doorstep, that it would have no alliances, military bases or military coalitions that threatened China. While Vietnam marked the 15th anniversary of diplomatic ties with the United States this year, it also celebrated a much longer diplomatic relationship of 60 years with China. Hanoi’s warming toward Washington has also been slowed by suspicions of American motives and commitment to a Vietnam policy, analysts said. They said Washington’s relations with Vietnam had always been part of larger international interests and could shift as those interests changed. Once again, as it was during the war, America’s stance toward Vietnam is one piece in a broader China policy. Toeing a careful line, Vietnam insists that its policies toward the two nations are independent of each other. “You should not look at Vietnam’s relationship with the United States through the prism of China,” said Nguyen Nam Duong, a research fellow at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, a branch of the Foreign Ministry. “Vietnam will have independent relations with both the United States and China, and we want to separate those relations from each other,” he said in an interview on Tuesday. Quite apart from their relations with China, the two former wartime enemies have grown steadily closer. Trade relations were normalized in 2006. Port calls by United States naval vessels have become more frequent since the first one in 2003. “It’s a very deliberate pace that’s being kept here,” said Carlyle Thayer, an expert on Vietnam at the Australian Defense Force Academy at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. “Neither side wants to be used by the other, but both want to advance the relationship,” he said. Mrs. Clinton took an exuberant tone last month when she said, “The progress between Vietnam and the United States has been breathtaking.” Vietnamese officials have been less effusive, but they seem to agree. “Vietnam and the United States are enjoying an excellent period of bilateral relations,” the Vietnamese ambassador to the United States, Le Cong Phung, said in remarks quoted by the official Vietnam News Agency last month. However, warming relations have been slowed by American concerns over human rights abuses in Vietnam and by Hanoi’s suspicion that Washington is using the issue to undermine the Communist government. The Vietnamese often use the phrases “peaceful evolution” and the “color revolutions,” expressions that refer to their view that the collapse of the Soviet Union and other European Communist governments was brought about at least partly by outside support for democracy and human rights. The competing concerns involving human rights renew themselves in something of a vicious circle. Vietnam’s fear of American motives leads to the arrests of dissidents it sees as connected with the West. And those arrests in turn intensify concerns of the United States over human rights abuses. The two nations’ alignment on the issue of the South China Sea illustrates the emergence of a more forward-looking relationship, said Kim Ninh, the country representative in Vietnam for The Asia Foundation, which is based in San Francisco. For the United States, the chief issue from the past continues to be a full accounting for military service members still missing from the war, though that concern no longer carries the power that it once did. For Vietnam, the chief remaining postwar issue is a demand for greater American assistance in addressing the effects of Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant that was sprayed in parts of the country, causing widespread birth defects. Mr. Duong of the Foreign Ministry said these postwar issues remained “very relevant.” “In terms of defense relations, we still need to settle the issues of the past so as to build trust to move toward the future,” he said. But he said that bilateral relations “have never been better” and that “they can only go upward. They cannot go downward.”

Payoff seen in Afghan surge

2010-10-12T09:19:00.001-04:00

Taliban demoralized and changing sides, military says RESCUE READY: Air Force Pararescueman Alejandro Serrano with the 46th Expeditionary Rescue Squadron test-fires his weapon over Kandahar province in case it's needed during casualty-pickup missions in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is starting to see signs that the troop surge in Afghanistan is working on a timetable similar to the Iraq reinforcement campaign in 2007, according to an outside adviser and military sources. "There are already some early signs of a beginning of a momentum shift in our favor," retired Army Gen. Jack Keane told The Washington Times. Gen. Keane just returned from a two-week tour of the battlefield, where the focus is on ousting the Taliban from Kandahar, its birthplace, as well as from Helmand province and other southern and eastern areas. Gen. Keane reported his findings to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Kabul, who saw the surge of 30,000 troops completed in August, placing about 100,000 American service members in country. An architect of the Bush administration's surge of troops in Iraq, Gen. Keane advised Gen. Petraeus when he was the top commander there. Gen. Keane told The Times he has witnessed in Afghanistan the same shift in fortunes: Taliban fighters are changing sides, villages are being cleansed of the enemy and protected, and intercepted communications show flagging Taliban morale. "Overall, we can see now that the surge forces are starting to make a difference," he said. "And you have to be encouraged by some of the progress that's being made. All that said, we're in a tough fight, and I believe we will continue to gain momentum." Gen. Keane offered two observations as evidence. First, most commanders with whom he spoke said they are encountering Taliban who want to stop fighting and reintegrate into Afghan society. "That's a big deal," he said. Second, "There's evidence of erosion of some of the will of the Taliban. We pick it up in interrogations, and we also pick it up listening to their radio traffic and telephone calls in terms of the morale problems they're starting to have," Gen. Keane said. A military officer in the U.S. who monitors the war confirmed that Taliban radio chatter sounds a bit frantic. "The Taliban are not anxious to engage us, because we come after them once they start shooting at us," the officer told The Times on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press. "One of the translations I saw came out as 'Marines are insane.' So, maybe that means that little by little things are getting better." Gen. Keane said the drop in Taliban morale can be traced to soldiers and Marines going after hillside hamlets and safe havens. The Taliban has thrived in such areas, where they regroup, plan raids and store ammunition. "What is happening is, the Taliban's freedom of movement," he said. "We are literally taking away from them things they are used to. We are denying them some of the safe havens that they have in the south. We are denying them the support zones they've been operating out of with impunity. "Support zones are up in the mountains, where they use villagers to help hide their weapons caches. Safe havens are up there, too, usually away from everybody, and we are denying them the use of those. We are interdicting and disrupting their operating areas, which had a tendency to focus on the roads quite a bit, and we're interdicting what they're doing there." Gen. Petraeus is on a schedule to show positive results by July 2011, when President Obama's war strategy calls for the beginning of a troop exit. The four-star general's job may have gotten tougher last week, when James L. Jones, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, quit as Mr. Obama's national security adviser. He will be succeeded by Thomas Donilon, a Democratic Party operative and lawyer who served as Gen. Jones' deputy and who opposed more troops for Afghanistan, which puts him at odds with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. In a recent NPR interview, Gen. Petraeus cited the Malajat district in Kandahar city as an area infested with Taliban but now controlled by U.S. and Afghan forces. "A month ago, it was a sanctuary for certain elements of the Taliban who were carrying out assassinations, intimidation activities, extortion and a variety of other illicit acts," he said. "They largely controlled it. That Malajat district was [one] in which the Taliban had freedom of movement, freedom of access, and again, considerable influence in that area." Maj. Gen. Richard Mills, the top Marine in Afghanistan, who is focused on retaking Helmand, has been guarded about war progress. But last week at a change-of-command ceremony, he declared, according to press reports: "We're hurting the enemy, and we're hurting him badly. For every casualty we suffer, the enemy suffers numerous casualties." Stephen Biddle, a Council on Foreign Relations analyst who advises the command in Afghanistan, like Gen. Keane, has seen territorial gains. "There are places that had been deeply Taliban-held that are now certainly contested and in some places increasingly government-controlled, like the central Helmand River Valley for example," he said on the council's website. "This may happen increasingly over coming weeks and months in previously dangerous parts of Kandahar province, where progress has not been as fast as many had hoped." Mr. Biddle said the Obama administration made a mistake in calling out Afghan President Hamid Karzai publicly for rampant corruption, which embarrassed him in front of his people and forced him to lash out at Washington. Now, the U.S. command and State Department have embarked on a "bottom-up" strategy to try to root out corruption network by network, he said. There are still plenty of skeptics, given the rampant government corruption, Pakistan's inability to stop the Taliban from infiltrating Afghanistan, and the mixed loyalties of Afghan police and army. The Taliban issued a statement last week on the war's ninth anniversary claiming they control 75 percent of Afghanistan. Robert Maginnis, a military analyst and Army consultant, said "big problems" exist. Mr. Obama's 2009 Afghan strategy put new emphasis on Pakistan-U.S. cooperation in defeating the Taliban. Yet, elements of Islamabad's intelligence service are still helping the Taliban, according to a London School of Economics study. "Pakistan is not helping our efforts, and Obama made Islamabad a major part of the solution," he said. "Part of the problem with Pakistan is the major distraction created by the floods, but also because the civilian government is utterly incompetent." Mr. Maginnis also said that if Mr. Obama insists on the July 2011 deadline, it will result in the Taliban simply returning from Pakistan to retake villages and cities. "We may spend more blood and treasure in the counterinsurgency, but next summer there will be little to show for the investment other than a few population centers enjoying some security but little governance and an economy," he said. Still, Gen. Keane said he sees Marines and soldiers methodically taking territory once controlled by the Taliban. "We've made significant progress in Helmand province," he said. "The Marines will continue to make progress as they push farther north, as well. The effort in the south, in Kandahar, is just beginning."

In Vietnam, Gates to Discuss Maritime Claims of China

2010-10-11T09:19:00.001-04:00

By THOM SHANKER HANOI, Vietnam — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates landed Sunday in Vietnam, where the narrative of a past war with the United States has faded as the leadership here openly seeks American support to counter an increasingly assertive China. Shared Concern About China Aligns U.S. and Vietnam (October 11, 2010) As Hanoi Marks 1,000th Birthday, Some Are Cynical (October 10, 2010) Mr. Gates has scheduled private talks with his Vietnamese counterpart during a conference of defense ministers from across the region, where a key issue will be how to manage China’s expanded claims of maritime rights in the South China Sea. China has backed those claims with threats of economic retaliation against some nations in the region. A senior Defense Department official traveling aboard Mr. Gates’s airplane to Hanoi said the defense ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations would look for common ground on the issues of counterterrorism, peacekeeping and, with China in attendance, a response to Beijing’s push for increased sovereignty over international waters. Mr. Gates faces a delicate balancing act. He must reassure Asian partners and allies that the United States will remain engaged in the region and will work for a peaceful resolution of the competing claims over islands, undersea mineral wealth and fishing rights. But he must do so without jeopardizing his equally important efforts to restore a healthy military-to-military dialogue with China. China and the United States have already sparred over China’s claims in the South China Sea, with the United States allied with Vietnam on the issue. In March, at least one senior Chinese official raised the level of its claim, asserting to two senior White House officials visiting Beijing that the South China Sea was a “core interest,” a phrase that placed it on a par with Taiwan and Tibet, which China considers parts of its territory. In Hanoi in July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hardened Washington’s stance by saying the United States had a “national interest” in freedom of navigation in the area. The defense secretary’s expected arguments to China are clear: Beijing’s dash to become a global economic power requires it to honor accepted standards for sharing oceans and airspace, and harassment of ships and airplanes in international lanes off its shores will harm China’s long-term interests. China is expected to invite Mr. Gates to Beijing, a significant change in tone. China froze military relations with the United States this year when the Obama administration announced $6.4 billion in arms sales to Taiwan. Mr. Gates arrived in Vietnam 15 years after normalization of relations between the two countries, but the streets were overflowing with revelers for another celebration, the 1,000th anniversary of the founding of Hanoi. China and Vietnam have a long history of bloody competition, one that was buried for the years that China backed North Vietnam in pushing back American military involvement here. Vietnam’s worries over Chinese encroachment were reflected in its recent choices for weapons purchases. Last year, Vietnam signed deals with Russia to buy six Kilo-class diesel-powered hunter-killer submarines for $1.8 billion and eight Sukhoi jet fighters for another $500 million, according to the Congressional Research Service. Both weapons are designed for protecting territorial waters and airspace, and the deals also illustrate Russia’s support of nations trying to curb China’s power. The United States, while seeking to improve diplomatic and military relations with Vietnam, has offered little in the way of arms, mostly focusing its assistance on military training and officer education. Washington has continuing human rights concerns with Vietnam, mostly about ensuring freedom of religion here.

Pentagon pitches austerity plan to nervous Wall Street

2010-10-06T11:06:00.001-04:00

Tue, Oct 5 2010 By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn met with over a dozen Wall Street analysts last week to map out Pentagon cost-cutting plans aimed at averting a collapse in defense spending the likes of which was seen at the end of the Cold War. Lynn tried to assure the analysts that the Defense Department could continue to fund its biggest weapons purchases and still meet personnel costs by trimming $100 billion over five years from overhead and low priority programs, according to accounts of the meeting obtained by Reuters. The Pentagon confirmed the meeting took place, but gave no details. Investors remain worried and industry executives are already scrambling to find other revenues to offset the expected contraction in military demand. "Nobody on Wall Street believes that defense spending will remain stable. The country is running a budget deficit of $1 billion every six hours, and defense will have to be part of the solution," said analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. He said Pentagon officials were losing credibility because they were not facing up to that budget reality, and had not yet drafted policies to deal with the coming downturn and the wave of consolidations already hitting the sector. Analysts at the meeting were sworn to secrecy, but sources familiar with the proceedings said Lynn faced tough questions about future profit margins and the Pentagon's ability to maintain a choice of suppliers given decreased demand for weapons. Lynn, a former executive with Raytheon Co, responded, according to these accounts, that the Pentagon funds most research and development programs -- in contrast to the commercial sector -- pays its bill faster, and still offers companies profit margins around 12 percent. Joseph Nadol of JP Morgan cited current modest valuations and poor performance of defense shares in a note on Tuesday, saying the stocks "will have a difficult time outperforming the broader market in the coming years." The Standard & Poor's Aerospace and Defense Index has risen 6 percent this year but is off 25 percent from an all-time high reached in October 2007. While there could be some trading rallies, and prices could rise somewhat if the Pentagon's fiscal 2012 budget guidance was "mediocre but not disastrous," Nadol said his firm's estimates were generally declining. NOT MUCH UPSIDE Nadol and other analysts say the bad news is already factored into defense stocks, which should give them some resilience. But they don't see much upside either, given the overall economic outlook and growing concern about deficits. Friday's closed-door meeting in New York was the latest of a series of outreach meetings with industry, lawmakers and investors that have been hosted by Lynn, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and chief weapons buyer, Ashton Carter. The meetings stand in stark contrast to the tenure of Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who refused to meet with industry executives on principle. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the meetings were part of a larger outreach effort to change the culture of the Defense Department and not some new lobbying campaign to "woo or win over industry investors." "It is in our interest for there to be a healthy industrial base in this country," he said. "But we don't do investor relations here. That's not our responsibility." Defense consultant Jim McAleese said the frequency of the meetings, and the involvement of the most senior Pentagon officials showed that they "do realize that the threat to defense funding is both credible, imminent and quantifiable." Rob Stallard with RBC Capital Markets Corp said Gates' personal engagement had helped him cancel some programs long propped up by Congress, including the Lockheed Martin Corp F-22 fighter. "It's a sign that Gates means business." But Stallard said Congress would still likely defy a veto threat and continue funding the Pentagon's current target for cuts -- a second F-35 engine built by General Electric and Britain's Rolls Royce. Gates' plans to retire next year could also make it difficult to sustain the reforms and stave off bigger cuts to the budget in coming years, analysts say.

Pentagon cuts are just a preview of what's to come

2010-10-05T08:51:00.001-04:00

Monday, October 4, 2010; 10:58 PM The bipartisan uproar in Congress caused by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's attempt to reduce excess Pentagon spending by eliminating the no-longer-needed Joint Forces Command in Virginia is just a preview of the battle that will occur next year when the country awakens to the drastic measures needed to bring overall federal taxes and outlays in line. Pentagon cuts are just a preview of what's to come That argument was made last week at a House Budget Committee hearing called primarily to give the Virginia congressional delegation another chance to complain about Gates's plan to end the command set up nine years ago to promote jointness among the services. At that time, it had a staff of 2,000 military and civilian personnel and cost $200 million. Today, with jointness an established service reality, JFCOM has a $1 billion price tag because it has ballooned to 3,000 military and civilian personnel and 3,000 contractors. "The defense budget is in many respects a microcosm of the rest of the federal budget, and the issues in the defense budget - such as the rising cost of pay, pensions, health care, contracting, infrastructure and education - are issues in other parts of the federal budget as well," Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the House panel. CSBA describes itself as an "independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options." CSBA's board includes former congressman David McCurdy (D-Okla.), former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.), former Army vice chief of staff Jack Keane and former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. Harrison said the Defense Department initially publicized "targeted cuts to programs and activities it has deemed to be a lower priority." Calling it "a sound approach" and "a step in the right direction," he added that he recognized that "in some cases, it will mean lost jobs. In other cases, it will require taking on vested interests, both within the Pentagon and outside the building." But he cautioned about the first announced cuts, "They do not address some of the fundamental issues that plague the defense budget, such as the rising cost of military health care." The details Harrison then presented are stunning. The Defense Department spends about $246 billion on the uniformed military and DOD civilian personnel, a payroll of 2.3 million direct, full-time employees. That is 51 percent of the federal workforce, he said. Military health-care costs are rising "due in part to more and more military retirees and their dependents electing to use their military health-care benefits," Harrison said. That is not surprising, because the fee charged retirees under the Tricare military health plan is $460 a year for a family. That fee was set in 1995 and has not increased, Harrison said. Compare that to the $3,500-a-year average annual premium that workers in the private sector pay for coverage, and you will not be surprised that more and more of the 70 percent of military retirees with access to private health plans are staying with the military system. And with 9.5 million Americans eligible for military health-care benefits, the cost to the Defense Department will only grow. That is because Congress in 2001 approved Tricare for life, meaning that military retirees who are older than 65 and are on Medicare can also use Tricare as their supplemental insurance program. "Accrual payments to this trust fund now total $11 billion annually out of the DOD budget," Harrison said. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week about Gates's planned reductions, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn acknowledged that Pentagon health-care costs are growing "in dramatic fashion." He assured members that "as part of the fiscal 2012 budget, I think we will be proposing to Congress some ideas about how to restrain health-care costs." If you think the howls of the Virginia delegation about eliminating JFCOM have been loud, wait until the veterans organizations see the first steps toward limiting military retirees' health-care benefits. And all this is just a Pentagon-based preview of what is to come when the inevitable steps are proposed to raise taxes for, and reduce payouts from, Social Security and Medicare and other broad federal programs.

Israel seals deal for 20 Lockheed F-35s

2010-10-04T16:12:00.000-04:00

An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft banks over the flightline at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on, April 23, 2009. The aircraft is the first F-35 to visit the base which will be the future home of the JSF training facility. (UPI TEL AVIV, Israel, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- Israel has finalized its plan to buy 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters for $2.75 billion despite opposition from some military chiefs who say the funds could be better spent and smaller-than-expected spinoff contracts for Israel's defense industry. The Israeli business daily, Globes, described the sale as the country's most expensive arms deal. "Purchasing the most advanced fighters jets in the world is an important step in strengthening the State of Israel's military power," Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in a statement after the deal won final approval by a ministerial committee Thursday. Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave his go-ahead in August. The first of the aircraft are scheduled for delivery in 2015. The deal also includes spare parts, maintenance costs and simulators for pilot training. Each aircraft costs $96 million. That's considerably less than the $137 million price tag on the F-35 because of lengthy delays in the development program and hefty cost overruns that have set back delivery of the jets by up to two years. It wasn't clear whether the Pentagon had lowered the price to encourage the Israelis to accept a plan by U.S. President Barack Obama's administration to sell Saudi Arabia advanced aircraft worth an estimated $60 billion, ostensibly to bolster Persian Gulf Arab forces to counter Iran. Israel acquiesced on that after the Americans agreed not to provide Saudi Arabia with long-range standoff weapons systems that could threaten Israeli security. Acquiring the F-35, even in limited numbers, would allow Israel to maintain the technological edge over its regional adversaries that the United States has long pledged to preserve. The F-35 buy was pushed through instead of upgrading Israel's Boeing F-15I Ra'am and Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufa jets. Israel is the first foreign country to buy the F-35, with which the Pentagon plans to equip the U.S. Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. Indeed, the 20 F-35s, enough to equip one squadron, aren't likely to involve any significant outlay by Israel since the bulk of the $2.75 billion cost will be financed by U.S. military assistance to Israel. This currently totals around $3 billion a year. Globes reported Monday that senior military officials "said that $150 million from the defense budget will be allocated for the purchases of the F-35s spread over eight years." Uri Shani, director general of the Defense Ministry, said that Israel may order further F-35s sometime in the future. The Israeli air force wanted 75 F-35s but had to trim the initial purchase because of the high cost of the fifth-generation fighter and development program setbacks. Negotiations dragged on for more than two years. The Israelis wanted their own electronic warfare and communications systems installed in the jets. They also wanted to expand the aircraft's payload capabilities so it could carry Israeli-made missiles. The Americans balked at those demands but eventually agreed to allow the incorporation of some Israeli systems. The Pentagon also initially said that Israeli defense firms would get about $4 billion in contracts from Lockheed Martin, the lead U.S. contractor in the F-35 program. But now it turns out that deal was contingent on Israel buying 75 of the aircraft, so Israeli firms will get $1 billion-$1.3 billion in contracts related to the F-35. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported: "The Israeli defense companies are pleased even with the smaller figure and consider this an opening that could be expanded in the future." Among the companies likely to benefit from these spinoff contracts are Israel Aerospace Industries, flagship of Israel's defense sector; Elbit Systems, a leading electronics outfit; and Blades Technology, part-owned by Pratt & Whitney, which would be involved in the production of engines. But if the defense industry is happy with the deal, others aren't. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz objected to the F-35 buy on the grounds it involved a huge outlay at a time when unmanned aircraft, far cheaper and without involving expensive pilot training, are becoming increasingly important in aerial warfare. Even the defense companies objected initially, claiming the deal would damage them. Some members of the General Staff criticized the price tag, which they said prevented investment in weapons systems for the army and navy.

