Cost of Iraq War Could Be in the $1-3 Trillion Range

President Bush today gave an address at the Pentagon on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war. He argued that the war is still worth fighting despite the cost in blood and treasure. The Voice of America reports that the president says critics have exaggerated the war's costs because they can no longer argue the U.S. is losing the conflict.

CNN reports that the president said the debate over the world is understandable but he insisted that a U.S. presence in Iraq is crucial. He also asked Americans for more patience with the ongoing U.S. involvement in Iraq, calling it a fight that America "can and must win."

But Democrats disagree with almost everything the president said today, pointing out that not only is the situation far from being resolved in Iraq, but that the cost to the American taxpayer is far beyond what Bush had originally said it would be. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost will hit the $1 trillion mark by the end of next year. The yearly cost has doubled since the 2003 appropriation of $74 billion - which the Bush administration expected to be the total cost of the war.

The BBC reports that some economists argue that the cost of the war will be far greater.

A study by the Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Linda Bilmes, a budget expert from Harvard, concludes the cost could be at least $3 trillion. The figure is so large because, Professor Stiglitz says, it includes costs that official estimates do not, such as the cost of the lifetime medical care for 65,000 injured American personnel.

Bush administration officials call the $3 trillion cost "exaggerated."

The war is without a doubt going to play a role in the 2008 presidential election. NPR has a timeline of the three remaining presidential candidates positions on the Iraq war.

-------

Update: TPMCafe reports on a reconciliation conference in Iraq that was boycotted by many of the county's key Sunni and Shiite parties and politicians.

10:50 AM ET | 03-19-2008 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post

Poll: More Americans Optimistic About Iraq

For the first time in many months, nearly half of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq is going fairly well.

But the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reports this new optimism is not translating into support for a long-term U.S. mission there — 54 percent of those surveyed say the troops should be brought home as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the situation has further stabilized. That number has been pretty steady for the past nine months.

Much of the good news for the Bush administration in the poll, which surveyed 1,399 adults across the country, related to security in Iraq.

The number of Americans who say that the United States is making progress in reducing the number of civilian casualties in Iraq has doubled from 21% to 43% since June. The proportion saying that progress has been achieved in preventing terrorists from establishing bases in Iraq is also up substantially, as is the number saying the U.S. is making progress in defeating the insurgents militarily.

In other areas, the news wasn't quite so good for the White House. President Bush's approval rating stayed virtually unchanged since the last survey in September; only 30 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing. And the country remains almost evenly divided on whether the U.S. effort in Iraq will succeed.

10:59 AM ET | 11-28-2007 | permalink | comments (15) | e-mail post

Officials Downplay Expectations for Mideast Summit

When President Bush opens the Middle East summit in Annapolis, Md., today, he will tell the attendees that the time is right to relaunch peace talks because "a battle is under way for the future" of the troubled region. But he's not expected to detail any of his own ideas on how to achieve the goal.

Meanwhile, the two main participants are having trouble even agreeing on a joint statement about the purpose of the talks, despite heavy pressure from the United States to produce one. Palestinians want the statement to address, "at least in general terms, key issues of Palestinian statehood — final borders, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees who lost homes in Israel following its 1948 creation. Israel has pressed for a more vague statement of commitment to two states living side by side in peace," The Associated Press reports.

In the Middle East itself, a series of polls found widespread skepticism among Israelis and Palestinians about the summit, McClatchy reports.

Nearly three-quarters of Israelis expect the conference to lead to nothing. A majority of Palestinians expect that a failure at Annapolis will lead to a surge in violence. And while most people on both sides support peace talks, they aren't willing to make the painful sacrifices necessary to end the conflict.

Participants in the summit are publicly expressing optimism about the talks, while at the same time trying to downplay any expectations that they will lead to a settlement quickly. However, both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have said they will try to find a solution before Bush leaves office next year.

10:55 AM ET | 11-27-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Focus Group Tests Attitude Toward Conflict with Iran

When they need to take the public's pulse, politicians and corporations often turn to focus groups. Advocacy organizations use this strategy as well, and Mother Jones reports that one of them, the Israel Project, even used a focus group to test-market language that could be used to gain support for military action against Iran.

The Israel Project, which "conducts extensive polling on American public attitudes toward Israel and the Middle East," is a nonprofit group with a board of advisers that includes 15 Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The focus group test, held earlier this month in Alexandria, Va., was "designed" by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. One of the people chosen to be in the group was Laura Sonnenmark, a Democratic Party volunteer. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it?'" Sonnenmark says.

After about two hours of talking about the situation in the Middle East, Sonnenmark said the focus group leader asked three questions: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?"

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi of the Israel Project told Mother Jones that the focus group test was intended to help the organization promote "our belief in pushing sanctions."

2:43 PM ET | 11-20-2007 | permalink | comments (9) | e-mail post

Concerns About Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Mount

The United States continues to be concerned about the "state of emergency and curtailment of basic freedoms" in Pakistan, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said today.

Another U.S. concern, NPR national security correspondent Jackie Northam reports, is Pakistan's nuclear weapons. (The country is believed to have 50.) Jackie told me U.S. officials are worried what might happen if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is overthrown or becomes too weak.

But their biggest worry isn't that the weapons will fall into the hands of the Islamic militants the United States has been relying on Musharraf to help fight. It's that insiders in the Pakistani nuclear movement might try to sell materials, Jackie says. Officials point to the case of A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani engineer who bought and sold nuclear knowledge and supplies on the international black market.

The U.S. has worked with Pakistan to safeguard materials, but that has actually sparked some resentment in Pakistan, Jackie says, describing it as a feeling of "the Americans are coming to Pakistan to steal all of our nukes."

While the general in charge of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is pro-Western, and the military is the most stable intuition in the country, Jackie told me one expert compared the situation to money left sitting on a bank counter. Even an honest person might be tempted to pick some up if it's just lying around. And a Pakistani nuclear scientist might be willing to sell some nuclear secrets if safeguards start to appear weak.

6:22 PM ET | 11- 9-2007 | permalink | comments (15) | e-mail post

Diplomats Protest Move to Force Some to Go to Iraq

Some U.S. diplomats told senior State Department officials during a contentious meeting Wednesday that they aren't happy about a decision that could force some of them to serve in Iraq.

Karen DeYoung, senior diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, talked to Alex Cohen on Day to Day about the diplomats' protests. She said the meeting came after department officials sent e-mails to about 200 diplomats, notifying them that they are prime candidates to fill the remaining 48 of about 250 positions that will become vacant next summer. Some of those vacancies will be at the U.S. embassy and others with the provincial reconstruction teams around Iraq. If enough people don't volunteer by Nov. 12, then the State Department will use "directed assignments" that will force people to go.

DeYoung, who listened to a tape of the meeting, said the head of the diplomats' union said his membership didn't feel like they had the training to do the job. Another diplomat talked about coming back from Iraq and not getting help coping with her readjustment, despite asking for it.

But the diplomats' protests aren't sitting so well with soldiers in Iraq, according to JJ Sutherland, currently working in NPR's Baghdad bureau. One soldier he talked to laughed about their protests. He said lots of guys had been there for 15-month tours in brutal, urban combat conditions, so it was hard to understand the anxiety about working in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

But most importantly, the soldiers say the lack of diplomats impedes their work. The military can only do so much