The Afghan Robin Hood

2010-10-04T11:08:00.000-04:00

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 4, 2010; A1 IN SPIN BOLDAK, AFGHANISTAN When Abdul Razziq, a colonel in the Afghan Border Police, walks through the chockablock bazaar in this sand-swept trading hub on the frontier with Pakistan, he is mobbed by a crowd that deferentially addresses him as General Razziq. Young boys want his photograph. Gray-bearded men offer him tea. Merchants refuse to sell him anything - if he wants a bottle of cologne, he gets it for free. U.S. officials say Razziq, who is illiterate and just 32, presides over a vast corruption network that skims customs duties, facilitates drug trafficking and smuggles other contraband. But he also has managed to achieve a degree of security here that has eluded U.S. troops elsewhere in the country: His force of 3,000 uniformed policemen and several thousand militiamen pursue the Taliban so relentlessly that Spin Boldak has become the safest and most prosperous district in southern Afghanistan. Despite the allegations, which he denies, Razziq represents the Obama administration's best hope for maintaining stability in this vital part of Afghanistan. Keeping Spin Boldak quiet, which allows more U.S. and Afghan forces to be employed elsewhere, is critical to fulfilling the president's pledge to start withdrawing U.S. troops next summer. "Is it a long-term solution? That's for others to decide," said the top NATO commander in the south, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter. "But it is a pragmatic solution. . . . He's Afghan good-enough." Meanwhile, U.S. and NATO officials have begun an ambitious plan to reform Razziq, hoping they can turn him into a more savory strongman. They are attempting to chaperone him, to offer incentives aimed at improving his behavior, and to set down new rules to compel him to put less money in his own pocket and more in the national treasury. "We're trying to promote integrity by watching his operations a whole lot more closely, but we don't want him to stop doing all of the good things that he's doing," said U.S. Army Special Forces Col. Robert Waltemeyer, who runs a border coordination center here with representatives of the Afghan and Pakistan security forces. "We want to capitalize on his leadership." The question of what to do about Razziq has vexed U.S. and NATO officials. Some have advocated for his ouster to demonstrate a hard line against graft, while others have argued that he be left alone because his force, which is more than five times the size of the U.S. military presence here, provides vital security for NATO supply convoys heading into Kandahar. "If we didn't have him, we'd be screwed," a U.S. Army officer said during a visit here in August. "It wouldn't be this quiet." Razziq, a lanky man with a close-cropped beard, is the chief of the Achakzais, one of the two principal tribes in this part of southern Afghanistan. His position as local strongman could have sparked the kind of conflict over power and resources that has driven people in other places to ally themselves with the Taliban. But thus far, Razziq has managed to spread the spoils deftly to avoid an open rebellion by the rival Noorzai tribe. "He's like this Robin Hood figure who appears from nowhere, takes money and uses it to meet [the people's] needs," said Lt. Col. Andrew Green, the commander of a U.S. Army infantry battalion in Spin Boldak. "He picks favorites, for sure, but he's smart enough not to make too many enemies, which isn't something you can say about every power broker in Afghanistan." Razziq has begun to extend his influence west toward Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the site of major U.S. military operations against the Taliban. Dozens of his men have participated in Afghan-led operations in recent weeks to flush the insurgents out of sanctuaries to the north and south of the city. One Afghan official said that Razziq's force is prized by the government because its well-paid members fight more ably than most Afghan soldiers. Razziq and his men also are valued because he is fiercely loyal to President Hamid Karzai and his half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the chairman of the Kandahar province council. Razziq owes his job and control over the border crossing to the president, and several U.S. officials said he repays that debt by funneling proceeds from corrupt activities to people linked to the Karzai brothers. The officials also said they have credible reports that Razziq countenanced widespread fraud in support of the Karzais in last year's presidential election and last month's parliamentary election. Several boxes stuffed with identically marked ballots for President Karzai were stored in his house overnight for what he deemed "safekeeping." "Razziq is the poster child for all that is wrong with Afghanistan's government," said a civilian adviser working for the U.S. government in Afghanistan who opposes working with him. "He's a militia leader who denies people the right to vote. What sort of message are we sending by keeping him in power?" Stabilizing force That concern prompted senior officials at the NATO military headquarters in Kabul to call for Razziq's removal late last year as the first step in the overall campaign to improve the quality of government in Kandahar and surrounding areas. The commanders in Kandahar pushed back, citing Razziq's cooperation with international forces and his willingness to conduct independent operations against the Taliban, which few Afghan units are able or willing to do. "If we pulled him out of there, our control of the border would have collapsed," said a senior U.S. official who advocated for Razziq. Ultimately, it was the need to ensure that trucks bearing military equipment could travel to Kandahar unimpeded that led then-Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, to decide that Razziq could stay. The general traveled to Spin Boldak twice to meet with the self-proclaimed general and deliver a mixed message: You need to help us, and you need to reform. U.S. officials then told Razziq not to interfere in the customs process. Duties and other fees would have to be collected by authorized personnel, not his men. He also was warned to keep his force operating within the border police's mandate, which allows independent operations along the frontier but not into other parts of the country. To reduce opportunities for graft, the U.S. and Canadian governments are spending $20 million to build a new customs facility that is separate from the border police station. They eventually hope to have truckers pay duties electronically, a tall order in a nation where inspections still are conducted by jabbing a wooden stick into the cargo compartment. In an interview at the main U.S. base here, Razziq insisted he is not corrupt and denounced allegations of malfeasance as "just rumors." "I don't need money," he said. "I have everything I need. Everyone likes me and respects me." Confronting an 'enigma' The centerpiece of the new American approach has been an attempt to watch over him by assigning him a mentor. After concluding that the previous U.S. battalion commander in Spin Boldak had grown too close to Razziq, senior American officials sent in Waltemeyer. His goal, which he spelled out in a memo to his superiors, was to "redirect [Razziq's] energies from day-to-day influence at the. . .border crossing point" to more traditional law-enforcement activities. As Razziq walked through the main market in Spin Boldak on a recent morning, there was little indication that his sway has been attenuated. A throng of well-wishers and supplicants gathered around him as he walked from stall to stall. "How are you?" he said to every shopkeeper as he reached over to hug them. "Do you need any help?" One man complained about the erratic supply of electricity. Another asked about the construction of a new school. Several merchants thrust business cards in his hand, imploring him to find jobs for their relatives. "He is responsible for everything good here," said Mohammed Qasim, a television vendor. As the merchants spilled out of their shops to greet Razziq, one asked another to keep watch on his wares. "Don't worry,'' Razziq said. "The thieves do not dare steal in front of me." An aide followed behind with a phone glued to his ear. He said Razziq has seven mobile phones, one of which is a dedicated line for top officials from Kabul and Kandahar. "You can see the enigma he presents," Waltemeyer said. Razziq scoffed at U.S. attempts to confine him to security patrolling along the border. "My duties are universal," he said. Some U.S. officials said Razziq has been emboldened by a lack of coordination among international troops. U.S. Special Operations forces have encouraged him to conduct the very sorts of combat missions that other officers have told him to avoid, the officials said. "Our messages to him are not consistent," the U.S. Army officer here said. Because Razziq's speed-dial includes everyone from Karzai to senior U.S. officers, he has not been timid about trying to change the terms of his relationship with his foreign partners. After repeated requests to work with someone other than Waltemeyer - Razziq wanted a "partner" with more forces at his disposal, not a "mentor" - commanders in southern Afghanistan recently assigned the task to a U.S. Army colonel who has more soldiers. But that colonel also has less time to watch over him than his previous minder. With security a non-issue in Spin Boldak, U.S. and NATO officers seem willing to forgo some of the supervision they once envisioned. "As long as we don't catch him moving trucks full of opium through the desert, we'll let him slide," the Army officer said. "If his men are shaking people down on the highway, well, that's just the way it's done here. It's no different from tollbooths on the highways back home."

Signaling Tensions, Pakistan Shuts NATO Route

2010-10-01T09:41:00.000-04:00

By JANE PERLEZ and HELENE COOPER ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — American officials pressed their Pakistani counterparts on Thursday to reopen a vital supply route for American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, as relations deteriorated after the fourth strike by coalition helicopters in a week killed three members of Pakistan’s border force. Workers unloaded a container from a truck carrying NATO supplies at a warehouse in Peshawar on Thursday, after Pakistan shut down the main land route for NATO supplies into Afghanistan. Pakistan angrily closed the crossing to protest the strikes on its side of the border, leaving American officials to use meetings and phone calls to try to soothe relations and get the route reopened. Both sides indicated that they might be able to resolve the dispute with a joint investigation. But the border closing, and the exceptional series of strikes by piloted aircraft, as opposed to drones, signaled a general increase in tensions between Pakistan and the United States, already uncomfortable allies that are pursuing competing interests in the Afghan war. The C.I.A. carried out a record number of drone attacks inside Pakistan last month, and new reports surfaced this week of unlawful executions by the Pakistani Army in areas where it has opened operations against Taliban forces threatening the government. The Pakistani offensives have not extended to North Waziristan, the prime stronghold of the insurgents who infiltrate Afghanistan, a growing source of frustration for American officials who face a deadline this year to show progress in the Afghan war. “We are clearly in the phase of our relationship where we’re trying to tell them we’re being diddled,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. But, she added: “We have been trying for a couple of years to decrease our logistical dependence on Pakistan, and have only managed to get it to 80 percent from 90 percent. So, no, we clearly don’t have anyplace else to go.” The border closing was a clear demonstration of the leverage Pakistan holds over the American war effort. It coincided with a previously scheduled visit by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, who met Thursday with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, part of a stream of American officials who have come to alternately cajole and coerce Pakistani cooperation. On Friday, unidentified assailants in Pakistan attacked and set fire to tankers carrying supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan, officials told Reuters, apparently in retaliation for the incursions into Pakistani territory. No one was wounded, an official said. After the border closing on Thursday, Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, trying to calm the tensions. That conversation followed a telephone call several days ago between Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Kayani, about the previous strikes. The border closing signaled the limits of Pakistan’s tolerance for intrusions on its sovereignty and for the pressure it was willing to absorb from American officials on any range of issues, despite receiving nearly $2 billion a year in military aid from Washington. The Pakistani government indicated Thursday that the cross-border strikes were more than it could bear without protest. “We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies,” said the Pakistani interior minister, Rehman Malik. At the same time, Pakistani officials tried to contain the damage from a video that came to the attention of American officials in recent days showing the execution of six young men, bound and blindfolded, by Pakistani Army soldiers. Responding to questions from American officials, Pakistani officials acknowledged Thursday that the video had not been faked, as they had first contended, an American official said, and that they had identified the soldiers and would take appropriate measures. It is in both the American and the Pakistani interests to keep the relationship going, the official said. The Pakistanis, facing economic collapse after the devastating floods of the summer, need American military aid — some $10 billion since 2001 — which could be cut off from units committing atrocities, the official said. American commanders are eager to continue C.I.A. drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas that have focused on militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who cross the border to attack NATO and American troops. The Pakistani government has agreed to the drone campaign, but could always suspend its permission or shrink the area in which the strikes are allowed. The country is also the prime supply route for the Afghan war, a fact Pakistani and American officials are both keenly aware of. The vast majority of nonlethal supplies — water, food, vehicles — for the coalition forces in landlocked Afghanistan must travel the length of Pakistan, from the southern port of Karachi to the Afghan border. Along that route, trucks and fuel tankers have at times been hijacked and attacked by Taliban forces. Pakistani authorities have closed the border crossings only occasionally, however, usually citing security concerns. But they have rarely appeared to hold up supplies in retaliation for NATO or American actions. In 2008, the Pakistanis closed the border crossing for several days after American aircraft bombed a Pakistani paramilitary post in Mohmand, another tribal area. Eleven Pakistanis were killed in the attack. American commanders in Afghanistan, long fearful that Pakistan could choke off the supply route more permanently, have been seeking alternate paths through Central Asia, but with little success. On Thursday, Pakistani officials gave them a glimpse of how much harder they could make the Afghan war. Trucks and oil tankers bound for coalition forces sat idle at the border post of Torkham, just north of Peshawar, with no word on when the post, one of two major land crossings to Afghanistan, would reopen, a Pakistani security official said. But American officials noted that Pakistan had shut only one of several supply routes to Afghanistan, a sign that the Pakistani government wanted to minimize the episode’s fallout. “We have many different capabilities, routes, ways to resupply, so there’s no immediate impact,” Col. Dave Lapan told reporters in Washington. The blocked route, the Khyber Pass, connects the frontier city of Peshawar to Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan. Colonel Lapan said American military officials were also looking into whether all procedures had been followed properly in the cross-border incidents. The Pakistani government took no similar action and made no such public protest after the earlier coalition airstrikes, even though they killed an estimated 55 people inside Pakistan. Those strikes, on Sept. 24 and Sept. 25, took place on the border separating Khost Province in Afghanistan from North Waziristan. Coalition helicopters fired into Pakistan three times, with one helicopter briefly breaching Pakistani airspace, according to Maj. Sunset Belinsky, a NATO spokeswoman. In the airstrike on Thursday, a NATO helicopter attacked a border post at Mandati Kandaw, a town close to Parachinar, in the Kurram tribal area, the Pakistani security official said. Three soldiers of Pakistan’s Frontier Corps were killed and three were wounded, he said. Another border post, at Kharlachi, also in Kurram, was struck a few hours later, the official added. The two posts are about 15 miles apart and border Paktia Province, in Afghanistan.

SECDEF Gates says too few in US bear the burdens of war

2010-09-30T11:53:00.000-04:00

By ANNE FLAHERTY (AP) – 18 hours ago DURHAM, N.C. — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that most Americans have grown too detached from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and see military service as "something for other people to do." In a speech Wednesday at Duke University, Gates said this disconnect has imposed a heavy burden on a small segment of society and wildly driven up the costs of maintaining an all-volunteer force. Because fewer Americans see military service as their duty, troops today face repeated combat tours and long separations from family. The 2.4 million people serving in the armed forces today represent less than 1 percent of the country's total population. To attract and retain recruits, the Defense Department finds itself spending more money, including handsome bonuses and education benefits. The money spent on personnel and benefits has nearly doubled since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, from $90 billion to $170 billion. "That is our sacred obligation," Gates told the audience of compensating troops. "But given the enormous fiscal pressures facing the country," the nation must devise "an equitable and sustainable system of military pay and benefits that reflects the realities of this century." Gates, who plans to retire next year, has been using academic-style speeches to outline what he believes to be the nation's toughest challenges that lie ahead when it comes to defense. Earlier this year, Gates asked whether troops were training for the right kinds of missions and called into question the utility of D-Day style amphibious landings handled historically by the Marine Corps. He has also embarked on a cost-cutting initiative to prepare for what he says are leaner days ahead for the department. As is the case in most of these speeches, Gates on Wednesday tried to raise awareness about a long-term problem rather than solve it. He offered no plan for what he described as a growing divide between Americans in uniform and those who aren't. "Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most Americans the war remains an abstraction — a distant and unpleasant series of news items that do not affect them personally," Gates said. Even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, for most Americans "service in the military — no matter how laudable — has become something for other people to do," he added. Gates gave his speech in front of some 1,200 faculty and students at Duke, considered one of the nation's top universities. Like most elite colleges, only a small fraction of Duke students consider military service. With 34 of its 6,400 undergraduates enrolled in its Reserve Officers' Training Corps, an officer commissioning program known as ROTC, Duke is actually considered among the more military-friendly elite colleges. Yale, for example, has only four of its 5,200 students enrolled in ROTC, whereas Harvard doesn't allow ROTC or military recruiters on campus. Without calling out any one particular university, Gates said he was disappointed in institutions that "used to send hundreds of graduates into the armed forces, but now struggle to commission a handful of officers every year." The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered the first large-scale, protracted conflicts since the Revolutionary War fought entirely with volunteers. Most military officials agree that this isn't a bad thing. Today's U.S. military forces are considered more professional and better educated than their predecessors. More enlisted troops hold a high school diploma, or its equivalent, than their civilian peers. Two-thirds of new recruits come from neighborhoods that are at or above the median household income. But the military isn't representative of the country as a whole. Recruits are most likely to serve only if they grow up around others who do so. The military also draws heavily from rural areas, particularly in the South and the mountain West. The trend is reinforced by the location of military bases, which tend to be in rural areas and the South where land is cheapest, rather than close to the big cities and the Northeast and West. Today, most soldiers who are not deployed are stationed in Texas, Washington, Georgia, Kentucky and North Carolina. Many military facilities in the Northeast and along the West coast, meanwhile, have been shut down for environmental and budgetary reasons. Whereas Alabama hosts 10 ROTC programs, the city of Los Angeles — with twice the population — hosts only four. "There is a risk over time of developing a cadre of military leaders that politically, culturally and geographically have less and less in common with the people they have sworn to defend," Gates said. The premise underlying an all-volunteer force also has changed. Initiated in 1973, the concept was that such a force would fight in short, conventional conflicts like the 1991 Gulf War, or defend the U.S. and its allies against Soviet aggression. But after almost a decade of warfare since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, troops who have escaped combat unscathed still faced repeated deployments with long separations from their families. In Iraq at one point, some combat tours stretched to 18 months. More than 1 million soldiers and Marines have been deployed there during the course of the conflict. The consequences of long deployments in combat zones have been real. Suicide figures have increased, while the divorce rate among enlisted soldiers has nearly doubled. "No matter how patriotic, how devoted they are, at some point they will want to have the semblance of a normal life — getting married, starting a family, going to college or graduate school, seeing their children grow up — all of which they have justly earned," Gates said. Without offering specifics, Gates said a system must be created that is generous enough to recruit and retain people without causing the Defense Department to sink under the weight of personnel costs.

Iraq defence minister in Ankara with PKK on agenda

2010-09-29T08:42:00.000-04:00

(AFP) – BAGHDAD — Iraq's defence minister met with Turkish officials in Ankara on Tuesday, a spokesman said, a day after Turkey said it wanted to extend a mandate for air strikes on Kurdish rebel bases in Iraq. The top US commander in Iraq General Lloyd Austin was also in the Turkish capital on Tuesday for talks with defence officials, but his spokesman could not confirm whether he would meet Turkish Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul. Iraqi Defence Minister Abdul Qader Obeidi held talks with Gonul in a bid to continue the work of a tri-partite committee made up of Baghdad, Ankara and Washington that seeks to track threat posed by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and implement measures to curb the militants. "A delegation from the ministry of defence arrived in Turkey today, headed by Abdul Qader Obeidi, and immediately met with the Turkish defence minister," defence ministry spokesman Major General Mohammed al-Askari told AFP. "They discussed security coordination, information exchanges, and activating and continuing the work of the tripartite committee to reduce the activities of militant groups along the Iraqi-Turkish border, especially the PKK." Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said Monday that the Turkish government will ask parliament to extend a mandate for military strikes on Kurdish rebel bases in Iraq, with the current one-year mandate due to expire on October 17. The motion is likely to sail through parliament, where the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) holds a comfortable majority. The mandate authorises the government to order cross-border military action against hideouts of the separatist PKK in northern Iraq which the rebels use as a launching pad for strikes on Turkish targets across the border. Using intelligence supplied by the United States, the Turkish army has staged a series of air raids against rebel targets in the region since December 2007, and carried out a number of ground incursions. Also on Tuesday, Austin met with military officials in Ankara on a one-day "introductory visit" that was also to include talks with the Turkish interior minister, and officials from the foreign ministry, according to his spokesman Colonel Barry Johnson. The PKK took up arms against Ankara in 1984 for self-rule in Turkey's Kurdish-populated east and southeast, sparking a conflict that has claimed some 45,000 lives. Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Good Intentions and the Pentagon Budget

2010-09-28T08:50:00.001-04:00

Tuesday, September 28, 2010 Top Pentagon officials are to appear before the Senate and House Armed Services committees Tuesday and Wednesday to support Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's ambitious effort to reduce Defense Department overhead by $100 billion in the next five years and to eliminate redundant spending. Although members of Congress generally welcomed Gates' approach, the few who faced immediate reductions that affected their constituencies were less supportive. For example, Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) has called for Gates to provide "full justification" for the plan to eliminate the Joint Forces Command, located in the Norfolk area. The Pentagon has described the command, established to encourage collaboration in training and deployment among the services, as becoming "over time an unneeded extra layer and step in the force management process." Two Joint Forces Command programs over the past two weeks raise questions about its unique relevance. In mid-September it sponsored, along with the National Defense University, a two-day conference entitled "Rise and Fragmentation of Great Powers," held at Old Dominion University. Analysts and academics talked about Russia in particular. Last week at Camp Pendleton, Calif., it sponsored, along with the Office of Naval Research, an interactive training tool called "Future Immersive Training Environment." There, Marines spent time with actors and others in realistic war scenarios replicating what they may face in Afghanistan. I won't mention the approximately $500 million spent annually on military bands. But there are even more controversial budget-cutting targets within the Defense Department's $700 billion budget if Gates really meant what he said when he indicated that even spending on health issues would be reviewed. For example, he might take a look at the roughly $200 million the Defense Department spends each year on cancer research through programs run primarily by contractors. I am not against cancer research - far from it. But I raise the Pentagon's cancer-research program because it is a textbook illustration of how money over the years for worthwhile and some not-so-worthwhile government undertakings have been funded through the Pentagon because it is so easy to get Congress to approve money in the defense budget. Be honest: Items get approved in the name of defense that would never make it if found in the budgets of other departments. In 1992, Congress first inserted $25 million into the Army's Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation budget to pursue research on breast-cancer screening and diagnosis for military women and dependents of military men. The program has taken on a life of its own: The next year, a grass-roots effort by the National Breast Cancer Coalition lobbied to get that amount increased to $210 million, specifying it was for support of a peer-reviewed competitive grants program in breast cancer research. The Army was not staffed to run a program of this nature. It turned management over to its Medical Research and Materiel Command, which created the Defense Department Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP), which continues to administer it today. But to establish a research program to dispense the money, the Army had to turn to the Institute of Medicine, the nonprofit, nongovernmental health arm of the National Academies of Science. The Institute of Medicine recommended an investment strategy to support scientific initiatives that had a two-tiered system of peer review. Its report also emphasized the importance of "channeling the research funds in directions that stimulate innovative ideas, involve interdisciplinary research, enhance the use of existing research resources, and reward scientific excellence among all disciplines." Congress has continued to appropriate additional funds to the BCRP, totaling $2.36 billion through fiscal 2009. Through that time, 40,301 proposals have been received and 5,542 awards have been funded or recommended for funding. The Army's Medical Research and Materiel Command contracts out staff support to handle the peer-review process and the applications process, and to help with oversight of the research. The process takes time. For example, the $150 million approved by Congress for fiscal 2009 was not planned for final distribution until this month, according to the Pentagon. Another $150 million was approved for breast cancer research in the fiscal 2010 budget, and the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee has approved an additional $150 million for fiscal 2011. Two other cancer-research programs have been begun in recent years. The Defense Department Prostate Cancer Research Program will get $80 million next year and $10 million will go to its Ovarian Cancer Research Program.

Iraqi women embrace American mothers of war dead

2010-09-27T09:51:00.001-04:00

By YAHYA BARZANJI (AP) – 18 hours ago SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — Nine American mothers whose children died fighting in Iraq were embraced Sunday by dozens of Iraqi women who lost their own children during decades of war and violence in a meeting participants said brought them a measure of peace. The gathering in Iraq's mostly peaceful northern Kurdish region was far from the sites of the roadside bombings or battlefields that accounted for the vast majority of the more than 4,400 U.S. military deaths since the 2003 invasion, but it was still a powerful experience for some mothers to even step foot in Iraq. Some kissed the ground during their arrival Saturday. "I was overwhelmed at touch down. We were really on the ground in Iraq. I was almost in disbelief that it was real. This is where my son spent the last days of his life, and now, I was there," said a blog entry by Amy Galvez of Salt Lake City, whose son, Cpl. Adam Galvez, was killed in 2006. In another web post she said she would return home a "different person." "I will be in the country where my son spent the last days of his life," she wrote. "I'll have visited the land where a piece of my heart will remain forever." The beginning of the Americans' three-day trip — organized by a Virginia-based women's aid group, Families United Toward Universal Respect — was attended by officials from State Department and Kurdish regional government. Nawal Akhil, deputy chief of the group's Baghdad office, said the goal was to "talk about their suffering to find a way to ease it." "We share the same ordeals and suffering — the American mothers who lost their children and the Iraqi mothers who lost their loved ones during the Saddam Hussein-era and in the violence since 2003," said Akhil. Elaine Johnson, of Cordova, South Carolina, said the trip allowed her to come to terms with the loss of her son, Spc. Darius Jennings, killed in November 2003 in Fallujah as the insurgency that went on to rip the country apart gained strength. "Before making this trip, I was angry for my child's death," she said. "But after making this trip, I feel peace, peace, peace." The dozens of Iraqi mothers included Kurds whose family members were killed in Saddam's 1980s scorched-earth campaign to wipe out a Kurdish rebellion in the north that claimed at least 100,000 lives, including thousands in poison gas attacks. "When I hugged an American woman we couldn't express ourselves in words, but what helped us to express our feelings and understand each other were our tears. We found them as a true expression to our grief and suffering," said Peroz Nasser, a 55-year-old Kurdish woman who lost her parents and two brothers and two sisters during Saddam's attacks. While the mothers met in northern Iraq, other parts of the country were hit by violence as insurgents attempt to regain lost footholds near Baghdad and continue to pursue an ongoing campaign against public servants in effort to undermine government institutions. Near the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, about 40 miles (65 kilometers) west of Baghdad, a car packed with explosives blew up, killing four policemen including a lieutenant colonel, Iraqi officials said. In Baghdad, militants flagged down the car of an employee of the country's anti-corruption commission and shot him dead. A Culture Ministry employee died of wounds in a separate shooting. Later, an Iraqi police captain and an army brigadier general were killed in separate Baghdad shootings by assailants using weapons fitted with silencers, officials said. Another blast killed a passer-by and wounded seven others in Baghdad's mixed Sunni-Shiite Karradah neighborhood. Officials said the bomb appeared to be targeting a police patrol. In the northern city of Mosul, gunman killed two brothers in a drive-by shooting, police officials said. The motive for the attack was not immediately known. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief reporters. Iraqi and U.S. officials fear that insurgents are trying to exploit the political vacuum in the wake of inconclusive March elections in an attempt to re-ignite sectarian tensions.

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

2010-09-22T09:08:00.000-04:00

By Steve Luxenberg Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 22, 2010 President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward. Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday. According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives. "This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room." Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars." Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ( Poll: Most surprising revelation on Afghanistan in 'Obama's Wars'? ) But most of the book centers on the strategy review, and the dissension, distrust and infighting that consumed Obama's national security team as it was locked in a fierce and emotional struggle over the direction, goals, timetable, troop levels and the chances of success for a war that is almost certain to be one of the defining events of this presidency. Obama is shown at odds with his uniformed military commanders, particularly Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. Woodward reveals their conflicts through detailed accounts of two dozen closed-door secret strategy sessions and nearly 40 private conversations between Obama and Cabinet officers, key aides and intelligence officials. Tensions often turned personal. National security adviser James L. Jones privately referred to Obama's political aides as "the water bugs," the "Politburo," the "Mafia," or the "campaign set." Petraeus, who felt shut out by the new administration, told an aide that he considered the president's senior adviser David Axelrod to be "a complete spin doctor." During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was "[expletive] with the wrong guy." Gates was tempted to walk out of an Oval Office meeting after being offended by comments made by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon about a general not named in the book. Suspicion lingered among some from the 2008 presidential campaign as well. When Obama floated the idea of naming Clinton to a high-profile post, Axelrod asked him, "How could you trust Hillary?" 'Can't afford any mistakes' "Obama's Wars" marks the 16th book by Woodward, 67, a Washington Post associate editor. Woodward's reporting with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate coverup in the early 1970s led to their bestselling book "All the President's Men." Among the book's other disclosures: -- Obama told Woodward in the July interview that he didn't think about the Afghan war in the "classic" terms of the United States winning or losing. "I think about it more in terms of: Do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end?" he said. -- The CIA created, controls and pays for a clandestine 3,000-man paramilitary army of local Afghans, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams. Woodward describes these teams as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there. -- Obama has kept in place or expanded 14 intelligence orders, known as findings, issued by his predecessor, George W. Bush. The orders provide the legal basis for the CIA's worldwide covert operations. -- A new capability developed by the National Security Agency has dramatically increased the speed at which intercepted communications can be turned around into useful information for intelligence analysts and covert operators. "They talk, we listen. They move, we observe. Given the opportunity, we react operationally," then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained to Obama at a briefing two days after he was elected president. -- A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer." He said: "When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one where you can't afford any mistakes." -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai was diagnosed as manic depressive, according to U.S. intelligence reports. "He's on his meds, he's off his meds," Woodward quotes U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry as saying. 'The cancer is in Pakistan' Obama campaigned on a promise to extract U.S. forces from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he described as the greater threat to American security. At McConnell's top-secret briefing for Obama, the intelligence chief told the president-elect that Pakistan is a dishonest partner, unwilling or unable to stop elements of the Pakistani intelligence service from giving clandestine aid, weapons and money to the Afghan Taliban, Woodward writes. By the end of the 2009 strategy review, Woodward reports, Obama concluded that no mission in Afghanistan could be successful without attacking the al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens operating with impunity in Pakistan's remote tribal regions. "We need to make clear to people that the cancer is in Pakistan," Obama is quoted as saying at an Oval Office meeting on Nov. 25, 2009. Creating a more secure Afghanistan is imperative, the president said, "so the cancer doesn't spread" there. The war in Iraq draws no attention in the book, except as a reference point for considering and developing a new Afghanistan strategy. The book's title, "Obama's Wars," appears to refer to the conflict in Afghanistan and the conflicts among the president's national security team. An older war - the Vietnam conflict - does figure prominently in the minds of Obama and his advisers. When Vice President Biden rushed to the White House on a Sunday morning to make one last appeal for a narrowly defined mission, he warned Obama that a major escalation would mean "we're locked into Vietnam." Obama kept asking for "an exit plan" to go along with any further troop commitment, and is shown growing increasingly frustrated with the military hierarchy for not providing one. At one strategy session, the president waved a memo from the Office of Management and Budget, which put a price tag of $889 billion over 10 years on the military's open-ended approach. In the end, Obama essentially designed his own strategy for the 30,000 troops, which some aides considered a compromise between the military command's request for 40,000 and Biden's relentless efforts to limit the escalation to 20,000 as part of a "hybrid option" that he had developed with Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a dramatic scene at the White House on Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009, Obama summoned the national security team to outline his decision and distribute his six-page terms sheet. He went around the room, one by one, asking each participant whether he or she had any objections - to "say so now," Woodward reports. The document - a copy of which is reprinted in the book - took the unusual step of stating, along with the strategy's objectives, what the military was not supposed to do. The president went into detail, according to Woodward, to make sure that the military wouldn't attempt to expand the mission. After Obama informed the military of his decision, Woodward writes, the Pentagon kept trying to reopen the decision, peppering the White House with new questions. Obama, in exasperation, reacted by asking, "Why do we keep having these meetings?" Along with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan at the time, they kept pushing for their 40,000-troop option as part of a broad counterinsurgency plan along the lines of what Petraeus had developed for Iraq. The president is quoted as telling Mullen, Petraeus and Gates: "In 2010, we will not be having a conversation about how to do more. I will not want to hear, 'We're doing fine, Mr. President, but we'd be better if we just do more.' We're not going to be having a conversation about how to change [the mission] . . . unless we're talking about how to draw down faster than anticipated in 2011." Petraeus took Obama's decision as a personal repudiation, Woodward writes. Petraeus continued to believe that a "protect-the-Afghan-people" counterinsurgency was the best plan. When the president tapped Petraeus this year to replace McChrystal as the head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Petraeus found himself in charge of making Obama's more limited strategy a success. Woodward quotes Petraeus as saying, "You have to recognize also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It's a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives."

Pentagon's Top Arms Buyer On Cutting Back

2010-09-21T09:13:00.001-04:00

By Yochi J. Dreazen Wall Street Journal Ashton CarterUnder secretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logisticsWhen Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared war on Pentagon bloat this summer, he put Ashton Carter, the Department of Defense's top arms buyer, in charge of the campaign. A theoretical physicist by training and former Rhodes Scholar, Carter serves as the under secretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, one of the most powerful jobs in the Pentagon. He oversees hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of programs, from the purchase of thousands of armored vehicles for Afghanistan to the hiring of the tech-savvy contractors who help manage military computer networks. Like his boss, Carter openly acknowledges that the post-Sept. 11 spike in defense spending is rapidly coming to an end. He has worked with Gates to scrap or restructure more 30 high-profile programs, halting new purchases of the expensive F-22 fighter jet and scrapping the centerpiece of the Army's $200 billion Future Combat System. This week, he announced dozens of contracting changes designed to help Gates wring $100 billion in savings out of the Pentagon's budget over the next five years. Carter sat down with National Journal to discuss what will likely be the biggest challenge of his professional career. Edited excerpts of the interview follow. NJ: Defense contractors feel like the era of the big, build-from-scratch weapons system is either over or rapidly coming to an end. Are they drawing the right conclusion? Carter: We will continue to build things from scratch. But it's probably a good insight that adapting things we have to new needs is going to be an important theme. The secretary uses the word "adaptability" all the time to indicate two things. First, that everything we buy ought to have more than one use. And second, that everything we buy ought to have a history behind it or in front of it that will allow it to adjust to changing circumstances. This is from the experience that he's had of being a secretary of Defense during war, which is the great teacher and the great driver of change. NJ: Gates told the contracting community over the summer that the gusher of post-Sept. 11 defense spending had been shut off, and would remain off for quite some time. What kind of feedback did you hear from contractors like Lockheed Martin when they heard that phrase? Carter: What they heard is that the spigot is not going to be opening wider every year. That isn't news to these CEOs. They live in the defense world and understand perfectly well that we're entering a new era. What's good if they hear that from us is that we can work together so we jointly manage what I'll call a controlled descent from the halcyon days of ever-growing defense budgets. NJ: When you look across the defense landscape, will future cost-cutting measures focus more on eliminating programs entirely or restructuring existing initiatives to make them cheaper or more efficient? Carter: We eliminated a number of systems that were unneeded or whose time had passed or who weren't performing. And we'll continue, obviously, to do that. But the thrust of the new initiative is to look at the things that we do need and do want and deliver them for the dollars we're going to get. And that's not going to be possible if we allow their costs to grow every year. We need to manage them so that they fit inside what is a flat or only slowly growing defense budget. NJ: What is it like going from an era in which money was plentiful to a new era where you can't just always throw money at problems that creep up? Carter: You have to re-sharpen your other managerial instincts. That means being relentless in your pursuit of cost control. Constantly looking for getting the same results more cheaply. Constantly looking for ways that you can reduce requirements without compromising important military capability. Those things aren't necessary if you could always use your money to get your way out of a situation. We need to get back to the discipline that comes from not having an ever-increasing budget. NJ: Gates has fired a whole lot of people in this building who he felt weren't up to par. Is it frustrating when you don't have the same capacity to fire contractors who fail to perform? Carter: Well, we are the customer, so we always have the capacity to penalize a contractor who's not performing or to cancel a program that's not performing. There's a flip side to penalties, which is rewards. People who perform well should be rewarded. Their programs will survive and enter into stable production, which will be profitable for them. NJ: You've pointed out that the Pentagon spends millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours producing reports that few people read or need. What is it like, as the man on top, to be the recipient of so many of those reports? Carter: On Saturday afternoons when I sit in here and these big reports come in, I sometimes wonder if I'm the only human being who will ever read them. They were asked for long ago, and whoever asked for them has forgotten that he asked for them. The only reason I'm reading them is that I have to sign them and am worried about embarrassing myself. If you read many of them, you wonder if anyone read them before they sent them to me. It's illustrative of how we allow processes to accrete. NJ: Gates has faced opposition in Congress to many of his decisions about scrapping weapons systems or shuttering military commands. Going forward, do you worry about facing opposition inside the Pentagon from military leaders who like their own programs and don't want to see them cut? Carter: The reaction of everyone who has a stake in this is that they all see the writing on the wall. Everyone is looking for how we can best bend without breaking everything that we're doing, and they're pleased that we're doing this together.

New class of Entrepreneurs arises in Iraq

2010-09-20T09:26:00.000-04:00

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY Mehdi Majeed, left, helps buyers at a Chrysler dealership in Baghdad. Traditionally, rich Iraqis have bought homes and cars outside Iraq, but that's changing. BAGHDAD — Waiters in white shirts and dark ties glide between crowded tables at the Lebanese Club, a glitzy addition to this city's growing nightlife. Wathiq Sabeeh, a 29-year-old entrepreneur, blows a cloud of smoke from his water pipe and reflects on his good fortune. "During the sectarian violence, the old rich left," Sabeeh explains. "It was a good opportunity for others." Rising government salaries and billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts pouring into the country are creating a new class of entrepreneurs with an appetite for luxury goods and services. Fancy clubs, auto dealers and even high-end fashion stores are emerging on Baghdad's dusty streets to feed those expensive tastes. The rise in entertainment venues and sellers of high-priced goods comes as many Iraqis struggle to make ends meet. In Baghdad, people go without electricity for much of the day and have to rely on aging generators even as temperatures exceed 120 degrees. Prices for gas and food are increasing. Unofficial unemployment rates range from 18% to 20%, according to the Pentagon. But behind those worrying trends is a development that receives less notice. "Every new political system must have its new class that benefits from the political system," says Bashir al-Obaidi, a 36-year-old salesman at a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Baghdad. And they are hungry for the kind of luxury items that are common in neighboring Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Al-Obaidi sits behind his desk in a small showroom crammed with gleaming cars, including a model with a sticker price of $133,000. Traditionally, Iraqis with money buy homes and cars outside Iraq, but there are signs that may be changing. On a recent evening at the Lebanese Club, a steady stream of cars pull into the circular driveway, where customers turn their autos over to valets before walking through automatic sliding-glass doors into the club's air-conditioned interior. Recessed lighting on the floor marks a path toward large picture windows, with sweeping views of the Tigris River. Lights from the Dora oil refinery glitter in the river's dark, still waters. "I've been introduced to a Baghdad I didn't know existed," says Antoine Youssef, the club's manager. "These are high-class people," he quickly adds. "These are not the looters you see in other places." The club does not serve alcohol, though others do. Like Sabeeh, many of Iraq's wealthy families have accumulated their riches since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sabeeh, who operates a construction firm, says he was quick to capitalize on new opportunities that came with billions in reconstruction money. He says his company won large contracts to rebuild a water treatment facility and hospital. "Before the fall, about 20 families controlled most of the wealth," says Alaa Salim, the general manager of al-Bashaer Iraqi, an organization that provides loans to small and midsize businesses. Under Saddam's dictatorship, only businessmen favored by him or his sons were allowed to gain state contracts. The U.S.-led invasion and subsequent upheaval left opportunities in their wakes. A new generation of tycoons has replaced the old. "Now you see someone you didn't know who builds a new house and drives a fancy car," Salim says. But Khalid complains that the new rich lack the education and polish of the older generation. "Some people who come to my shop are illiterate," says Namir Khalid, 44, marketing manager at the Dream House furniture store, which sells high-end furnishings, including ornate clocks for $2,000. The newer generation says it is much savvier about competing for contracts and comfortable dealing with foreigners. "The older businessmen are not able to get contracts," says Alaa Shon, a lawyer who specializes in registering companies to do business in Iraq. Shon, who sits with Sabeeh and another friend at the Lebanese Club, says the opportunities are there for those who know how to exploit them. Young people with the right outlook and skills are on a level playing field with more established businesses, he says. "The newly rich are mostly young," Shon says. "We think differently. Old people are used to working one way." The reconstruction money, oil revenue and improved security are beginning to stimulate the economy. The economy grew 4.2% last year and is expected to expand more than 7% this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. Government workers are among the highest-paid in Iraq these days, Salim says. Iraqis are feeling better about their own economic situation, according to a poll released Thursday. When asked if they expect their household financial situation to improve next year, 63% expect it to get better, according to the poll conducted June 3 to July 3 by the International Republican Institute. That's up from 46% when asked a similar question six months earlier. The survey is based on a sample of 2,988 Iraqis. Sabeeh says there are signs that some of the old families want to return to Iraq, but those that do quickly discover they have to partner with young entrepreneurs to succeed. "They can't get it on their own," he says. Najim Kareem, who owns part of a Baghdad car dealership, says the new wealth comes from a variety of sources. "Some are looters and thieves," he says. "Others are merchants." The new rich have engendered plenty of resentment in a country where unemployment is high and people are struggling with the basics. Almost 7 million people, about a quarter of the population, live in poverty, according to the United Nations. Sabeeh says even his own relatives are resentful of his rapid success. Others say that is only natural. "Some people are jumping on top," Khalid says. "Others are deep underneath."

America's New Terrorist Networks

2010-09-15T09:07:00.000-04:00

Tony Blankley, Washington Times. While public attention was diverted by whether or not Florida pastor Terry Jones and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had reached a compromise, a report critical to our national security went virtually unnoticed. Jones, under some pressure from most of the civilized world, offered to withdraw his threat to immolate a stack of Qurans, in exchange, he said, for Rauf's relocation of Park51, the planned mosque complex he proposes to tower over the World Trade Center site. Understandably, the press preferred to cover the spectacle between Jones and Rauf, especially as it played out on live television like a bizarre parody of "Let's Make a Deal." Culture wars, after all, make more scintillating copy than the earnest prose of yet another advisory report. But were it not for the distraction caused by the Jones-Rauf media circus, we might instead have focused our attention on "Assessing the Terrorist Threat," a timely evaluation conducted for the ninth anniversary of 9/11. This sobering report, issued under the auspices of the Bipartisan Policy Center by former 9/11 Commission leaders Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, has enormous implications for America's counterterrorist policies. First, the Good News: They report that the War on Terrorism has degraded al-Qaida's capabilities to such an extent that the authors -- whose assessment derives in part from close contact with U.S. intelligence officials -- think another 9/11 spectacular terrorist attack in the U.S. is unlikely. Even more unlikely, they believe, is a mass casualty attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. If the authors are right, you can toss out any gas masks and duct tape in your home emergency survival kit. I personally believe they are too confident that the danger from mass attack is passing. A small band of well-prepared terrorists can unleash unspeakable killing forces. Every day, such resources become more available around the world. I still believe mass disaster is more likely than not in the coming decade. But there is also new Bad News: What the media calls "home-grown terrorism" (more to follow about precisely where this terrorism is incubated later, but a hint for now is that it isn't the U.S.) is the "new normal" for terrorism attacks. In the past year, al-Qaida-affiliated groups have tried to blow up a U.S. airliner, replicate the London and Madrid commuter bombings in the New York subway system, detonate a vehicle bomb in Times Square and carry out numerous other attacks inside our borders. "Last year was a watershed in terrorist attacks and plots in the United States, with a record total of 11 jihadist attacks, jihadist-inspired plots, or efforts by Americans to travel overseas to obtain terrorist training," the report says. "They included two actual attacks (at Fort Hood, Texas, which claimed the lives of 13 people, and the shooting of two U.S. military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas), five serious but disrupted plots, and four incidents involving groups of Americans conspiring to travel abroad to receive terrorist training. ... This level of threat is likely to persist for years to come." And it gets worse: Al-Qaida-related groups have created a recruitment pipeline inside America, according to the report. Three American citizens -- Adnan el Shukrijumah, Omar Hammami and Anwar al-Aulaqi -- are top commanders of al-Qaida affiliates in the Arabian Peninsula, Somalia and Yemen. From foreign havens, this trio oversees active recruitment drives among radicalized Muslims of various ethnic backgrounds in immigrant communities across our country. Their intimate knowledge of American society is applied to clandestine operations within our borders, terrorist training, selecting targets and planning attacks. According to the report, no single U.S. agency -- not the NDI, FBI, CIA or DHS -- is accountable for coordinating our response to this emerging threat. In plotting the 9/11 attacks, Osama bi Laden exploited the lack of coordination between counterterrorism officials. Similar vulnerabilities exist today with regard to the terrorist plots being incubated offshore, but using U.S. citizens, permanent residents and those with legal visas as their deadly operatives. It is vital for us to crack these networks, not just to defend against future attacks, but to take the offensive. With a clear understanding of the terrorist recruiting infrastructure inside the U.S., we will be able to insert double agents -- "pipeliners" -- into the foreign-based al-Qaida affiliates. It would help if U.S. authorities could gain the cooperation and active assistance of freedom-loving, patriotic Muslims. That is why the Jones-Rauf media diversion, with its cultural divisiveness, is so corrosive. But with or without such incidents, the pull and reach of radical Islam is powerful -- which is why nations from Britain to Holland to the U.S. are constantly surprised when seemingly middle-class, law-abiding Muslims suddenly turn up violent in our midst. That is why six year ago when I was writing my first book on the topic ("The West's Last Chance"), I warned that we in the U.S. just as in Europe would be vulnerable to home grown middle-class Muslims who would come under the sway of Internet mad mullahs and start blowing things up. I am gratified that the study group has finally come to the same conclusion. But it is a sad commentary on the power of political correctness and a dreadful lack of imagination on the part of our policy leaders that it took the experts 10 years to reach the same obvious conclusion that a reasonably alert generalist could spot back before the London bombings. A final implication of the Kean-Hamilton report concerns the ACLU's lawsuit to limit the CIA's use of drones to assassinate American terrorists like al-Aulaqi. If the ACLU prevails, we will have committed unilateral disarmament

U.S. Takes Over Fight in Helmand

2010-09-14T15:29:00.001-04:00

As British Soldiers Leave Bloody Afghan Province, American Troops Try Out More-Mobile Strategy By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS SANGIN, Afghanistan—After four bloody and frustrating years trying to secure the most dangerous town in Helmand Province, the British are pulling out with, at best, a draw. Over the coming months, U.K. forces will leave Sangin and turn it over to the U.S. to finish the job. Neither British nor U.S. officers describe it this way aloud, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that U.S. Marines are being sent in to complete what the undermanned British couldn't, in a province once known as Helmandshire for the U.K.'s dominance here. Change of Command in Sangin View Slideshow Michael M. Phillips/The Wall Street Journal Almost a third of the 335 British troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 have died in just one town: Sangin, Helmand Province, population 20,000. More photos and interactive graphics Although British officers point to incremental security gains, they acknowledge they simply haven't had enough men to oust the hundreds of Taliban fighters who attack from the shadows, litter the landscape with hidden explosives and blend in easily with the locals. "The concentration of force is something we haven't been able to bring in here," says Royal Marine Maj. Aldeiy Alderson, chief of staff of Combined Force Sangin. Almost one-third of the 335 British troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 have died in this single town of 20,000 people. "Helmandshire is symptomatic of the broader problem in Afghanistan—that we as a coalition haven't had the resources needed to get the job done," says John Nagl, head of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. In the past two years, the British fought to a stalemate in Garmsir and Now Zad, only to see larger American forces sent in to clear the towns. U.S. Marines are also taking over Kajaki, site of a key hydropower plant. Sangin is a test of whether it is possible to reverse the gains the Taliban have made against British forces in Helmand Province. The Americans—the 1,200-strong Third Battalion, Seventh Regiment—have been entering Sangin since July and, fighting alongside 1,200 Royal Marines, appear to be making headway. But in a couple of months, the British will be gone, leaving the Americans to cover the same ground the U.K. struggled to control—with roughly the same number of troops. The British contribute the second-largest force to the international coalition. Still, the U.K. has just 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in Helmand, while the U.S. has 10 times as many in the country, including 20,000 Marines in Helmand. The British "have decided, given limited resources, to focus on the central part of the province" and leave the hot spots of northern Helmand to the U.S., says Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of U.S. Marine forces in the area. The bloodiest battlefield they are leaving is Sangin, a crossroads for insurgent fighters, drugs and money that has assumed mythic status in Britain. The U.K. has lost at least 106 men there since coming to town in 2006, with 36 of them falling this year, according to the Ministry of Defense. "On the lowest level, it's hard to fault the commitment and bravery of the lads," says Maj. Alderson, the Royal Marine officer. "This isn't two weeks in the French trenches and going to the rear. It's six months of constant patrols. This is some of the toughest fighting I've ever seen." The British say they have improved both security and governance, at least in the town's commercial center. Last year, the British counted 399 shops open in the bazaar; now there are 1,400, selling everything from cars and motorcycles to groceries and household goods under solar-powered lights provided by the international coalition. "We've invested a lot of blood and treasure in Sangin. Has it been worth it?" asks Royal Marine Maj. Paul Lynch, commander of Delta Co., 40 Commando Group. "We've made progress in governance and socioeconomic development for the people of Sangin. That's why we came." Still, the British continue to find Sangin a hard slog, even as they head to the exits. Only infrequently do locals tip off the Royal Marines to the locations of fighters or bombs. Dozens of British troops have lost legs to hidden bombs. "The Yanks do come in with the manpower to hopefully do the job properly," says Marine Adam Wells, a 29-year-old antitank gunner from Weston-super-Mare, England. "If we were just pulling out and leaving it, it would be a different matter." Sometimes the fighting assumes a roadrunner-and-coyote dimension. The British tether surveillance blimps above patrol bases, the Taliban shoot them down and the British patch them up. Taliban fighters creep next to one British patrol base and toss hand grenades over the wall; the British put up a high net. "If there were a stand-up battle between 250 Taliban and the Royal Marines, we would win," Maj. Lynch says. "But it's not as simple as that. You can't tell who's a bad person." U.S. commanders praise the fighting prowess of British troops. But the Americans question the British decision to build 22 patrol bases in Sangin, a variation on the neighborhood-policing tactic used in Northern Ireland. Even some British wonder if they tied up too many combat troops just guarding the bases. "If you stay static, Terry Taliban will sneak up and plant an IED next to you," Maj. Alderson says, referring to an improvised explosive device. British commanders have begun closing some patrol bases, although they say they haven't yet decided whether building them was a mistake. U.S. Lt. Col. Clay Tipton, commander of Third Battalion, hit the ground with a more mobile strategy. He sent two companies—roughly 200 men each—sweeping through hundreds of yards of cornfields and irrigation ditches between the main road and the Helmand River. Another company fought to secure the heights on the river's far bank, while a fourth blocked enemy movements on the outskirts of town. The fighting was fierce at first, with Marines coming under sustained machine-gun and rifle fire from tree lines and mud-walled compounds. "I heard it was a pretty kinetic environment," says Lance Cpl. Parker Greider, a 21-year-old Lima Co. infantryman from Wichita, Kan. "They weren't joking." Apparently battered in initial clashes, the Taliban have turned cautious. Fire fights are more sporadic and shorter now, though booby-traps and snipers remain constant dangers. The true test will come over the next two months, when the last Royal Marines leave Sangin to the U.S. Marines. Right now, the Americans just have to fight; they don't have to manage relations with the local Afghan government, navigate tribal politics or promote economic growth. Once the Royal Marines are gone, those jobs will fall to the U.S. Marines.

Bad Economy Drives Down American Arms Sales

2010-09-13T10:53:00.000-04:00

By THOM SHANKER New York Times WASHINGTON — The global economic recession significantly pushed down purchases of weapons last year to the lowest level since 2005, a new government study has found. The report to Congress concluded that the value of worldwide arms deals in 2009 was $57.5 billion, a drop of 8.5 percent from 2008. While the United States maintained its role as the world’s leading supplier of weapons, officials nonetheless saw the value of its arms trade sharply decline in 2009. This was in contrast to 2008, when the United States increased the value of its weapons sales despite a drop in business for competitors in the global arms bazaar. For 2009, the United States signed arms deals worth $22.6 billion — a dominating 39 percent of the worldwide market. Even so, that sales figure was down from $38.1 billion in 2008, which had been a surprising increase over the $25.7 billion in 2007 that defied sluggish economic trends. The decrease in American weapons sales in 2009 was caused by a pause in major orders from clients in the Middle East and Asia, which had pumped up the value of contracts the year before. At the same time, there were fewer support and services contracts signed with American defense firms last year, the study said. Russia was a distant second in worldwide weapons sales in 2009, concluding $10.4 billion in arms deals, followed by France, with $7.4 billion in contracts. Other leading arms traders included Germany, Italy, China and Britain. The annual report was produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. The analysis, regarded as the most detailed collection of unclassified global arms sales data available to the public, was delivered to members of the House and Senate over the weekend in advance of their return to work on Monday after the summer recess. The decline in new weapons sales worldwide in 2009 was caused by government decisions “to defer the purchase of major systems” in a period of “severe international recession,” wrote Richard F. Grimmett, a specialist in international security at the Congressional Research Service and the author of the study. The recession did not halt military modernization and improvements, as nations sought to make their armed forces more lethal despite tight budgets. “Some nations chose to focus on completing the integration into their militaries of major weapons systems they had already purchased,” Mr. Grimmett wrote. Other nations, according to the study, focused available military money on smaller contracts for “training and support services, as well as selective upgrades of existing weapons systems.” Mr. Grimmett said that while the global recession slowed overall weapons sales, “The international arms market is still very competitive,” with major weapons-producing nations battling over traditional clients and seeking new buyers in emerging markets. To that end, the study focuses in particular on the category of weapons sales to the developing world, which totaled $45.1 billion of the overall arms trade in 2009, a drop from $48.8 billion in 2008. In 2009, Brazil was the top weapons buyer in the developing world, concluding $7.2 billion in purchase contracts, followed by Venezuela with $6.4 billion in purchases and Saudi Arabia with $4.3 billion. Other major arms buyers last year were Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Egypt, Vietnam, India and Kuwait. Over much of the past decade, Saudi Arabia, China, India and the United Arab Emirates have been among the largest weapons purchasers in this category. The United States led not only in global arms sales, but also in the category of weapons contracts to the developing world, signing deals worth $17.4 billion in arms to these nations in 2009. Russia was second, followed by France. “Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in the 21st century in response to changing political, military and economic circumstances,” Mr. Grimmett concluded. “Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economic considerations.” The study uses figures in 2009 dollars, with amounts for previous years adjusted for inflation to give a constant financial measurement.

U.S. Urges Iraqis to Try New Plan to Share Power

2010-09-10T08:53:00.001-04:00

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ANTHONY SHADID New York Times WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is encouraging a major new power-sharing arrangement in Iraq that could retain Nuri Kamal al-Maliki as prime minister but in a coalition that would significantly curb his authority. The compromise plan was promoted in Baghdad last week by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., though at a time when American influence is waning and the United States continues to draw down troops. The new plan would alter the structure of Iraq’s government by bringing additional restraints to the authority of Iraq’s prime minister and establishing a new committee with authority to approve military appointments, review the budget and shape security policy. American officials said that the approach, which aims to bring Mr. Maliki’s State of Law party, Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiya party and the Kurdish alliance into a governing coalition, represents the best chance to break the political logjam that has left the Iraqi public without a new government six months after voters went to the polls. A senior American official said that the plan was likely to result in a new government over the next month or so, and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton could travel to Baghdad at that time. “We don’t really see what other option there is out there,” said another American official, who asked not to be identified because he was discussing confidential negotiations. “If we have a national unity government that is less efficient but perceived as representative and accountable to the Iraqi people, we think that’s better for the future of Iraq.” American officials assert that they do not have a preferred candidate for prime minister. But the proposal is intended to make Mr. Maliki, or a strong-willed successor, more palatable to the rest of a broad-based governing coalition. The redefined authority would be codified by new legislation but would not require that the Constitution be amended. Doubts remain whether the Americans can close the deal and, meanwhile, Iran has stepped up its efforts to press an alternative coalition in which Mr. Maliki might remain prime minister but in a coalition with his Shiite rivals and not Mr. Allawi. Which coalition prevails will serve as a barometer on whether Iran or the United States has more prestige in an unsettled and still turbulent country. An utter lack of trust among the contending factions has hampered all efforts to build a coalition. Some experts say that even if the American proposal succeeds it could leave Iraq finally with a government that, by being so broad-based, is too weak to tackle the tough problems that lie ahead. “It may perhaps help smooth the surface in the very short run, but it isn’t a good solution for Iraq as a viable state in the long run,” said Reidar Visser, an Iraq analyst. Politics in Baghdad have been stymied as insurgents have continued bombings and assassinations and Iraqis have become increasingly disgruntled about the failure of the government to deliver basic services. Though turnout for the March parliamentary election was relatively high, the vote failed to produce a decisive outcome. The Iraqiya party, which is headed by Mr. Allawi, a secular Shiite, but represents many Sunnis, won 91 seats. Mr. Maliki’s State of Law secured 89 seats, while the Iraqi National Alliance, a Shiite coalition, won 70 seats. Across the spectrum, there are concerns that Mr. Maliki’s return would further strengthen the hold of his Dawa Party over the key instruments of the state — the police, the army and, perhaps most importantly, intelligence — and close off the possibility that there will ever be a peaceful transfer of power to a rival party. Mr. Biden said in an interview in Baghdad last week that if Iraq went another six months without a new government it would raise concerns that Iraq’s military might intervene in politics. “My worry will be that generals in the military will start saying, ‘Wait a minute, which way is this going to go?’ ” he said. “But I think we are far from that,” said Mr. Biden, who added that the Obama administration had been striving for a political breakthrough. “We have been deeply involved with each of the parties from the day after the election results came in,” he said, adding, “This has been constant.” The idea of a new power-sharing arrangement has been discussed for several months. Soon after the election results were certified in June, Christopher R. Hill, the American ambassador in Baghdad at the time, and his political aides drafted a paper in consultation with Mr. Biden reflecting ideas discussed among Iraqi politicians. The aim was not just to curb the powers of the prime minister, but in a game of reverse musical chairs, to create new positions that could be occupied by members of a broad governing coalition. Toward this end, a largely advisory Iraqi government body — the Political Council for National Security — would be given the power to review security, budget and oil export policy. “I think there is a growing awareness that there is a need for something akin to our National Security Council,” said Mr. Biden, who noted that such a step would be taken “to sort of balance the powers, but also provide landing spots for the number of serious people who have to occupy serious ministries.” American officials assert they are not trying to pick who should run the government but rather to shape an arrangement conducive to compromise. Still, current and former American officials said that a number of specific possibilities had been discussed with the Iraqis, including having Mr. Allawi lead the new committee or having him serve as president with clearly defined veto authority, a position occupied by Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader thought to be reluctant to give up the job. According to one early variation of the plan, the new committee would be headed by a secretary general and would include the prime minister and the president. Other members of the panel could include the head of the judiciary and the head of Kurdistan’s regional government as well as members of some powerful ministries. Some of Mr. Maliki’s authority over security would be shifted to the new committee, but he would retain his role as the commander in chief of Iraq’s armed forces. While it appears publicly that there has been little progress, behind the scenes both sides have prepared competing papers on how the new body would function. Difficult issues remain, however, hindered by the poor chemistry between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi. “We have made slight progress,” Mr. Allawi said in an interview, “and I emphasize the word ‘slight.’ ” Discussing the new committee, Mr. Allawi insisted that it must have executive power, a budget, advisers and the right to call ministers to testify, effectively making it a position whose influence would compete with the prime minister’s. “If there were powers, and there was clarity, and there was an explanation why we should not be able to form a government, then why not, to serve the country?” Mr. Allawi said. In contrast, Mr. Maliki appears to be guarding his prerogatives on the assumption that he can remain prime minister. A senior Western diplomat said that Mr. Maliki believed that the shifting of his power to the committee should be “events based,” or curbed according to the security situation in the country. One point of disagreement in the talks is the fate of about 140 appointments by Mr. Maliki to senior positions in the military and intelligence. Mr. Allawi said he had insisted that those appointments be reviewed and perhaps overturned, by the council or Parliament; Mr. Maliki’s allies have said only that they should be “assessed.”

Surge Is Fully Deployed to Afghanistan

2010-09-09T16:55:00.000-04:00

By JULIAN E. BARNES Wall Street Journal SHARANA, Afghanistan—The final U.S. brigade sent to Afghanistan as part of President Barack Obama's surge strategy assumed authority for a swath of the country's eastern territory Wednesday. The 4th Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division has only a short time to make an impact before the harsh winter of eastern Afghanistan, due to set in by November, makes travel and combat difficult. Commanders are also under pressure to show progress ahead of a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in November and the Obama administration's next strategy review, in December. Col. Sean Jenkins, with arms raised, takes part in a ceremony Wednesday transferring authority to his 4th Brigade in Paktika province. "The task is great and time is of the essence, as we face parliamentary elections and the future decisions of nations around the world and our own this fall," said Col. Sean Jenkins, at a ceremony in which his task force took charge of Paktika province. The Taliban has threatened to attack polling stations during the Sept. 18 parliamentary elections. On Wednesday, Afghan election officials said scores of additional polling stations will be closed during the vote because of security conditions, the Associated Press reported. The ceremony Wednesday officially put in place the last of the 30,000 infantry troops ordered into the country by Mr. Obama in December. The 4th Brigade, known as Task Force Currahee, was the only large unit assigned to eastern Afghanistan as part of the Obama administration's troop build-up. The majority of the surge forces were sent to southern Afghanistan to participate in operations around Kandahar and Helmand provinces. The first members of Task Force Currahee began arriving in Paktika in July. The majority of the forces arrived in the country in August and began a process of taking over from the 101st Division's 3rd Brigade. The Taliban operate in much of the province, and the Haqqani network—an ally of al Qaeda—operates in the northern part, near its historic stronghold of Khost province. Military officials in Washington and Kabul have said they hope building up conventional troops in eastern Afghanistan will help secure progress made by Special Operations troops. Since the spring, Special Operations Forces have captured and killed dozens of militant leaders in eastern Afghanistan. But senior military officials say that without a larger troop presence to help improve security in population centers, they fear the militant networks will simply regenerate through new recruits. The Taliban and the Haqqani network in recent years have taken refuge in Pakistan in winter months, but military officials believe the pattern could change this year because of the floods that have devastated much of Pakistan. Col. Jenkins said some groups of fighters may remain in Afghanistan, and could continue to fight or lay roadside bombs. Capt. Melvin Cabebe of the 101st Airborne Division stands in July near an armored vehicle that hit an IED in the Arghandab Valley. Even as military leaders push new units into position, they are also under pressure to develop plans to draw them down. Mr. Obama has said the U.S. will begin to withdraw forces beginning in July. Col. Jenkins said as security improves in areas he has placed troops, he will look to thin out those forces, moving his soldiers to other trouble spots. Separately, Taliban leader Mullah Omar posted an end-of-Ramadan online message Wednesday to rally followers and discourage enemies, the AP reported. In the message, posted on jihadist websites and relayed by the Site Intelligence Group, the Taliban leader said the U.S. military had failed to achieve its objectives after nearly nine years, and would soon be leaving the country. U.S. officials say they believe Mullah Omar is hiding in Pakistan, though he hasn't appeared in public since the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Iraqi Treasures Return, but Questions Remain

2010-09-08T09:46:00.000-04:00

By STEVEN LEE MYERS New York Times BAGHDAD — Iraq announced on Tuesday the return of hundreds of looted antiquities that had ended up in the United States, even as a senior official disclosed that 632 pieces repatriated last year and turned over to the office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki were now unaccounted for. The latest trove reflects not only a history dating from the world’s oldest civilizations but also a more recent and tortured history of war, looting and international smuggling that began under Saddam Hussein, accelerated after the American occupation and continues at archaeological sites to this day. The returned items include a 4,400-year-old statue of King Entemena of Lagash looted from the National Museum here after the American invasion in 2003; an even older pair of gold earrings from Nimrud stolen in the 1990s and seized before an auction at Christie’s in New York last December; and 362 cuneiform clay tablets smuggled out of Iraq that were seized by the American authorities in 2001 and were being stored in the World Trade Center when it was destroyed. There was also a more recent relic: a chrome-plated AK-47 with a pearl grip and an engraving of Mr. Hussein, taken by an American soldier as booty and displayed at Fort Lewis, Wash. Kitsch, certainly, but priceless in its own way. While Iraqi officials celebrated the repatriation of what they called invaluable relics — “the return of Iraq’s heritage to our house,” as the state minister of tourism and antiquities, Qahtan al-Jibouri, put it — the fate of those previously returned raised questions about the country’s readiness to preserve and protect its own treasures. Appearing at a ceremony displaying the artifacts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iraq’s ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaidaie, pointedly said a previous shipment of antiquities had been returned to Iraq last year aboard an American military aircraft authorized by Gen. David H. Petraeus, only to end up missing. “They went to the prime minister’s office, and that was the last time they were seen,” said Mr. Sumaidaie, who has worked fervently with American law enforcement officials in recent years to track down loot that had found its way into the United States. It was not immediately clear what happened, and Mr. Sumaidaie said he had tried and failed to find out. He did not directly accuse Mr. Maliki’s government of malfeasance, but he expressed frustration that the efforts to repatriate works of art and antiquities had resulted in such confusion and mystery. Ali al-Mousawi, a government spokesman, demanded that the American government account for the artifacts since an American military aircraft delivered them. “We didn’t receive anything,” he said in a telephone interview. Mr. Jibouri, one of Mr. Maliki’s advisers, said that if the relics were not somewhere in the prime minister’s custody, then they would probably be with the Ministry of Culture, which oversees the country’s museums. Its spokesman declined to comment. Amira Edan, the director of the National Museum, said none of the objects had been returned to her collection, which is where, she said, they all belonged. Mr. Jibouri said a committee would be formed to investigate. Perhaps with this uncertainty in mind, Mr. Jibouri and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari publicly signed documents transferring custody of the latest batch of artifacts — which arrived in Baghdad on Monday, packed in wooden crates, aboard a specially chartered aircraft — to the museum. “The artifacts are what’s pushing us to build the present and future, so we deserve this great heritage,” Mr. Zebari said during the ceremony. The United States has returned 1,046 antiquities since 2003, when looters ransacked buildings across Iraq, including its museums, according to the American Embassy here. For all the international outrage the looting stirred toward the United States and its allies, many of the items were smuggled out of the country before the invasion, often with the connivance of officials in Saddam Hussein’s government, according to archaeological officials here. They have been tracked and seized by the F.B.I., the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and other law enforcement agencies, often working on tips from experts and officials with the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, which stored many of them at its building on Massachusetts Avenue for safekeeping as Iraq remained engulfed in violence. Only a handful of the items returned on Tuesday once belonged to the National Museum. The most prominent is the statue of King Entemena, the oldest known representation of a monarch from the ancient civilizations that once thrived in Mesopotamia. Carved from black diorite, it is 30 inches tall and headless, and inscribed with cuneiform that says it was placed in a temple in Ur, in what is now southern Iraq, to please the god Enlil. It weighs 330 pounds but disappeared from the museum during the looting, only to be seized in a 2006 sting when someone in Syria tried to sell it to an art dealer in New York. Another Sumerian sculpture, a bronze depicting a king named Shulgi, had been shipped by Federal Express from a London dealer to a collector in Connecticut, but was seized at Newark Liberty International Airport. Many such pieces are items that Iraq never knew it had lost. Iraq has 12,000 known archaeological sites where Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Persian cities — and later Islamic cities — once stood. Many are unprotected, and have been badly looted for years, especially during the bloodiest years of war in 2006 and 2007. A special police force created in 2008 has yet to fill its ranks, mired at its inception by the government’s bureaucracy and a lack of support for cultural preservation. The National Museum, which officially reopened last year though many of its galleries remain closed and in disrepair, has recovered roughly half of 15,000 pieces that were looted from its collection. All told, Iraqi officials say they have confiscated and returned to government property more than 30,000 antiquities and artworks since 2003, from inside and outside Iraq. The museum can hold only a fraction of those. “We can make 15 museums like the one we had,” its deputy director, Muhsin Hassan Ali, said on Tuesday. The ultimate fate of the Saddam Hussein AK-47 also remains unclear, though it too was signed over to the custody of the National Museum. “Some material belongs to the fourth millennium B.C.,” Ms. Edan, the museum’s director, said laughing, “and the new ones belong to Saddam’s Iraq.” The assault rifle ended up at the headquarters of the Third Stryker Brigade of the Second Infantry Division. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said it had been taken “legally via official Army channels with the intent of placing it in a military museum as a war trophy.” Agents confiscated it after Mr. Sumaidaie’s aides read about it in a local newspaper report. A factory in Iraq once produced AK-47s, including some plated in gold and chrome, which Mr. Hussein distributed as gifts. At the time the rifle was recovered, a special agent of ICE in New York, Peter J. Smith, called it “a priceless symbol of Iraqi history.”

Kept safe in US, Iraqi royal statue heads home

2010-09-07T08:54:00.002-04:00

MassArt professor helped in recovery John Russell, a professor at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design, with a map of Babylon. Russell identified the 4,400-year-old statue of King Entemena after its recovery in 2006. (By Farah Stockman Globe Staff / September 7, 2010 WASHINGTON — It took four men to lift the wooden box in the lobby of the Iraqi Embassy. They carried it gingerly to the waiting truck, then loaded it into the belly of a commercial plane. Hours after President Obama announced the end of US combat operations in Iraq last week, one of that country’s most precious artifacts — the statue of an ancient king — began its journey home to Baghdad. In a saga that reads like the plot of an Indiana Jones movie, the 4,400-year-old statue of King Entemena was stolen from Iraq’s national museum in 2003, during widespread looting in the early days of the US invasion. It then moved through an underworld of black-market art dealers until it was recovered in a 2006 US sting operation, with help from a professor of antiquities in Boston. Then, for four more years, it sat in a glass case at Iraq’s embassy in Washington, waiting for Baghdad to be safe enough for its return. It is expected to arrive later this week, the final chapter in a tale of the anarchy of war and the fragile promise of peace. “Now he’s going back where he belongs,’’ said John Russell, a professor at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design, who was hired by the State Department to help preserve Iraq’s ancient art. Russell verified Entemena’s authenticity for US officials. Russell, a gregarious archeologist who wears chunky glasses and blue blazers when he is not on a dig, said the statue’s return marks a sign that modern-day Iraq is getting “back to normal.’’ But it also marks the end of his own struggle to see it repatriated. “He has become important to me since we became a part of each other’s lives,’’ said the Missouri-born 57-year-old, who frequently refers to the statue of Entemena as if it were a living person. Amy Gansell, a postdoctoral fellow at Emory University and a former student of Russell’s, said it is fitting to talk about Entemena that way. “The ancient Mesopotamians believed that these statues contained the essence of a person,’’ she said. “It is not just a piece of rock that we are returning, but it is the essence of humanity.’’ King Entemena ruled in 2400 BC, when the land that makes up modern-day Iraq was a cradle of civilization. Archeologists believe that the 3-foot-tall statue of imported diorite stood in a temple in the city of Lagash. The statue was discovered by archeologists in the early 1900s in the nearby city of Ur. Archeologists surmised it was hauled away as a trophy after a war by conquerors who removed its head. It was believed to have stood in the doorway of a city gate, where its neck was worn smooth by people running their hands across the top as they passed by, Russell said. In recent decades, Entemena, one of the earliest statues of a known king from the region, stood in Baghdad’s National Museum. As Saddam Hussein led Iraq into a series of wars, the museum’s curators routinely hid their priceless artifacts to protect them from theft. But in May 2003, they didn’t have time to move Entemena, which weighs some 300 pounds. Thieves rolled Entemena down the museum’s main stairway, breaking every step. They also took highly prized pieces from locked storage containers, leading Iraqi museum officials to believe a sophisticated criminal syndicate was involved. A few weeks after the looting, Russell, who teaches a class on the ancient art of Iraq, got an urgent call from the State Department at his MassArt office on Huntington Avenue. US officials asked whether he could quickly join a UN team to assess the needs of the looted museum. But he was told he had to get on a plane that night. “It was very exciting,’’ he said. “I couldn’t say no.’’ Russell was eventually hired as the Coalition Provisional Authority’s second-ranking official for cultural preservation in Iraq, as the United States tried to recover from international criticism following the museum’s looting. For nine months, bodyguards escorted him every day from the Green Zone to the museum, where he helped Iraqi curators repair damaged items and maintained contact with US soldiers tracking the lost items. In the years that followed, Russell worked to set up a training institute for Iraqi museum curators, and he lobbied successfully for the closure of a US military base that had been set up atop an archeological site of Babylon. In 2004, he returned to full-time teaching in Boston, but stayed on as a State Department consultant. For years, he heard nothing about Entemena. But in 2006, he got a call from a US Customs official who sent him a photograph of the statue and asked whether it looked like the real thing. An Iraqi art dealer in New York City had been offered a chance to buy the statue, apparently hidden at a farmhouse in Syria. The dealer, who had been caught falsifying documents related to another artifact, agreed to help get the statue back. Russell would not elaborate on how customs officials — through the art dealer — persuaded illicit art brokers to ship the statue to New York. But he was there when they opened the box in a warehouse in Queens. He knew immediately it was genuine. Soon after, Russell and his State Department colleagues held a ceremony to hand over the statue during a visit to Washington by Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi prime minister. “It was the modern ruler of Iraq and the ancient ruler in the same room,’’ Russell said. “Little Entemena was sitting there in the foreground, looking on as best he could, without his head.’’ But Baghdad’s National Museum stayed closed until February 2009 due to the violence. This year, Iraqi authorities decided to bring Entemena home, coincidentally as thousands of US troops were returning to their homes. More than 15,000 artifacts were stolen from the museum during widespread looting in 2003. Only about a third have been recovered. Last week, the glass case that recently housed Entemena stood empty, as workmen assembled the box that would carry the ancient king. Iraq’s ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaida’ie, said the statue’s return is a symbol of the slow, painful progress of a new Iraq and the bloody tribulations of the old one. “It’s a metaphor for Iraq,’’ he said. “The looting took place over three or four days. We have been working on this for the last seven years. We will be working for the next 20 years, and we may never get it all back.’’

An Example of Progress in Northern Iraq

2010-09-01T11:27:00.000-04:00

By General Tom Vandal RealClear World.com Iraqis and Americans serving together has been the hallmark of Operation Iraqi Freedom in recent years. Long gone are the days of the initial invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein. Today, U.S. Forces (USF) and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) partner together while conducting stability operations - USF advising, assisting and training the ISF to increase their capability to ensure the security of the Iraqi people. In the northern Iraqi province of Ninewa, an Iraqi General and a U.S. General have shared an area of operations since 2008. As a result of this continuing partnership and the September 1 drawdown to 50,000 American troops, it is an opportune time to examine a central question regarding the future of Iraq: are the Iraqi Security Forces ready to provide security for the Iraqi populace? A logical place to look for answers to this question is Ninewa Province and the effective working relationship formed there between USF and ISF over multiple years. If Iraq is going to be a stable and secure country, Ninewa will be a key component to that equation. Partnering with Lieutenant General Hassan Karim Khudayr Abbas al-Sa'ady, the situation is improving daily and the future of the province is no longer one of fear and violence, but of hope and potential. Ninewa is situated in northern Iraq with Syria to the west and the Kurdish Region to the north and east. The human environment is complex with Sunni Arabs as the primary demographic, as well as Kurds, Turkmen, Yezidi, Christian, Shabak, Assyrian and others intermingled along a seam called the Disputed Internal Boundary. It is an area filled with economic potential, containing fertile farmlands and deposits of oil. Added to this dynamic mix are boundaries between the Kurds and Arabs which have been disputed for hundreds of years, and the city of Mosul, often cited as the place where insurgents hope to make a final stand to obstruct progress in Iraq. Future stability in Ninewa - and throughout Iraq - depends on a capable, strong and apolitical Iraqi Security Force. Through extensive training and commitment to the Iraqi people, the ISF are keeping pressure on violent extremist networks, and conducting effective, intelligence-driven operations, with minimal U.S. involvement. Fueling the renewed effectiveness of the ISF, which consists of the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police and Kurdish Regional Guard Brigades (RGBs), is their ability to work together against a common enemy. Two examples highlight the progress made by ISF in recent years: combined check points and Mosul Dam joint security. There are eleven check points located throughout the province. These check points, manned by ISF, USF and RGBs, known collectively as the "Golden Lions," create an environment where all sides share intelligence and conduct operations to provide security and to build confidence with each other. The lesson Iraqis take away from the team work at these check points is that despite differences, their belief in a strong, unified Iraq binds them together for a common purpose. Implemented in February 2010, the joint efforts are not the first initiative where ISF and RGBs have come together to form a single security force. The first time ISF and RGBs worked together to provide security for a key piece of infrastructure was on the Mosul Dam. Today, Mosul Dam is secure and able to operate uninterrupted as a result of this combined effort. The net result of an improving ISF is apparent in decreased violence across Ninewa and in the severely degraded capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and other violent extremist groups. Overall, since ISF assumed complete control for security in the city of Mosul on June 30, 2009, attacks have declined over 200 percent, going from 60-80 attacks per week to 10-15 per week. Across Ninewa, attacks have decreased from a high of 720 in March 2008 to less than 50 a month for the past 90 days. Combined with security gains and an increasingly effective provincial government, and using the expertise of the U.S. State Department Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), Ninewa is an example of the progress that can be made when civil and military leaders work together for a common purpose. There is still a long struggle ahead in Iraq and increasing the capabilities of the ISF in Ninewa is critical before the U.S. departure in December 2011. But all signs point in the right direction as the ISF continues to demonstrate their ability to provide for the security of the Iraqi people. The final outcome of the war in Iraq will not be seen for years, but with Arabs, Kurds and others working together, combined with assistance over the next 16 months from the U.S. military and diplomats, a fully capable ISF and prosperous Ninewa province are achievable. Brigadier General Tom Vandal is the Deputy Commanding General for the Third Infantry Division and Task Force Marne, currently deployed in northern Iraq.

Palestinian rivals crack down harder on opponents

2010-08-31T12:48:00.001-04:00

Karin Laub And Diaa Hadid The rival Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have clamped down harder on opponents and critics in recent months — deepening a nasty split that could prevent Palestinian statehood even if peace talks with Israel kicking off this week succeed against long odds. New reports by Palestinian rights groups highlight a surprising symmetry in the abuse that the U.S.-backed government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and his Iranian-supported rivals Hamas in Gaza inflict on each other. Both governments carry out arbitrary arrests, ban rivals from travel, exclude them from civil service jobs and suppress opposition media, the rights groups say. Torture in both West Bank and Gaza lockups includes beatings and tying up detainees in painful positions. Hamas and Abbas' Fatah organization have harassed each other ever since the Islamic militant Hamas seized Gaza in 2007. However, the crackdowns have become more sweeping in recent months as each aims to strengthen its grip on its respective territory. Just last week, security agents in the West Bank broke up a meeting of independents opposed to Abbas' decision to resume peace talks with Israel, despite government claims that it only targets militants who pose a security threat. In Gaza, Hamas is pushing legislation that is seen as an attempt to take over and silence the respected Independent Palestinian Commission for Human Rights. "In both the West Bank and Gaza, we are going toward a ... regime in which the security forces intervene in everything," said Shahwan Jabareen of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq. For Gaza resident Assad Saftawi, 21, this has meant four stints in detention after writing an article criticizing Hamas for taxing cigarettes. Heart patient Mohammed Nahhal, a Fatah official, says Hamas prevented him from leaving Gaza for a medical checkup in Jordan, even after he obtained Israeli permission to leave the blockaded territory. In the West Bank, Nawaf Amr, producer for Al Quds TV, a pro-Hamas satellite station, says his West Bank correspondents face frequent harassment, including having tapes seized and being called for interrogation. Hamas supporter Munir Morie, a 25-year-old carpenter, says he was tortured for a month this spring and still suffers from joint pain. With each incident, the wedge is hammered deeper and the hostility grows between the two halves of what is meant to be a future Palestine, just as the U.S. relaunches Mideast talks at the White House this week in hopes of getting an agreement within a year. The talks aim to create a Palestinian state, but it appears unlikely any deal could be implemented as long as the split persists, particularly if Hamas — shunned by Israel and the West as a terror organization — remains in charge in Gaza. In the West Bank, touted by the international community as the cradle of a democratic Palestine, rights violations committed in the name of protecting that vision could end up destroying it, rights activists say. Both sides have strong motives for keeping their rivals down. Abbas fears a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and needs to keep the militants in check to maintain international support. Hamas appears increasingly intolerant of domestic challenges, both because of its isolation and its fundamentalist ideology. Hamas is increasingly targeting independents and civil groups, which provide a key alternative voice in the territory. Hamas has already closed more than 100 groups in Gaza that were once controlled by Fatah loyalists, said Hamdi Shakoura, who leads the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Recently, Hamas banned anyone who held a government job before the group took over Gaza — meaning, mainly Fatah loyalists — from serving on the boards of such groups. The government also stepped up its campaign to impose a strict version of Islam on Gaza's 1.5 million people, most recently banning women from smoking water pipes in public and ordering mannequins wearing lingerie out of display windows. The crackdown by Abbas' government focuses largely on Islamists, and robust political debate still flourishes in some niches. Still, dozens of journalists have been detained or harassed in both territories, and each side bans the other's newspapers. The Abbas government said last fall that it was halting abuse in its prisons — and rights groups say it abated for a time. But now complaints of torture have resurfaced, though not as widespread as before. Hamas activist Nouh Hreish said he was arrested and tortured for a week in December — and there were further repercussions for his family: His brother couldn't get his taxi license renewed and another relative was fired from a teaching job. "Today, people have the feeling that they live in a police state," said Hreish. Both governments insist they target only those who pose a potential security threat. They say abuses are the work of individual officers, and violators are punished. "We don't permit two things, weapons and money laundering," Abbas recently told reporters. "Aside from those two things, anyone can do anything he wants." Still, both sides appear to have carried out ideological purges. Hamas gradually moved loyalists into teaching jobs after pro-Fatah teachers went out strike. In the West Bank, the government has fired some 2,500 civil servants since 2007, most of them teachers, said West Bank Hamas leader Mahmoud Ramahi. Said Abu Ali, the West Bank interior minister, said many teachers have Hamas sympathies, but only those suspected of breaking the law, including by engaging in incitement, are targeted. "This is a very sensitive sector," he said. "We will not allow our society to turn into a Taliban one."

U.S. troops in Iraq go from shock and awe to 'advise and assist'

2010-08-30T09:07:00.000-04:00

Even before the formal end this month, for most of the remaining troops in Iraq, the war as they knew it has long been over as they transitioned from a combat role to one of helping and training Iraqi forces. By Liz Sly, Los Angeles Times August 30, 2010 Reporting from Joint Security Station Constitution, Iraq -- The soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team are, as their designation implies, trained and equipped to fight. They have a fleet of tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. They carry their M-16 rifles slung over their shoulders at all times, ready to shoot if they are attacked. But since they deployed to Iraq eight months ago, they haven't fired their guns. Their tanks and Bradleys sit unused in a lot at the sprawling Camp Victory beside Baghdad airport. And most important of all, no one has been killed. "It's wonderful," said Sgt. 1st Class Anthony Hunter of Boston, Ga., a tank crew commander on his third tour of duty who survived 20 roadside blasts when he was first deployed, in 2004-05. For Hunter and the other soldiers of the division's 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, many of whom are on their third or fourth tours, the formal end of combat operations in Iraq on Tuesday is just that: a formality. The war as they knew it is already over. That's not to say U.S. troops are out of danger. Eighteen U.S. soldiers have been killed in attacks this year across Iraq. But that's a fraction of the 4,408 who have died since 2003. These days Hunter spends his time training the Iraqi army, as part of a 70-member Stability Transition Team based at Joint Security Station Constitution in the still volatile neighborhood of Abu Ghraib, on the western outskirts of Baghdad. "I don't wish I was out there fighting. It means we can take everyone home safely," he said in his air-conditioned trailer on the base, one of the 94 in Iraq that will house the 50,000 U.S. troops staying after combat operations end. For this combat unit, many of whose members stormed into Baghdad seven years ago, a war that began with shock and awe is ending with "advise and assist." That's the new label being given to the six brigades that will be left in Iraq, even if all of them are made up of combat soldiers. "It sounds like it's semantics, but it's not," 2nd Battalion commander Lt. Col. Gregory Sierra said of the name change. "What we do is completely different. I am an infantryman. We are a combat brigade. But we're assigned as an advise and assist brigade." Troops offer Iraqi soldiers advice, and assist them, but only if asked. "Gone are the days where we had to grab three [Iraqi] soldiers and say, 'We're going outside the wire.' That does not happen," Sierra said. In a telling sign of how different the war has become, many of the soldiers at the camp didn't know about a wave of bombings across the country Wednesday that killed at least 50 people, even though several exploded in the west Baghdad area they cover. In days past, "we would have had an active role," said Staff Sgt. Frankie Parra, 28, of Queens, N.Y., whose quick reaction force wasn't aware of the bombings. "Now they only call us if they need us." When soldiers do go out, it's mostly to provide what amounts to a heavily armored escort service for officers and experts visiting with Iraqis. Roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, are still a threat to troops who ride out on the streets. Rocket fire is also a continuing menace, and two of the three soldiers killed this month died on their bases in the usually peaceful south, which has seen a rise in rocket attacks by Shiite Muslim militias in recent weeks. There will probably be more casualties before U.S. forces withdraw entirely at the end of 2011, Iraq commander Gen. Ray T. Odierno has warned. And Iraq's war isn't over. The country is still unstable, there is no proper government, bombs explode every day, and assassinations are on the rise. U.S. troops do have the right to fight to defend themselves. It is not inconceivable that American forces will be called back into combat "if … you had a complete failure of the [Iraqi] security forces," Odierno told CNN this month. "But we don't see that happening." With just 50,000 troops on the ground, there's also a lot less the Americans can do. In 2007, there were 166,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including eight combat brigades in Baghdad. Now there is one, responsible for a vast area comprising not only Baghdad, still one of the most violent areas of the country, but also an arc of territory to the south and west. "I have 70 guys covering an area that had a whole combat brigade," said Lt. Col. Rob Rooker, who was among the soldiers who stormed Baghdad in 2003 and now commands the Stability Transition Team at Constitution, pointing out on a map an area stretching from the Tigris River to Abu Ghraib in the west. "There's just things we don't do anymore. Things fall off the plate." For soldiers who have already performed several tours of duty, the new pace is a big relief. "It's real good that we can go outside the wire and not have to deal with all the stuff that we used to," said Sgt. Michael Davis, 30, of Baton Rouge, La., who is on his third tour of duty. "But sometimes if you get a new guy just out of high school, they get caught up in the war stories people tell and then you have to explain to them that they need to be grateful they're not going through that." Spc. Travis Carroll, 29, of Crawfordsville, Ind., is on his second deployment to Iraq, but mostly performed guard duty at a large base the last time. "Knock on wood, I've yet to fire my weapon in combat," he said. "There's a small part of me that does feel disappointed," he said. "I joined to be a soldier and I trained to fight. "But the big part of me says it means I'm going to go home 100% OK. I'd much rather see my family again than fire my weapon."

A Shaky Advance in Iraq Led by Oil Money

2010-08-27T09:35:00.001-04:00

By HASSAN HAFIDH Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq's petroleum industry shows signs of living up to the potential that American planners hoped for at the start of the military operation, a potential boost to the war-ravaged country's economic recovery. In a December 2009 photo, a worker at the al-Fakkah oil field flashes the "victory" sign next to the Iraqi flag in Maysan province, south of Baghdad, Iraq. After fits and starts, Iraq's oil production has rebounded to pre-war levels. The government thinks the field-development deals it has handed out to international companies are on the way to boosting output significantly. With Iraq depending on oil exports for some 90% of its government revenue, that is expected to provide a broader boost to an economy that is already benefiting from renewed growth and tame inflation. No one is predicting an economic miracle in Iraq, which is still smarting from decades of sanctions, underinvestment and a creaky, centrally planned economy. Unemployment remains high, posing a continued risk that jobless youth will be lured to the insurgency. Power outages are common, leaving residents sweltering in darkness and complaining at times that things were better before the invasion. The Bush administration denied going to war over oil. But senior officials in Washington suggested early in the military operation that Iraq's oil wealth offered a quick way to rebuild. Years of trying to lure outside capital and know-how, however, foundered. During the invasion, oil production went to zero. Afterwards, the country's oil infrastructure and power grid—never reliable in the first place—were heavily looted. Then, political opposition to foreign involvement in the country's oil fields flared. Today, Iraq pumps some 2.5 million barrels a day and sells around 2 million barrels a day overseas, according to Iraqi estimates. That's more or less the same as before the war. But last year, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced through oil-field auctions, successfully luring some of the world's largest oil companies, which agreed to tough terms in order to access Iraq's long-closed oil fields. Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA, Eni SpA and OAO Lukoil have all jumped in. So has China, which is now the biggest foreign investor in the Iraqi oil patch. View Full Image British oil major BP Plc and partner China National Petroleum Corp. won the right to work southern Iraq's Rumaila field, the country's largest producer. BP said it would invest some $15 billion to boost production from the current 1.06 million barrels per day to 2.85 million barrels per day by 2017. Iraqi oil officials now say they hope that they will be able to add by as early as the end of next year some 250,000 barrels a day in capacity. If all the companies live up to their production promises, the projects will add nearly 10 million barrels a day of capacity by 2017. "We have already started serious projects to boost Iraq's oil production," said Ahmad al-Shammaa, the Iraqi deputy oil minister. A Look Back View Slideshow Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Associated Press Lt. Col. Richard D. Heyward, left, of Illinois, and Sgt. Nick Wysong, of Washington, right, kept watch as the 2nd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the southern desert of Iraq on Aug. 17, 2010. Theirs was officially designated the last combat brigade to leave Iraq. The War's Toll A look at the conflict and its milestones. But technical hurdles and political uncertainty lie ahead. Politicians are still wrangling over a new government six months after March's parliamentary polls. Some of the election's biggest winners have vowed to review the oil-field development awards. Other economic gauges are less optimistic. Today, Iraqi electricity production is some 7,000 megawatts, according to Iraq's electricity ministry, up from around 4,500 megawatts before the invasion. But higher demand in the seven years since has stretched the grid much further than before the war, and resulted in endemic power outages across Baghdad and beyond. The higher demand speaks to overall economic growth over the last three years—averaging 4.5%, compared with consistent, negative growth prior to the war, according to Mudher Kasim, a senior adviser to the Iraqi central bank. The International Monetary Fund estimates Iraq's gross domestic product will grow at above 7% this year, compared to a contraction of almost three quarters of a percent in 2005, the first year the IMF started posting reliable data. Inflation slipped to 2.7% in June, the lowest level in three decades, according to Mr. Kassim at the central bank. The IMF pegs inflation at just over 5% this year, down from about 37% in 2005. But unemployment remains stubborn, with official figures showing 20% of eligible workers without jobs. While that figure is down from previous years—and what Mr. Kasim said was a 50% unemployment before the U.S. invasion—U.S. commanders and diplomats are pushing job creation as a way of keeping young Iraqi men out of the insurgency. "We still need to regenerate the economy, create meaningful opportunities for employment, in order to help the security environment," says Mr. Kasim.

Army of diplomats takes the lead in fractious Iraq

2010-08-26T09:44:00.001-04:00

By ROBERT BURNS (AP) – 4 days ago WASHINGTON — As the White House eagerly highlights the departure of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the small army of American diplomats left behind is embarking on a long and perilous path to keeping the volatile country from slipping back to the brink of civil war. Among the challenges are helping Iraq's deeply divided politicians form a new government; refereeing long-simmering Arab-Kurd territorial disputes; advising on attracting foreign investment; pushing for improved government services; and fleshing out a blueprint for future U.S.-Iraqi relations. President Barack Obama also is banking on the diplomats — about 300, protected by as many as 7,000 private security contractors — to assume the duties of the U.S. military. That includes protecting U.S. personnel from attack and managing the training of Iraqi police, starting in October 2011. The Iraq insurgency, which began shortly after U.S. troops toppled Baghdad in April 2003, is why the U.S. only now is entering the post-combat phase of stabilizing Iraq. Originally, the U.S. thought Iraq would be peaceful within months of the invasion, allowing for a short-lived occupation and the relatively quick emergence of a viable government. Although the insurgency has been reduced to what one analyst terms a "lethal nuisance," it will complicate the State Department's mission and test Iraq's security forces. Much is at stake as the department negotiates with the Pentagon over acquiring enough Black Hawk helicopters, bomb-resistant vehicles and other heavy gear to outfit its own protection force in Iraq. "Regardless of the reasons for going to war, everything now depends on a successful transition to an effective and unified Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces that can bring both security and stability to the average Iraqi," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In his view that transition will take five years to 10 years. The question is whether progress will be interrupted or reversed once American combat power is gone. The U.S. will have 50,000 troops in Iraq when the combat mission officially ends Aug. 31; they are scheduled to draw down to zero by Dec. 31, 2011. Until then, they will advise and train Iraqi security forces, and provide security and transport for the diplomats. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that he believes Iraq's security forces have matured to the point where they will be ready to shoulder enough of the burden to permit the remaining 50,000 U.S. soldiers to go home at the end of next year. "My assessment today is they — they will be," Odierno said, according to an excerpt of the interview released Saturday by CNN. "We continue to see development in planning, in their ability to conduct operations," he added. "We continue to see political development, economic development and all of these combined together will start to create an atmosphere that creates better security." Once the U.S. troops are gone, the State Department will be responsible for the security of its personnel. Obama administration officials say the diplomats are well prepared for what the State Department expects to be a three- to five-year transition to a "normal" U.S.-Iraqi relationship. "We are fully prepared to assume our responsibilities as we move through this transition from a military-led effort to a civilian-led effort," department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. Iraq watchers have their doubts. Kenneth M. Pollack, a frequent visitor to Iraq as director of Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution, says the administration is in danger of underestimating the difficulty it faces. "One of the biggest mistakes that most Americans are making is assuming that Iraq can't slide back into civil war. It can," Pollack said. "This thing can go bad very easily." Pollack, who does not consider himself a pessimist on Iraq, said the historical record on civil wars around the globe shows that about half repeat themselves. "So it is a huge mistake to assume it can't" happen in Iraq, whose civil strife in 2005-07 was so violent that many Americans assumed the war was lost and believed U.S. troops should give up and go home. Pollack considers the State Department ill-suited for its new tasks — starting with the police training mission and including the complex developmental problems such as improving Iraq's water system. "What the State Department is being asked to do isn't in their DNA," Pollack said. The department has been strongly criticized for its past work in Iraqi police training. An October 2007 report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., said the State Department had so badly managed a February 2004 contract for Iraqi police training that the department could not tell what it got for the $1.2 billion it spent. In May 2004 President George W. Bush put the Pentagon in charge of all security force development. The newly departed U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, Christopher Hill, says he sees brighter days ahead for Iraq, but he also laments "woefully low" supplies of electricity and deeply ingrained tensions among the three main competitors for political power: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. "There is a mountain of mistrust," Hill said. The diplomats' postwar task would have been much easier if, as the administration once hoped, Iraq had formed a new government by now, nearly six months after its March 7 national elections. Instead, the political stalemate — with no end in sight — has created another hurdle to the central U.S. goal in Iraq: translating hard-fought security gains into stability. Still, there is optimism in some quarters. "While there are no guarantees, the prospects for Iraq's security and stability beyond 2011 look as good or better than they have at any time in the recent past," John Negroponte, who was U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2004-05, wrote Thursday in a ForeignPolicy.com blog. Another complication is the shake up of key U.S. players in Baghdad. Odierno leaves Baghdad on Sept. 1 for a new assignment in the U.S., and Gen. David Petraeus, who was Odierno's boss as head of Central Command, switched last month to take command in Afghanistan. Hill was replaced in Baghdad this past week by James Jeffrey, who was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Top Marine Says Afghan Deadline May Help Taliban

2010-08-25T10:14:00.000-04:00

By ELISABETH BUMILLER WASHINGTON — The commandant of the Marine Corps said Tuesday that President Obama’s July 2011 deadline to begin American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan was “probably giving our enemy sustenance.” It was by far the most sharply worded public remark from a senior military commander about the White House’s timetable for starting to wind down the war. The commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, also said that “if you follow it closely, and of course we all do, we know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011.” The general apparently meant that Mr. Obama’s deadline was set for a domestic political audience as well as for the Afghans. But the general, who is retiring this fall, said he thought the deadline might not ultimately comfort the insurgents, who could find that only a small number of United States forces leave Afghanistan next July, a possibility increasingly set forth by Pentagon officials and senior commanders. He predicted that Taliban fighters, who he said have been told repeatedly by their commanders that the Americans would leave en masse, would be demoralized when they realized that the United States was staying. “What is he going to say to his foot troops,” he said of a Taliban commander, when, “come the fall, we’re still there hammering them like we have been? I think it could be very good for us in that context, in terms of the enemy’s psyche and what he has been, you know, posturing now for, really, the better part of a year.” General Conway, who spoke to reporters at a Pentagon briefing, also made clear, as he has in the past, that he remained personally opposed to overturning the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that requires gay men and lesbians in the military to keep their sexual orientation secret or leave the service. Mr. Obama and senior Pentagon leaders, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said that the law should be changed to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The Senate is scheduled to consider legislation next month. “We will follow the law, whatever the law prescribes,” General Conway said, adding that the Marines “cannot be seen as dragging our feet or some way delaying implementation.” Based on his information from Marines, he said, “I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual.” But because some Marines do not object, he said, perhaps having those Marines share rooms voluntarily with openly gay service members “might be the best way to start, without violating anybody’s sense of moral concern or perception on the part of their mates.” Asked what he meant by moral concern, General Conway said, “We have some people that are very religious.” He added: “I couldn’t begin to give you a percentage, but I think in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong, and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs.” Gay rights groups counter that most active-duty service members, who are decades younger than many senior commanders, do not passionately care one way or another about overturning the ban or serving with openly gay men and women. General Conway, echoing other senior American commanders, said that it “will be a few years” before the Marines can turn over their operations in Afghanistan entirely to Afghan forces. About 20,000 Marines are based in the southern province of Helmand, Afghanistan’s breadbasket and the Taliban heartland, where they continue to battle insurgents in Marja, the site of a major Marine offensive this past winter. “They’re sniping at us, they’re throwing a few odd rounds here and there, they’re shooting at our helicopters, but mainly they’re intimidating the people, O.K., so as to maintain a presence there and keep Marja from being, again, this strategic victory on the part of the Marines in the south of Helmand,” he said. Nonetheless, General Conway said that over all in Helmand, “We have the momentum, we have the initiative.” Even though the American public is tired of the war, he said, “our enemy is getting tired, too.”

Iraq border concerns spur effort to integrate Kurdish and Iraqi Army forces

2010-08-24T10:14:00.000-04:00

Kurdish forces are receiving instruction at the Iraqi Army’s training center in what officials call a breakthrough aimed at easing tensions and securing Iraq's vulnerable border with Iran. Kurdish Peshmerga cadets attend a 28-day course at an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk ,150 miles north of Baghdad August 10. The Iraqi army is training more than 100 Peshmerga cadets, the armed forces of Iraqi Kurdistan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jane Arraf, Correspondent posted August 23, 2010 at 2:44 pm EDT Kirkuk, Iraq — In this disputed city, Kurdish forces are being trained by Iraqi Army instructors in what officials call a breakthrough aimed at easing tensions between the two sides and securing Iraq’s vulnerable border with Iran. The program at the training center on the Kirkuk military base is part of a painstakingly arranged plan by US commanders here to integrate elements of the Kurdish pesh merga – fighters who battled Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government forces – into the central government’s Iraqi Army. Border security has taken on heightened importance with the prospect of the US completely withdrawing by the end of next year and increasing acknowledgment that the current Iraqi Army would have a hard time defending the country on its own. “The Iraqis realize they have to get the Iraqi Army focused on defending the sovereignty of Iraq,” says Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, the commanding general in charge of training and advising Iraqi security forces. “There is a realization that we have to move on and start doing this and get as far down the road as we can in the next 16 months,” he says in an interview with the Monitor. Iraq, carved out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the victors of World War II, borders six countries – Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Iran. But it’s Iran, with more than 900 miles of border and a bitter and complicated history with Iraq, that is most worrisome. “It is a serious concern that this country will try to expand, encroach, unless you have a viable security force to fill that vacuum,” says a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official. “We have to fill it, not them.” Meddling from Iran? Iraq’s eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s was sparked partly by border issues. US and Iraqi officials say the country, which was home to many of Iraq’s Shiite leaders in exile during Hussein’s regime, meddles in Iraq in a variety of ways, most of them covert. “There is concern about Iraqi sovereignty,” says General Barbero. “When you have a neighbor that’s trying to exert its influence from here, the way Iran is, it resonates.” Hundreds of members of the pesh merga Regional Guard deployed along the border are rotating through the training center in Kirkuk to give them the same skills as Iraqi government forces. Rifle instruction In the searing heat on a recent August day, soldiers from a unit near Suleimaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan sat on bleachers watching an Iraqi Army instructor demonstrate the proper method for dismantling rifles – his commands translated from Arabic to Kurdish. “According to the law, the regional guard’s duty is protecting the Kurdish region as part of Iraq,” said Gen. Babaker Zebari, the Iraqi Army chief of staff who recently created a furor when he said publicly that the Army would not be ready to defend its borders for another decade. “There must be coordination between the Kurdish government and the Ministry of Defense, and between the Kurdish police and the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad.” Iraq this month received the first of 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks it has purchased from the US, but its fledgling Army will still lack the manpower or capability to defend either its borders or its air space for years. Much of Iraq’s northern border is along the Kurdish territory, which has been autonomous since it broke away from Hussein’s regime after the 1991 Gulf War. Whether the country holds together is the biggest question of the 2003 postwar era. “They are one force under one authority, in one state, they legally carry weapons, and they are all part of the Iraqi defense system,” Zebari told a group of reporters in Kirkuk. “There is no discord between the [Kurdish] Regional Guard and the Iraqi Army. If there are political problems, that is another matter.” At the training center, the pesh merga seem leaner and harder-looking than the Iraqi Army soldiers. Because of mutual suspicion between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite Arab-led government and the Kurdish leadership, they’ve been largely left out of the billions of dollars devoted to rebuilding the Iraqi Army. Integration reduces flashpoints The integration that US Gen. Raymond Odierno has made a priority in his time here is aimed at building a country as well as an Army – reducing potential flashpoints between Kurdish and Iraqi troops that could threaten security and forging stronger official ties between the Iraqi government and that of the autonomous Kurdish region. In an interview with the Monitor in July, General Odierno said he had reached an agreement with Prime Minister Maliki and Kurdish leaders to work toward integrating four pesh merga brigades into the Iraqi Army in disputed areas, a development he described as "a huge step forward." The training of Kurdish soldiers and police by the Iraqi Defense and Interior ministries is part of the beginning of that integration. “It’s not going to be easy – there’s nothing easy in Iraq – there are some bumps we have to work through, there’s some scar tissue we have to work through, but we’ll get there,” says Barbero, the commanding general in charge of training and advising Iraqi security forces. The US is providing vehicles and communications equipment to the Kurdish border force. But so far, it's not offering arms – a move sought by Kurdish leaders as necessary to border security but strongly resisted by the Iraqi government. The Kurds point to 2003, when the US relied on pesh merga troops they brought into Baghdad to help maintain security after American occupation authorities disbanded the Iraqi Army. “Are we Iraqis or not? Are we part of this country or not?” asks Kurdish Prime Minister Barham Saleh in an interview. “Can a national Iraqi military be truly national without the Kurds? We are alarmed at the prospect of an Iraqi military armed with Abrams tanks and F-16s while the Kurds are kept out of it. We should accept that we are all partners in this country and we should all be committed to its defense.”

Iran unveils drone aircraft to counter "aggressors"

2010-08-23T10:33:00.000-04:00

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran unveiled a prototype long-range unmanned bomber on Sunday, the latest in a stream of announcements of new Iranian-made military hardware as tension mounts over its nuclear program. On a stage in front of military officials, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pulled a sheet away from the aircraft, called the Karrar, which Iran says is its first long-range drone. With the United States and Israel saying they do not rule out a military strike to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, the Islamic Republic has showed off new mini-submarines, and a surface-to-surface missile and announced plans to launch high-altitude satellites over the next three years. The presentation of the drone came a day after Iranian and Russian technicians began loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power station, something Israel called "totally unacceptable." In a speech at the unveiling ceremony, Ahmadinejad said Iran should seek the ability to make pre-emptive strikes against a perceived threat, although he said it would never strike first. "If there is an ignorant person or an egoist or a tyrant who just wanted to make an aggression then our Defense Ministry should reach a point where it could cut off the hand of the aggressor before it decided to make an aggression," he said. "We should reach a point when Iran would serve as a defense umbrella for all freedom-loving nations in the face of world aggressors. We don't want to attack anywhere, Iran will never decide to attack anywhere, but our revolution cannot sit idle in the face of tyranny, we can't remain indifferent." State television said the drone had a range of 1,000 km (620 miles) and a speed of 900 km per hour (560 miles per hour), and could be armed with four cruise missiles or a payload of either two 250-pound (113-kg) bombs or one of 500 pounds. It could also be used for reconnaissance and for testing Iran's missile defenses, the station said. Iran, which says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, has warned that any strike against its nuclear sites would be countered by measures not restricted to the Middle East. Ahmadinejad said on Saturday an attack on Iran would be "suicidal." Iran has said it is prepared to return to talks with major world powers but the exact nature of such negotiations has yet to be defined. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week Iran would not talk to the United States unless sanctions and military threats were lifted.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ends as last combat soldiers leave Baghdad

2010-08-19T08:36:00.001-04:00

By Ernesto Londoño Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, August 19, 2010; A01 Lt. Col. Mark Bieger huddled his infantrymen in a darkened parking lot minutes before they were to depart Baghdad for the last time. "This is a historic mission!" he bellowed, struggling to be heard over the zoom of fighter jets and unmanned drones deployed to watch over the brigade's convoy to Kuwait. "A truly historic end to seven years of war." The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which left Iraq this week, was the final U.S. combat brigade to be pulled out of the country, fulfilling the Obama administration's pledge to end the U.S. combat mission by the end of August. About 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, mainly as a training force. "Operation Iraqi Freedom ends on your watch!" exclaimed Col. John Norris, the head of the brigade. "Hooah!" the soldiers roared, using an Army battle cry. Shortly before midnight Saturday, a group of infantrymen boarded Stryker fighting vehicles, left an increasingly sparse base behind and began scanning the sides of a desolate highway for bombs. For many veterans, including some who made the same trip in the opposite direction years ago under fire, it was a fitting way to exit. "They're leaving as heroes," Norris said of his soldiers. "I want them to walk home with pride in their hearts." Besides pride, the soldiers will carry with them the hidden costs of war: hardened glares; tales of comrades' deaths relayed in monotone sentences devoid of emotion; young faces rendered incongruously old. There might never be an acknowledged end to the Iraq war -- a moment where it ceases being America's conflict. U.S. commanders acknowledge that the months-long political impasse over the disputed March 7 elections and a flurry of other unresolved disputes in Iraq have the potential to erode hard-won security gains. But U.S. commanders also seem to be stressing that this is no longer America's war to lose. "I will let history judge whether we reached irreversible momentum," Norris said. "That's not my call." By the end of this month, the United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops. Under a bilateral agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. Leaving Iraq one last time is particularly emotional for veterans who have served multiple tours, several soldiers said in the two-day journey through the southern desert to Kuwait in cramped, windowless vehicles. Silver remembrance bracelets to honor fallen comrades and tattoos that speak of loss and sacrifice are among the visible signs of the toll this conflict has taken on a generation of volunteer warriors. More than 4,400 U.S. service members have died in the Iraq war since the invasion. Several of these soldiers have served in Iraq more than one tour; some as many as four. They witnessed the toppling of a dictator and its aftermath, including the rise of a powerful and lethal insurgency. That extended the conflict long after the words "Mission Accomplished" appeared on a banner as President George W. Bush prematurely declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq aboard an aircraft carrier May 1, 2003. They were thrust into the front lines of a brutal sectarian war that ultimately ebbed. And they helped secure elections that bore a government system more akin to an oligarchy than a parliamentary democracy. Spec. Clinton J. Clemens, 26, was barely 18 when he traveled the same route northward in September 2003, clutching a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a vehicle. "I was scared to death," the Edgefield, S.C., native recalled. "I remember crossing the border and about 15 minutes later is when we took our first contact. It was the first time I'd ever been shot at." Shortly after arriving in the western city of Ramadi in fall 2004, Clemens said, he realized that the war was far from over. Sunnis who had been fired from government jobs formed armed groups and began attacking U.S. forces daily. Sgt. Luke Hitchcock, 26, of Olean, N.Y., said he got his first real taste of combat during his third deployment while stationed in Arab Jabour, a rural area southeast of Baghdad that was a Sunni insurgent stronghold in 2007. "That was a horrible area. My platoon took six casualties," he said, speaking evenly. "I received a Purple Heart during that deployment. I was blown up." He suffered shrapnel wounds from a roadside bomb and was hospitalized for a month before returning to duty. His fourth and final deployment was cathartic, Hitchcock said, because he believes he is leaving behind a safer country with a large and proficient army. "I think the fact that we stuck it out a few extra years to help their forces take control of their country" is important, he said. "That helps you hold your head up high as you leave and know that you made a difference." But it is also clear that the departing soldiers are not leaving behind a peaceful country. The brigade ended up driving out in waves -- rather than having most soldiers flown out -- because that allowed the military to keep its last combat force a few weeks longer as commanders assessed the risks of political instability. Commanders spent weeks studying the perils of the 360-mile nighttime drive through the sweltering, dusty desert of southern Iraq. Powerful roadside bombs lined the two-lane road. And Shiite militias have stepped up attacks against U.S. bases in southern Iraq in recent weeks. As a precaution, the military demanded that journalists accompanying the soldiers on the trip refrain from disclosing details of their departure until early Thursday, when the last group was scheduled to cross the Kuwaiti border. For some troops, the protracted political crisis in Baghdad was a source of angst. Many Iraqis fear that militants are exploiting the period of uncertainty to make a comeback. "Of all the time and effort that we put in this country, the blood, the sweat, the tears, I wish you could see an answer within a couple of weeks or a couple of months," said the brigade's second in command, Lt. Col. Darren Wright, 42, of Dallas. "But we won't know that for another three to five years: Will all your efforts pay off?" Some soldiers said that's unlikely. "I hope good things come from it," said Clemens, the specialist. "But I think as soon as we leave, things are going to fall apart." The first departing soldiers made it to the Kuwaiti border Sunday at dawn. They emerged from the vehicles smelly and sweat-stained. Their uniforms were dirty; their boots worn out. There were a few high-fives but no air of jubilation as they covered the .50-caliber machine guns atop the vehicles and began dumping bullets from ammunition packs into cartons. Most will return to Fort Lewis, Wash., where the 2nd Infantry is based. Others will leave the military, while some will move to other units. And none will be deployed for at least another year because Army regulations now stipulate that soldiers' at-home rest period must be at least as long as their last combat deployment. "I hope this becomes a place where I can come back in 25 years," said Hitchcock, the sergeant. "But other than that, I'm glad it's over. I'm glad it's ending. I'm glad we can stop sending people here."

Vietnam, US hold first ever defense talks

2010-08-18T10:54:00.000-04:00

HANOI, Vietnam — Former foes Vietnam and the United States held their first ever defense talks on Tuesday, which a senior U.S. official called extremely productive and successful. "I was struck by the open and frank discussions that we were able to have even though this is the first time that this dialogue was held," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher told a joint news conference with Vietnamese Vice Defense Minister Nguyen Chi Vinh. The talks came as the two countries celebrate the 15th anniversary of their normalization of relations after being enemies in the Vietnam War. Last week, an American warship, the USS John S. McCain, docked in Vietnam and the two navies conducted training exercises — a sign of growing military ties. "This dialogue ... represents the next significant, historic step in our increasingly robust defense relationship which is based on mutual trust, understanding and respect for independence and sovereignty," Scher said. He said the two sides talked about how they could better cooperate in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, search and rescue, international peacekeeping and maritime security. "I continued to be struck by the commonality of approach that our two countries share and the amount of cooperation that we have been able to achieve in a very short amount of time," Scher said. China has been uneasy with recent U.S. moves in the region, including military exercises with South Korea and the warming military relationship with Vietnam. Vinh, however, said Vietnam's increased military ties with the U.S. would not harm others. "We believe this cooperation brings about benefit to Vietnam and the United States," he told the briefing. "This cooperation does not do harm to the interests of any other country." Vietnam views U.S. influence in the region as a counterweight to China, which claims disputed islands in the South China Sea. Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines also have staked claims on all or some of the territory, which straddles vital shipping lanes, important fishing grounds and is believed rich in oil and natural gas reserves.

Pentagon Cites Concerns in China Military Growth

2010-08-17T13:50:00.001-04:00

By THOM SHANKER New York Times WASHINGTON — China has increased spending on a military that is becoming larger and more effective even as Beijing has rebuffed exchanges with the Defense Department that could improve stability, according to a Pentagon study released Monday. Senior Pentagon officials acknowledged that much of the Chinese military modernization program may reflect the rational ambition of a rising global power, albeit one that may be a worrisome rival to American interests in the Pacific region. But across the American government — from the White House to the Pentagon to Congress — officials express concern that China’s lack of openness about the growth, capabilities and intentions of its military injects instability to a vital region of the globe. China’s overall spending on national defense for 2009 was estimated at $150 billion, an increase of 7.5 percent but only about one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent to operate and carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the study, required each year by Congress. China’s arsenal of missiles arrayed across a strait from Taiwan, an American ally considered a wayward province by Beijing, did not substantially grow in numbers but is being upgraded to be more capable, according to the review. Of the many potential points of conflict, Taiwan remains the most notable, as China froze military-to-military relations with the Defense Department earlier this year after an announcement that the United States was selling more than $6 billion in weapons to Taiwan. Administration officials say that while ties between Washington and Beijing in the areas of diplomacy and economics are improving, the military-to-military relationship is prickly and a reason for concern. Another cause of worry, according to the study, is China’s emphasis on weapons that could deny the ability of American warships to operate in international waters off the coast; those weapons include precision, long-range missiles and a growing fleet of submarines and warships. The Pentagon study said that China had an active program to develop and build several aircraft carriers, and could start construction by the end of this year. China also appears intent on expanding its arsenal of nuclear-powered submarines, with one missile-launching submarine and several hunter-killer submarines already at sea, all nuclear-powered for greater range. These nuclear-powered submarines are in addition to larger and growing numbers of diesel-powered hunter-killer submarines in the Chinese Navy, according to the study. Administration and military officials also criticized China’s actions beyond its territorial waters, particularly in the South China Sea. Pentagon officials say China’s military appears intent on extending claims for maritime jurisdiction beyond the range accepted by international law. Senior Defense Department officials who released the study declined to be drawn into a discussion of politics, but Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Democrat who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed a view shared by the Pentagon. In a statement released Monday, Mr. Skelton said he was concerned by “ambiguities regarding China’s military modernization, including its missile buildup across from Taiwan, its maritime activities in the South China Sea, and the steady increase of its power-projection capabilities, which do not obviously support China’s stated national security objectives.” While “China has taken some steps toward increasing transparency and openness regarding its defense strategy and expenditures in recent years,” Mr. Skelton said, “such steps are modest. China’s most recent military budget continues a trend of sustained annual increases, and China’s strategic intentions remain opaque.” The Pentagon review comes as China surpassed Japan in the second quarter of the year to become the world’s No. 2 economy, after the United States.

Israelie Defense Minister Barak approves purchase of F-35s

2010-08-16T08:43:00.000-04:00

By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF Israel to receive first 20 fighters in 2015, cost estimated at $2.75b. After months of deliberations, Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave his approval Sunday for the purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by the Israel Air Force. A fifth-generation stealth jet, the F-35 is said to be capable of evading all radars and anti-aircraft missile systems. RELATED: 'US to sell Saudis F-15 fighter jets' Israel to finalize JSF purchase plans Background: Yasour believed reliable “The F-35 will provide Israel with continued air superiority and help retain its qualitative military edge in the region,” Barak said Sunday. “The plane will provide the air force with improved capabilities in ensuring Israel’s security when operating near and far away.” While the Pentagon has approved an Israeli request to purchase 75 aircraft, Israel plans – as a first stage – to buy only 20 JSFs for an estimated $2.75 billion. The deal includes simulators, spare parts and the cost of routine maintenance. Delivery will begin in 2015 and is expected to last approximately two years. Barak plans to bring the deal for final approval to the security cabinet in the coming weeks. Two main obstacles have slowed down Israeli procurement plans until now – the price of the aircraft and US opposition to the integration of Israeli systems into the plane. The first batch will have a configuration similar to those used by the US Air Force, with minor changes. The second batch, likely to arrive in the second half of the decade, will already be designed according to Israeli specifications and include locally-designed and manufactured systems. One of the IAF’s main motivations for becoming the first foreign customer to receive the F-35 is concern that other countries in the region – particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia – will also be allowed to purchase the aircraft. Israel, for example, was the first country outside of the US to purchase F-15s, but Saudi Arabia now operates a significant number of those fighters and is in talks with the Pentagon regarding the potential sale of an additional 82. Defense Ministry Director- General Udi Shani said that one of the considerations in approving the deal was an American offer of $4 billion in offset, meaning that it will purchase $4b. worth of military supplies from Israeli defense industries. Shani said he hoped Israel would eventually receive $5 billion in offset deals from the US. At the same time, Israeli defense industries will need to hold negotiations with Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the JSF, to pursue possible industrial cooperation. Israel Aerospace Industries, for example, manufactures wings for all F-16 fighter jets. The one Israeli company currently involved in the F-35’s production is Elbit Systems Ltd., whose helmet will be used by JSF pilots.

Romania says it will stand by Israel in event of conflict with Iran

2010-08-13T09:58:00.001-04:00

Romanian President Traian Basescu tells President Shimon Peres his country will stand by Israel if it attacks Iran. By The Associated Press Romania's president said Thursday his country will be a loyal partner of Israel and NATO in the event of a conflict with Iran, but added that he hopes the dispute can be solved through diplomacy and sanctions. "We hope that the sanctions imposed by the Security Council of the U.N. will create the correct solution in Tehran, not digging graves for American soldiers but starting transparent negotiations," said President Traian Basescu standing next to Israeli President Shimon Peres who is on an official visit to Romania. Basescu told reporters if a conflict broke out with Iran, "Romania will be a loyal partner of NATO ... and a loyal partner of Israel. The two leaders earlier talked for an hour about a range of topics including Iran." Iran is under a fourth round of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, and the U.S. and the European Union have also implemented other sanctions because of Tehran's controversial nuclear program. Peres was on a two-day official visit to Romania, the first by an Israeli head of state since the state was created in 1948. Peres thanked Romania for helping 400,000 Romanian Jews emigrate to Israeli during the communist regime. The Israeli leader is expected to attend a ceremony at a Bucharest synagogue to commemorate six Israeli soldiers who died in July in a helicopter crash in Romania. A Romania soldier was also killed when the Israeli transport helicopter crashed in mountainous terrain during a joint military exercise. Peres thanked Basescu for his personal support in dealing with the crash. On Friday Peres will visit the Holocaust Memorial in Bucharest.

Iraq needs help defending its borders after U.S. troops leave in 2011

2010-08-12T09:18:00.000-04:00

Some form of continued U.S. military presence is necessary to protect against external threats and to train troops, commanders say. Iraq's inability to defend its airspace is a key concern. Iraqi army officers talk to U.S. soldiers during an exchange of intelligence at an Iraqi army base south of the city of Mosul in June. (Warrick Page, Getty Images / June 27, 2010) Reporting from Besmaya, Iraq — Iraq will need U.S. military support for up to another decade to defend its borders because the Iraqi army won't be ready to guard the country when American troops leave at the end of 2011, according to U.S. and Iraqi commanders. Commanders say they are reasonably confident in the Iraqi security forces' ability to keep order while facing insurgents or other internal threats. But when it comes to their capacity to protect against attacks from other nations, it is inconceivable that the Iraqi army will be able to stand alone by the time U.S. troops go home, said Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, commander of the U.S. military training program in Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get dispatches from Times correspondents around the globe delivered to your inbox with our daily World newsletter. Sign up » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Almost certainly, he said, there will have to be some form of continued U.S. military presence beyond 2011 — a tough sell for Americans eager to see a rapid withdrawal — to protect against external threats and to provide the training necessary to eventually bring the Iraqi army up to scratch. The gravest concern may be Iraq's inability to defend its airspace in a region bristling with missiles and fighter planes as well as longstanding jealousies and a history of wars involving border disputes. The Iraqi government placed its first order for 18 U.S. F-16 fighter jets in March, but the earliest they're expected to arrive is 2013. "I would say we're five years into a 10-15 year program," said Brig. Gen. Scott Hanson, who heads the U.S. mission in charge of training the Iraqi air force. "We're on a glide path, but we're not in the final stages of approach." An Iraqi Ministry of Defense strategy document projects that Iraq won't be capable of defending its borders until 2020, said the chief of staff of the Iraqi armed forces, Gen. Babakir Zebari. "In general, Iraqi soldiers and officers would like the American forces to stay in Iraq until they're capable of doing the job 100%," he said. "Not a huge force, just three or four bases." U.S. officials won't give numbers, saying it will be up to the U.S. and Iraqi governments to negotiate the form and size of any future troop presence. The current security agreement obligates all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, and the Iraqi government would have to request a new agreement if it wanted any to stay. With so many uncertainties ahead, it is impossible to predict whether U.S. forces would stay beyond the deadline, analysts say. The issue is politically sensitive in both Washington and Baghdad. Much will depend on what the future Iraqi government looks like; one that is led by close allies of Iran would be unlikely to request continued U.S. military assistance. Also in question is America's likely appetite for a long- term troop presence, and the funding that would entail. The Pentagon is appealing a Senate decision to slash by half its $2-billion request for equipment for the Iraqi army in 2011. The issue of the ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq has so far received little public attention either in Washington or Baghdad. The Obama administration's Iraq policy is currently focused on fulfilling the president's pledge to bring about the "responsible" drawdown of troops to 50,000 by Aug. 31, and end the war. In Baghdad, there is no proper government, and energies are consumed these days by the struggle to form a new one. Domestic challenges from a potential revival of the Sunni Arab insurgency, well-armed Shiite Muslim militias and tensions between the political factions still pose the biggest overall threat to Iraq's long-term stability, U.S. officials say. But many Iraqis also fear their country's vulnerability to the ambitions of well-armed nations in the region. "If America withdraws its forces and one of the neighboring countries causes problems, then we're going to have a problem," Zebari said. In a harbinger of what may lie ahead, Turkish and Iranian troops recently crossed Iraq's northern border in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. Iranian troops have remained there since June, building a small fort just inside Iraqi territory. In December, Iranian troops occupied an Iraqi oil well in the south, triggering popular outrage but little action from the Iraqi government. "There appears to have been an appalling lack of foresight on the part of American military planners," said Ted Galen Carpenter, a national security expert at the Washington-based Cato Institute, who believes the U.S. will have to maintain a substantial military presence well beyond 2011 if Iraq is not to risk becoming a trigger for regional instability. "What amazes me is that policymakers didn't seem to think this through when they decided to remove Iraq as a geostrategic player. I'm not sure what they were calculating." U.S. military officials say they are acutely aware of the shortfall in Iraq's defensive capabilities. "Two years ago the levels of violence were much higher than they are today. Fighting was the focus," said Hanson, the air force commander. "The whole business has required that amount of time. I don't think anybody was asleep at the switch." With the bulk of the basic training of the Iraqi army now complete and the State Department due to take over responsibility for police training next month, the U.S. military's training mission through the end of 2011 will be reoriented toward readying the army to defend against external threats, Barbero said. At the Besmaya combat training center located in the desert east of Baghdad, that effort is already underway. On a recent morning, half a dozen M1A1 Abrams battle tanks provided by the U.S. military for training purposes trundled out into the dusty wilderness to practice shooting at cardboard targets while a trainee Iraqi controller barked orders from a control tower. "What are you shooting at? There is no target! Cease fire!" he yelled at one of the crews, which seemed to be firing randomly. A spinning speck of swirling dust on the horizon, the tank corrected and hit two targets, to warm applause from the assembled American trainers and Iraqi trainees. The M1A1s, the workhorse of the U.S. Army, are to be the centerpiece of Iraq's land defenses, and the first 11 of 140 new ones bought by the Iraqi government arrived last week. But it won't be until the middle of 2012, after U.S. troops are scheduled to depart, that the crews will be ready and all the tanks have arrived in Iraq. Iraq has an additional $13 billion worth of arms on order or under discussion, but they could take years to be processed. The trainee tank crews, many of them veterans of Iraq's previous wars, fret that their new, 238,000-strong army is smaller than the old Iraqi army, which once numbered more than 500,000, invaded two neighboring nations and was feared across the region. "We need more. We need planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, Strykers, Bradleys," said Capt. Hisham Jamil, 36, who commanded a tank crew during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "In terms of quality, the new army was better, but in number the old army was more." Iraq is a long way from being in a position to threaten its neighbors again, and U.S. officials say the envisioned arms sales won't bring it near that point. Even so, some of the sales could prove controversial, and Iraq's Kurds, who were treated brutally by late President Saddam Hussein's army, have expressed opposition to the proposed F-16 deal. Analysts say there is a broad recognition in Washington of the need for an enduring military relationship with Iraq if the huge investments in blood and money of the last seven years are not to be squandered. Obama administration officials have expressed lasting support for Iraq. Vice President Joe Biden said in Baghdad last month that the U.S. would not abandon the country after the troop withdrawal. A modest presence of advisors and mentors beyond 2011 would probably win support, said Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, who questions U.S. commanders' confidence in the Iraqi security forces' domestic capabilities. "The U.S. has a long-term strategic interest there. If the whole program unravels after 2011, Iraq degenerates into sectarian conflict and the neighbors get involved, it means the whole project was flawed," he said. "I think there's a sentiment not to let that happen."

U.S. and Iraqi Interests May Work Against Pullout

2010-08-11T09:41:00.001-04:00

By TIM ARANGO BAGHDAD — In a recent speech President Obama took credit for delivering on his promise to end the official combat mission on schedule, and vowed to meet America’s next deadline of moving all American forces off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. “As agreed to with the Iraqi government, we will maintain a transitional force until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of next year,” the president said. The reality in Iraq may defy that deadline, because many American and Iraqi officials deem the American presence to be in each nation’s interest. “For a very long period of time we’re going to be on the ground, even if it’s solely in support of its U.S. weapons systems,” said Ryan C. Crocker, who was the American ambassador in Baghdad until 2009 and helped to negotiate the agreement that tethers the two countries and mandates that all American troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Even as that deadline was negotiated, he said, a longer-lasting, though significantly smaller, presence of American forces had always been considered to be likely. At the moment, five months after national elections, there is still no Iraqi government to begin talking about what any post-2011 arrangement might entail. But many Iraqi officials deem it quietly necessary on a number of fronts: Iraq is buying more and more sophisticated American weapons, like tanks and warplanes, and will need Americans here for training and maintenance. At the same time, training is intensifying for the Iraq Army to learn not only how to battle internal insurgents, but also how to protect its national borders — a project that will take many years. And many Americans, most notably Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., have long argued that it is not in America’s interest to withdraw completely — even if Mr. Obama rose to national prominence opposing the Iraq war and ran for president promising to end it. The decision will bear directly on the payoff America could yet reap for all its spent blood — more than 4,000 American lives — and treasure, in the form of a democratic ally in a combustible region that would be a check on Iranian power and offer American access to Iraq’s vast oil reserves. A sustained American presence, at relatively low cost, could prevent Iraq, a country with a long and violent history of coups and tyranny, from slipping back into civil war. But the decision could be politically perilous for both sides. For Mr. Obama, a deepening commitment to a conflict he opposed could alienate his supporters who helped win him the presidency, especially as his party slowly abandons him on the war in Afghanistan. Iraq’s leaders face a public that wishes to be free of the American military’s grip, but the deficiencies of the country’s armed forces are obvious. “Our country will not be able to defend against foreign aggression for a long time,” said Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister. But he demurred on the question of whether the Americans should stay: “It’s up to the government to decide if they see a need for it.” When the security agreement was negotiated in 2008, it was politically essential for Iraqi officials to establish the sovereignty of their country by setting a deadline for an American exit, even as it was widely acknowledged that the agreement could be amended later. “The current running through the latter phase of 2008 was the Iraqi refrain that there will be a need for an American military presence for an extended period of time, but that Iraqi politics required us to drive a stake through the occupation,” Mr. Crocker said. Even though Iraqi soldiers and policemen are still dying at the hands of insurgents, the focus of the American advisory mission will shift toward preparing Iraq’s national defenses. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war with Iran in the 1980s. “What we’re doing over the next 17 months is, you’ll see significantly more training on the capabilities we think they need to protect externally,” Gen. Ray Odierno, the top United States military commander in Iraq, said recently. In addition to the tanks, the Iraqis have purchased M-16 rifles, and Navy vessels, and are seeking to acquire F-16 fighter jets from the United States.. At the least, the purchases are likely to require contingents of American troops and private contractors to remain in Iraq beyond 2011 as trainers and advisers. Amid the searing heat at an Iraqi Army base in south Baghdad in an area once called the triangle of death, a small unit of American soldiers are training Iraqi soldiers in a mission that will be far from complete by the end of next year: preparing the country to face foreign enemies. “The I.A. is transitioning from a counterinsurgency fight to a national defense army, like a normal army, to defend from external threats,” said Lt. Col. Edwin J. Fiske, of the Third Infantry Division’s First Brigade, using the abbreviation for the Iraqi Army. Colonel Fiske is the officer in charge of an American unit that is training Iraqis to use American Abrams tanks, weapons whose destructive capability was seen firsthand by Iraqis during the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government has bought 140 of the tanks for about $200 million, and the first few recently arrived in Umm Qasr, in southern Iraq. Beyond the 2011 deadline, Colonel Fiske said, “I can’t foresee them not asking for some sort of assistance from us.” American forces continue to leave here, to reach the president’s goal of being down to 50,000 troops by Sept. 1. It is a process that has played out during the summer against a backdrop of political paralysis and the recognition by Iraq’s political class that Mr. Obama is increasingly invested in the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the war’s legacy and the United States’ future relationship with Iraq is unsettled. “Everybody considers 1 September, we’re abandoning Iraq,” General Odierno said. “We’re not abandoning Iraq. What we’re doing is changing our commitment from a military-dominated commitment to one that is more civilian-led. Which is what I think they need more.”

Pentagon to cut thousands of jobs, Defense Secretary says

2010-08-10T09:19:00.001-04:00

By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 10, 2010; A01 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that the Pentagon will cut thousands of jobs, including a substantial chunk of its private contractors and a major military command based in Norfolk, as part of an ongoing effort to streamline its operations and to stave off political pressure to slash defense spending in the years ahead. Gates said he will recommend that President Obama dismantle the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which employs about 2,800 military and civilian personnel as well as 3,300 contractors, most of them in southeastern Virginia. He also said he will terminate two other Pentagon agencies, impose a 10 percent cut in intelligence advisory contracts and slim down what he called a "top-heavy hierarchy" by thinning the ranks of admirals and generals by at least 50 positions. The reduction in funding for contract employees -- by 10 percent annually over three years -- excludes those in war zones. Although the moves will save an unspecified amount of money, defense officials characterized them as a political preemptive strike to fend off growing sentiment elsewhere in Washington to tackle the federal government's soaring deficits by making deep cuts in military spending. The Obama administration has exempted national security from its budget reductions, but Gates said he fears that Congress might not be able to resist for long. "It is important that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense," Gates said. He cited threats from Iran, North Korea and other countries -- in an implicit reference to China -- as justification for continued overall growth in the Pentagon's budget. After a decade in which its budget has nearly doubled, the Defense Department confronts its most significant fiscal constraints since the end of the Cold War. These constraints are pressing the military to accept major changes in the way it operates, especially as it tries to end long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The initiatives Gates detailed are part of his previously announced effort to save $100 billion over five years by trimming overhead and shrinking bureaucracy so that more money can be spent on troops and weapons. That bureaucracy includes the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which was established in 1999 to coordinate training and military doctrine among the branches of the armed services. The command is also involved in organizing the deployment of armed forces around the world. On Monday, the defense secretary emphasized that he is not seeking to cut the Pentagon's overall budget. Rather, he said, officials need to demonstrate a newfound thriftiness to keep deficit hawks elsewhere in the government at bay. "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of savings and restraint," he said. In a statement, Obama said he supports Gates's plans, saying they would "help us sustain the current force structure and make needed investments in modernization in a fiscally responsible way." Despite soaring federal budget deficits, the Obama administration has asked Congress to increase defense spending next year from $535 billion to $549 billion, not counting the cost of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned how long the Pentagon's budget can avoid the ax as Washington confronts its mounting debts. Analysts said Gates's preemptive strategy has played well on Capitol Hill, but might go only so far. "It's a very smart and anticipatory set of actions Gates is taking, and it will definitely help," said Maren Leed, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Will it be enough? Probably not." Some stalwarts of the defense establishment have urged Gates to make deeper cuts. The Defense Business Board, an advisory group at the Pentagon, recommended to Gates last month that he shutter the Joint Forces Command. It also urged the Defense Department to shed more than 100,000 civilian jobs overall, returning its workforce to the size it was in 2003, when it numbered about 650,000. Gates noted that the number of people working directly for him -- in the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- has swelled by 1,000 employees over the past decade, an increase of about 50 percent. He said he would freeze the number of personnel in his office, as well as those working for defense agencies and the military's 10 combatant commands, for the next three years. The reduction in money for contractors alone would mark a major shift in the way the Defense Department has conducted business over the past decade, as it sought to limit the size of the federal workforce by hiring private firms instead. The Pentagon did not specify how much it hopes to save by closing the Joint Forces Command or by reducing the number of contractors. Nor did it say how many of those positions would be transferred to the rest of the Defense Department's civilian workforce. "It's premature to give you a number," Comptroller Robert F. Hale told reporters. "I don't think it's ready for prime time." Indeed, the military isn't even sure how many contractors are on its payroll. One Pentagon report recently estimated that it relies on about 766,000 contractors, at a cost of about $155 billion. "This does not include the intelligence organizations and we are told it is not a 'high-confidence' figure," the Defense Business Board noted. In comparison, the Defense Department's civil-service workforce consists of 745,000 people. A Washington Post analysis conducted as part of the "Top Secret America" investigation, however, found a significantly higher number: an estimated 1.2 million contractors overall being paid by the Defense Department, including the armed services and military intelligence agencies.

Marines' F-35 is lagging behind other components of the program

2010-08-09T12:56:00.001-04:00

Posted Sunday, Aug. 08, 2010 By Bob Cox rcox@star-telegram.com It comes as no surprise to many knowledgeable observers that, as flight testing of the F-35 joint strike fighter gets under way in earnest, one of the three airplane types is having more problems than the others. That one is the F-35B, the short-takeoff-vertical-landing version designed for the Marines and the British navy and air force. At the end of July, the four F-35Bs undergoing flight testing had completed 77 percent of their scheduled flights this year. The other three F-35 test airplanes were completing test flights at better than twice the planned rate. So while part of the F-35 test flight program is going well, showing significant progress for the troubled program at long last, the most difficult part is now further behind schedule. That comes as no shock to staunch F-35 critic Pierre Sprey, a former Defense Department official deeply involved in development of the F-16 and A-10 warplanes now in use. "Nothing was dumber than saying we could stuff a STOVL mechanism into a conventional airplane," he said. Designing and building high-performance military airplanes that push the boundaries of science and technology have always been challenging. STOVL's challenges The F-35B task is daunting. Like the other models, it's supposed to be a supersonic attack jet that is nearly invisible to radar and jam-packed with electronic systems to detect, track and kill enemies. Unlike the others, it's also supposed to take off -- fully loaded with fuel and weapons -- from a 500-foot-long runway and, upon returning to base, make a vertical landing still carrying bombs and missiles. Technical challenges of the F-35B have added billions of dollars and years of delays to the program. The design problems and technical issues "have mostly been driven by STOVL," aircraft engineering consultant Hans Weber said. The extent of F-35B testing issues was revealed at the end of July by Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens in a conference call with financial analysts. Stevens and other Lockheed officials say the problems are failures of relatively minor parts and components, not the vertical flight propulsion system or controls. "F-35B has met or exceeded its performance requirements since testing on the first STOVL variant began," J.D. McFarlan, vice president of F-35 test and verification, said in an e-mail response to Star-Telegram questions. "That is, frankly, a tremendous accomplishment for such an ambitious design goal." The STOVL requirement is so challenging that the F-35B is arguably less capable than the more conventional versions destined for the Air Force and Navy. The lift fan system, which generates about 19,000 pounds of thrust straight down to push the aircraft skyward, weighs more than 3,000 pounds. That means less room for fuel and weapons, so the F-35B carries half the bomb load of other fighter jets and can't fly as far. The F-35B can be described as the political glue that has long held the entire program together. The Marines, looking to replace their beloved but aging and hazardous AV-8B Harriers, have been the U.S. military's most forceful advocates for the F-35. The British, who developed the Harrier, are the strongest foreign backers and have contributed more than $2 billion to F-35 development. Of the four F-35B test aircraft built and sent to the Navy's Patuxent River flight test center, only one has made vertical landings. Lockheed spokesman John Kent said that plane, the BF-1, must fully prove the full vertical flight "envelope" before the other planes can fly in STOVL mode. Despite six landings last week, only three of the 12 key test points have been completed. Burdensome element The F-35B requirements have burdened the program. A little more than one year into the design effort and with parts already being made, Lockheed and the other contractors realized that the planes would be too heavy. The contractors stopped in midstream and redesigned the aircraft to slice 3,000 pounds of weight. That has been blamed for much of the delays and cost increases. Early on in engine testing, Pratt & Whitney discovered that fan blades in F-35B model engine were cracking under the added strain of driving the lift fan. That, too, led to months of delays and added costs. Many military experts have long questioned the real-world utility of a STOVL aircraft like the Harrier and F-35B, given the added complexities and costs. The Marines have never really used the Harrier in the way it's advertised, taking off from isolated fields or dirt landing areas, even in the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan. "You see these pictures of it popping up out of corn fields or grocery store parking lots. It's never happened," said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine turned military analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. But the Marines have stuck to and convinced policymakers of their need for the STOVL jets, saying they need their own close air support capability near the front lines. "When a Marine commander says, 'I need air support,' he wants it in five minutes or less, not in half an hour," said Bill Lawrence of Aledo, a retired Marine combat helicopter pilot and former head of Marine flight testing at Patuxent River. Lockheed's McFarlan says the F-35B test program is making progress and will make up lost time. "Design, engineering and performance all are proving out in testing," McFarlan said, and the "flight rate of the STOVL jets is up significantly in recent weeks."

Restoring the Paradise that Saddam Destroyed

2010-08-05T10:31:00.002-04:00

By Samiha Shafy Der Spiegel Saddam Hussein drained the unique wetlands of southern Iraq as a punishment to the region's Marsh Arabs who had backed an uprising. Two decades later, one courageous US Iraqi is leading efforts to restore the marshes. Not even exploding bombs can deter him from his dream. Azzam Alwash is an anomaly in Iraq, a country devastated by war and terrorism. As he punts through the war zone in a wooden boat, his biggest concerns are a missing otter, poisoned water and endangered birds. Who thinks about the environment in southern Iraq, and who is willing to risk his life to save a marsh? "Isn't this wonderful?" Alwash asks as his boat, accompanied by armed guards, glides through a channel lined with reeds. Flocks of birds fly through a reddish evening sky above the marshland, where the air temperature has dropped to 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) -- cool by local standards. Basra, a city devastated by war, is only 60 kilometers (37 miles) away, and yet it might as well be on another planet. Water buffalo snort as they swim past the boat. Alwash, a broad-shouldered man with bushy gray hair and a moustache, is beaming as he sits upright on the rowing bench. "Just look at this," he says. "There was a desert here just a few months ago." The Cradle of Civilization Alwash, 52, a citizen of Iraq and the United States, is a hydraulic engineer and the director of Nature Iraq, the country's first and only environmental organization. He founded the organization in 2004 together with his wife Suzanne, an American geologist, with financial support from the United States, Canada, Japan and Italy. His goal is to save a largely dried-up marsh in southern Iraq. In return for giving up his job in California, Alwash is now putting his safety and health at risk. Nowadays he spends a lot of time flying from one continent to another. Four days ago, he traveled from Fullerton, California, where his family lives, to Amman, Jordan to meet with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Then he flew to Basra to attend a conference, and now he is back in the marsh. His next stop is Baghdad, where he has an appointment at the Environment Ministry. After that, he will travel to Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq, where, for security reasons, Nature Iraq has its headquarters. After that, he has meetings scheduled with donors and advisers in the Italian cities of Padua and Venice. Other men have a mistress, says Alwash -- he has the marshes. Of course, this isn't just any old marsh. Alwash is fighting for a marsh which Biblical scholars believe is the site of the Garden of Eden, and which some describe as the cradle of civilization. The Mesopotamians settled in the fertile region in the fifth century B.C., and within a few centuries it had become the site of an advanced Sumerian civilization. Scholars believe that cuneiform was invented in the region, as were literature, mathematics, metallurgy, ceramics and the sailboat. Only 20 years ago, an amazing aquatic world thrived in the area, which is in the middle of the desert. Larger than the Everglades, it extended across the southern end of Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers divide into hundreds of channels before they come together again near Basra and flow into the Persian Gulf. For environmentalists, this marshland was a unique oasis of life, until the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, had it drained in the early 1990s after a Shiite uprising. Turning the Garden of Eden into Hell The official explanation was that the land was being reclaimed for agriculture. The military was sent in to excavate canals and build dikes to conduct the water directly into the Gulf. The despot, proud of his work of destruction, gave the canals names like Saddam River and Loyalty to the Leader Canal. In truth, Saddam was not interested in the farmers. His real goal was to harm the Madan, also known as the Marsh Arabs. For thousands of years, the marshes had been the homeland of this ethnic group and their cows and water buffalo. They lived in floating huts made of woven reeds and spent much of their time in wooden boats, which they guided with sticks along channels the buffalo had trampled through the reeds. They harvested reeds, hunted birds and caught fish. When the fishermen backed a Shiite uprising against the dictator, the vindictive Saddam turned their "Garden of Eden" into a hell. He had thousands of the Marsh Arabs murdered and their livestock killed. Any remaining water sources were poisoned and reed huts burned to the ground. Many people fled across the border into Iran to live in refugee camps, while others went to the north and tried to survive as day laborers. By the end of the operation, up to half a million people had been displaced. Within a few years, the marshland had shrunk to less than 10 percent of its original size. In a place that was once teeming with wildlife -- wild boar, hyenas, foxes, otters, water snakes and even lions -- the former reed beds had been turned into barren salt flats, poisoned and full of land mines. In a 2001 report, the United Nations characterized the destruction of the marshes as one of the world's greatest environmental disasters. 'Wait Until You See the Marshes' On June 18, 2003, only three months after the American invasion, Alwash flew from Los Angeles to his native Iraq. He knew what to expect. "Nevertheless, it was a shock," he says. "I remembered water and green vegetation as far as the eye could see, but what I saw was nothing but desert, dust and the ruins of settlements." At that point, Alwash had not stepped on Iraqi soil in exactly 24 years and 341 days. He had gone to the United States to study and eventually became an American through and through. He had an American wife, two young daughters with whom he did not speak Arabic, a house in Long Beach and a well-paid job as a hydraulic engineer. "It was the perfect American dream," he says today. But he couldn't forget the marshland, his childhood paradise. His father, who had worked in Iraq's Water Ministry until the early 1980s, had often taken him along when he was traveling in the marshes for work or hunting geese in the reeds. Sometimes his mother and his two sisters came along on their extended outings in the boat. Alwash had promised himself that one day he would show his wife and his daughters the "Garden of Eden" of his childhood. "This is nothing," he would say when they were hiking or canoeing in California. "Just wait until you see the marshes!" It was this promise that prompted Alwash to return to Iraq and raise funds for his plan, which involved the controlled flooding of former marshland. He and his collaborators called their ambitious plan the "Eden Again" project. Curtis Richardson, an ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, was part of the project from the very beginning, making research trips to the region between 2003 and 2007. "I've studied wetlands for my entire professional life," says Richardson, "but this marshland is the Holy Grail -- the Garden of Eden." Soon, however, Richardson was forced to realize how naïve his enthusiasm had been. He spent many a sleepless night on the floor of his hotel room in Basra listening to the sound of gunshots outside. Heavily armed guards had to escort him during his field work. "You do feel a little strange when you're holding a pH monitor in your hand while everyone else is carrying a machine gun," he says. Once, when Richardson went into the water near the Iranian border to take some samples, his translator, who was standing on the shore, suddenly began shouting and waving his arms wildly. "I had walked into a minefield," Richardson says. That was the moment he decided to abandon his field work. "Azzam is fighting a courageous battle, but he needs help," says Richardson. The United States has cancelled its financial support for the project, and now most of its funding and scientific advice comes from Italy. Richardson estimates that no more than 30 to 40 percent of the former marshland can be transformed into a functioning ecosystem in the long term. But even that would represent an enormous improvement, not just for nature but also for Iraq's future. Influencing the Climate Because they retain the water from the rivers, the marshes could prove to be an important water source for the south. They also influence the climate. The region became hotter after the marshland was destroyed, says Richardson. When temperatures went over 50 degrees Celsius (112 degrees Fahrenheit), the crops dried up in the fields. The fishermen and shrimp growers also saw a sharp decline in their catch, because the marshes were no longer there to filter dirt and pollutants out of the rivers. Now, about a third of the original river marshes are covered with water once again. Teams of international experts, Nature Iraq employees and representatives of three Iraqi ministries are demolishing dams, channeling water from the canals back into parched areas, sowing native plants and studying the composition of species and the development of plant and animal populations. Before they flood a new area, the scientists measure salt and sulfur concentrations in the soil. Levels are so high in some places that neither reeds nor indigenous fish species can survive. A constant flow of fresh water is needed to flush out the salt and allow the soil to recover. Alwash and his collaborators are developing a plan for the country's first national park: a protected zone of about 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) where the water supply will be regulated with a large number of floodgates. "We are in the process of drafting guidelines for nature reserves," says Giorgio Galli of Studio Galli Ingegneria Spa, an engineering firm in Padua, Italy. "This sort of thing has not existed in Iraq until now." The scientists hope that if the project materializes, it could be declared a UNESCO World Heritage site. Bombs 'Just Part of Daily Life' But all of this is happening in the midst of a conflict zone. Dozens of employees of the project have died in terrorist attacks in the last seven years. Others, fearing for their lives, have left. Experts with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) can only provide advice from afar. For safety reasons, they have been barred from entering Iraq since 22 people died in an attack on the UN headquarters building in Baghdad in August 2003. The situation seems to have calmed down somewhat recently. Basra is not as safe as Sulaymaniyah, but neither is it as dangerous as Baghdad. But security is a relative concept. Is the risk worth it? Can conservation even function in a country like this? Alwash is used to bombs going off. "As long as you are at least 100 meters (about 330 feet) away, it's just part of daily life." He tries to explain how he feels: "For the first time in my life, I have the feeling that my work really helps people, and that I'm not just working to make money for my family and myself. That's fulfilling." Nowadays, when Awash is traveling in the marsh of hope, he sometimes encounters images of his childhood. In Al-Hammar, a labyrinth of waterways leads through dense, meter-high reeds and comes together to form larger lakes. Dewdrops glisten on the reeds, rustling as they recede alongside the passing boat. A crescent moon fades away as the sun grows stronger. Tiny fish dash through the water, fleeing a water snake. And the birds are back: night herons, pied kingfishers, purple herons, little grebes, black-tailed godwits and marbled ducks. Reed huts surrounded by sleepy water buffalo stand on small islands. Men and women with sunburned faces and long robes glide through the water in boats, cutting reeds, occasionally raising their hands in greeting. The water has brought back the Madan, whose numbers are already believed to have climbed to about 80,000. Their stories are like the story of Naim Aatai, a small, hunched-over man with a white beard, a furrowed face and deep-set eyes. "Saddam's soldiers came to our village and accused us of hiding terrorists," says Aatai. "They shot at us and killed my brother. Then they burned down our huts." After the attack, Aatai fled to the north and found work on a farm near Baghdad. "It wasn't a good life," he says. "It's better here. This is our home." Dhwia Jift is just returning from her first reed-cutting trip of the day, her boat filled with reeds. A few men load the bundles onto a truck. Jift is paid the equivalent of $4 (about €3) for a full load. The slight woman, dressed in black, says that she gets up every morning before sunrise, bakes flatbread and feeds the children. Then she spends the rest of the day harvesting reeds. The skin on her hands and feet is cracked and covered with calluses. She says that she is tired and sick, but that she doesn't want to complain. Her time as a day laborer in the north was much worse, she says, because she was treated like a slave there. "I'm free here," she says with a smile, exposing the gaps in her teeth. "At least I don't have to beg, as long as I have water and reeds." Wasting Water But it is far from certain that the water will remain in the marshes. Turkey, where the Tigris and the Euphrates originate, is building dams and gradually reducing the flow of water southward. There are no agreements between the two countries over joint use of the rivers. And Turkey is only one of three countries, along with China and Burundi, that have not signed the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Much would be gained if Iraq's farmers would learn to be economical with their use of water. They are not familiar with the principle of drip irrigation. Instead, they still flood their fields, a method that was practiced in times when there was a surplus of water. There are also other ways to save water. Iraq treats hardly any of its sewage, and recycling water is practically unheard of. As a result, the water that is being fed out of the canals and back into the marshes contains high concentrations of fertilizer, environmental toxins and pathogens. The Environment Ministry and Nature Iraq are jointly monitoring the situation to gauge the effects on the ecosystem and the health of human beings and animals. The Hazards of Oil Broder Merkel of the Freiberg University of Mining and Technology sits between muscular bodyguards in the lobby of the newly opened Mnawi Basha Hotel in Basra. The German hydrogeologist has identified another hazard: oil. "The oil companies can't wait to start drilling for oil in the marshes," he says. "And when that gets going, without regulations, research and monitoring, you can forget about the marshes once and for all." Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, and there are plans to triple production in the next five years. A number of oil fields are located in the marshlands. Merkel, who has short white hair and many laugh lines, has come to Basra on behalf of the German Academic Exchange Service to develop two new courses of study together with representatives of Iraqi universities: "Sustainable Oil Production" and "Hydrogeology and Water Management in Arid Regions." This time, Merkel wants to take home a few water samples from the Basra canals. His trip takes him past slums the color of brown mud, mountains of garbage and checkpoints. The streets of Basra are filled with the stench of garbage and gasoline. Rickety cars squeeze past donkey carts and beggars. Combat vehicles are parked next to corrugated metal huts where vendors sell fruit and vegetables. Shiite mourning flags flutter in the wind. Wherever the scientists stop, police officers join them and wait politely until the guest from Germany has filled his test tubes. Hotels and Hikers Alwash knows the geologist from Freiberg, and the two men greet each other in the Arabic fashion, by kissing each other on both cheeks. But the US Iraqi doesn't share his German colleague's pessimism. In fact, he sees the oil boom as an opportunity. "Maybe we can create incentives for the oil companies to contribute to the establishment of a nature reserve in return," says Alwash. Alwash isn't afraid of dreaming. And when he glides through his beloved marshlands in a boat during the evening, his dream seems within reach. "I see floating reed hotels and camping sites," he says. "I see glass-bottomed kayaks, hikers, paragliders and hot-air balloons." His minders listen to him, their weapons lowered. "The first people to come will be the ornithologists," Alwash continues. "Then the people who are interested in archaeology, in the ancient cities of Ur and Uruk. And then the eco-tourists." Eco-tourists? Alwash grins, and then he says: "One of my strengths is that I don't let myself be constrained by reality."

Major Weapons Systems Cancelled for Smaller Wars

2010-08-04T09:03:00.000-04:00

Washington Times Ryan Scarborough The Pentagon has begun a new hunt for cost savings that likely will lead to scaling back big-war weapons systems in favor of funding smaller conflicts typified by Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is selling the green-eyeshade exercise as a way to achieve more efficiencies by streamlining acquisition, cutting personnel and perhaps eliminating some organizations altogether. But defense industry sources say the Gates team also is looking to kill or shelve weapons systems — a move that worries pro-defense conservatives who say it sends the wrong message to China, Russia, North Korea and other potential adversaries. Among the programs that might be subject to the budget ax are the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine and one or two of the Navy's 11 active carrier strike groups. It would be the second time Mr. Gates applied the scalpel to big-war weapons, though his first effort was far more extensive. In 2009, he ended production of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, scaled back missile defense, retired scores of warplanes and put on hold the planning on a long-range nuclear bomber — systems associated with a clash of titans, not counterinsurgency. "We want to look ahead to the years ahead and make sure that we're not creating something or imaging something or embarking on something that we're not going to be able to pay for," Ash Carter, the Pentagon's top acquisition officer, told reporters. "If we want to continue to invest in war-fighter capabilities, we're going to have to do that by finding efficiencies and being leaner." At a time when the Congressional Budget Office is warning that the mounting U.S. debt is not sustainable, Mr. Gates has given his team the daunting task of finding $100 billion in savings over five years, starting in fiscal 2012, the budget that goes to Congress next winter. The aim is to keep overall defense spending of about $700 billion at a 1 percent, after-inflation, increase annually. "What he's moving on to now is getting efficiencies out of the system by cutting overhead costs," said Loren Thompson, who runs the pro-business Lexington Institute. "They're going to achieve that by seeking greater productivity from contractors, by reducing unnecessary rules and regulations, and by tightening contract terms. My guess is that at the same time they are doing that they will cut additional weapons systems." Mr. Thompson said that on the day he spoke with The Washington Times that Pentagon officials were meeting over the fate of the Marine Corps' $13 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The Corps has said the system is critical for Marines in future wars. But Mr. Gates has suggested that the vehicle is expendable in a war-fighting era when full amphibious assaults are unlikely. "I think Gates' efforts to cut spending are necessary," said Mr. Thompson. "I can quibble about how they're doing it. But we've got a government that's spending $4 billion a day it doesn't have. The Pentagon just wastes a huge amount of money." As Mr. Gates was planning to shift money from big future wars to current smaller ones, some conservatives noted an inconsistency last month. When the Obama administration wanted to project power directly at North Korea's doorstep, it dispatched F-22s and an aircraft carrier strike group — the very systems the defense secretary has singled out for cuts. "Gates is doing what previous Democratic administrations have done repeatedly, and that is to hollow out our military," said Frank Gaffney, a defense official in the Reagan administration who directs the Center for Security Policy. "The problem with such cuts in the forces we need to wage those much more difficult and more violent kinds of conflicts is that we put ourselves in a position where we may not be able to deter them as well as fight them," he said. "That's a terrible mistake and may cost us dearly." In speeches last spring, Mr. Gates put the services on notice that more weapons cuts were coming. He disputed Navy proponents who say the sea service lacks fighters and ships for adequate global deployment and to keep in check countries such as Iran and China. "Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?" Mr. Gates said. "Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" Days later at the Navy League, he said: "Our current plan is to have 11 carrier strike groups through 2040 and it's in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But consider the massive overmatch the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities." The Navy says it does need 11, and so do many conservatives. "Carrier battle groups remain the backbone of our power projection capabilities at sea," said Mr. Gaffney. "The threats to those carrier battle groups are growing. There is no doubt about that. We need to do a vastly better job of protecting those vital elements of our fleet and indeed of our national capabilities. But I think it would be the height of folly to reduce or otherwise take actions that would disable us from having the sorts of force projection capabilities that they uniquely represent." Mr. Gates is being pressed from another front. Last week, a bipartisan panel of defense analysts called for a bigger Navy, not a smaller one, by increasing the fleet from 282 ships to 346. "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," said the panel, headed by former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, a Democrat, and former White House National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a Republican. Norman Polmar, a recognized authority on the Navy who is writing his 50th military book, said there are new strike and spy platforms today that could allow for one or two fewer carriers. The Navy, for example, will operate with only 10 while it retires one carrier and awaits the launching of a new one, the USS Gerald R. Ford. "The Navy will make do," Mr. Polmar said. "Will it mean longer deployments? Yes. Hopefully it will also mean the Navy's leadership and [Defense Department] will re-evaluate how we use carriers." What has happened, he said, is a revolution in smart weapons to the point where surface ships and submarines can deliver cruise missiles on target instead of strike aircraft from a carrier offshore. For reconnaissance, there are satellites and unmanned vehicles instead of planes. "Today, you want to hit somebody and you send a destroyer or submarine and you shoot 20 or 30 or 50 Tomahawk missiles," he said. "We've got different capabilities in other ships that can do, to some degree, not completely, what a carrier does." Mr. Polmar said that if Mr. Gates settles on nine instead of 11 carriers, the Navy would need to increase the number of cruisers and destroyers to replace the firepower. He estimates that the Navy would save $1 billion annually in operating costs for each 6,000-sailor carrier it eliminated. "Gates' view is that the kind of wars we're fighting today are probably what we will face tomorrow also," said Lexington's Mr. Thompson. "So the logic of much of what he wants to do comes down to whether you believe his predictions about the future. "I suspect that if we bank on fighting irregular warfare in the future, that some smart adversary will look at our emerging gaps in conventional war-fighting capability and try to challenge us there," he said. "I sometimes get the impression policymakers don't understand how far gone the Cold War arsenal is and how decrepit things like our fighters are." Said Mr. Gaffney: "As long as we've got global interest, we've got to be able to project power globally. It's not just in any given region. It's truly global. And the problem is that as we see the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians and others proliferating the means by which to attack our ships, that is becoming more challenging."

Spare Air Force Reserve Command from budget cuts

2010-08-03T09:32:00.001-04:00

By THOMAS L. DAY - Lt. Gen. Charles Stenner, the commander of the U.S. Air Force Reserve Command, is defending his command from looming spending cuts. In a report he provided as a part of the Pentagon’s review of reserve component troops, Stenner warned against cutting resources out of the Reserve Command to maintain resources for the active duty force — a potential recourse for the Air Force as it faces looming budget cuts. Air Force photo — Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr. is Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. “Trading away highly experienced reserve component personnel to invest in (active duty personnel and operations) ... is a sub-optimal choice,” the report warned. The report, which was dated July 16, acknowledges that “faced with significant budget reductions, the (military) will consider rebalancing the mix of active and reserve components to achieve program savings.” A move to slash the reserve command’s ranks risks “eliminat(ing) reserve component positions that can be used to absorb future losses from the active component,” the report said. “Reserve forces are ready, available and accessible to fulfill operational requirements ... they can be sustained at significantly lower cost than full-time active forces,” the report added. Stenner divides his time between the Pentagon and Robins Air Force Base. He has warned against cutting resources from his command in recent months, telling an Air Force Association-sponsored conference in Florida in February that “the top priority for me right now is to maintain a strategic reserve” of ready airmen in the U.S. Air Force Reserve Command.

Poll: Waning support for Obama on wars

2010-08-03T09:05:00.000-04:00

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Public support for President Obama's Afghanistan war policy has plummeted amid a rising U.S. death toll and the unauthorized release of classified military documents, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows. Support for Obama's management of the war fell to 36%, down from 48% in a February poll. Now, a record 43% also say it was a mistake to go to war there after the terrorist attacks in 2001. The decline in support contributed to the lowest approval ratings of Obama's presidency. Amid a lengthy recession, more Americans support his handling of the economy (39%) than the war. Even Obama's handling of the war in Iraq received record-low approval, despite a drawdown of 90,000 troops and the planned, on-schedule end of U.S. combat operations there this month. Only 41% of those surveyed Tuesday through Sunday approved of the way Obama is handling his job, his lowest rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll since he took office in January 2009. In Gallup's separate daily tracking poll, his approval was at 45% Monday. The waning support for the Afghanistan war coincides with the deaths of a record 66 U.S. servicemembers in July, up from 60 in June. As the last of 30,000 reinforcements ordered by Obama enter the country, the international military force is encountering heavy Taliban resistance in the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand. "It's hard to find any positive news that would boost public opinion," says Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who studies presidential polling and foreign policy. The drop in support also follows the online posting of more than 76,000 documents by WikiLeaks. Two-thirds of those polled said it was wrong for the website to publish the documents. Obama said Monday that he'll stick to his war plan: training Afghans to provide their own security, then beginning to withdraw troops in July 2011. The poll showed most Americans agree: 57% want a timetable for removing troops, and two-thirds of those say withdrawal should be done gradually. "We will continue to face huge challenges in Afghanistan," Obama told the Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta. "It's important that the American people know that we are making progress and we are focused on goals that are clear and achievable." In a CBS interview that aired earlier Monday, Obama said, "If I didn't think that it was important for our national security to finish the job in Afghanistan, then I would pull them out today, because I have to sign letters to these families — families who have lost loved ones." Obama's address in Georgia was focused on this month's end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq — a commitment Obama made early last year. A force of 50,000 U.S. servicemembers will stay to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism missions and protect civilian operations. "Make no mistake: Our commitment in Iraq is changing, from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats," Obama said.

Iraq to Sweeten Terms for Gas Bidders

2010-08-02T09:39:00.001-04:00

Wall Street Journal By HASSAN HAFIDH ISTANBUL—Iraq is set to sweeten contract terms for its third bidding round for its three prized natural gas fields, in an attempt to entice international companies to enter the auction, according to a company executive. Unlike oil deals for the first and second bidding rounds that were held last year, winning companies won't need to pay the Iraqi government signature bonuses for the three natural gas fields on offer, the company executive said on the sidelines of two-day roadshow held by the Iraqi oil ministry in Istanbul. International oil companies have been paying bonuses between $100 million and $500 million for deals they won in the first and second licensing auctions held last year. Iraq also apparently has delayed the bidding by a month, with it now scheduled to be held Oct. 1, an international oil company official said Sunday. Earlier this year, Iraq said it would hold the licensing auction on Sept. 1. Iraq's oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani, said that one of the incentives for interested companies would be to allow them to export 50% of the produced natural gas from these fields. The Iraqi government will take or pay for half of the produced gas. However, for some companies the export term is a "negative condition," said another company official. Iraq hasn't the infrastructure to export gas from these fields, he said. So if half of the produced natural gas would be for exports, pipelines, reservoirs and gathering stations for exports would need to be built. Companies also need to look for customers for the Iraqi gas, he added. The three natural gas fields on offer are: Akkas field in Anbar province, which the oil ministry puts at 5.6 trillion-cubic feet of gas reserves; Mansouriya in Diyala with 4.5 trillion-cubic feet of reserves; and Siba, located in Basra province with 1.13 trillion-cubic-feet of reserves. Fifteen international companies have so far shown interest in taking part in the third bidding round, a senior Iraqi oil official said. Sabah Abdulkadhem al-Saaidi, head of the legal and commercial section at the oil ministry's petroleum contracts, also said that Aug. 20 would be the last date for companies to register for the natural gas bidding round. Despite huge gas reserves estimated at 112 trillion cubic feet—the fifth highest in the region, according to U.S. Energy Information Agency data—Iraq is producing 1.65 billion cubic feet a day of gas, some 700 million cubic feet a day of which is flared due to lack of infrastructure. The goal is to fuel turbines ordered for new power stations with gas instead of crude, and the fields on offer could start commercial production in one or two years, Iraqi officials say.

Bipartisan Defense Panel Urges Naval Buildup in Asia

2010-07-30T08:59:00.001-04:00

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

2010-07-29T09:14:00.001-04:00

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

2010-07-28T11:48:00.000-04:00

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

2010-07-27T08:51:00.000-04:00

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

2010-07-26T08:58:00.001-04:00

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

2010-07-22T08:50:00.000-04:00

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

2010-07-21T10:35:00.000-04:00

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.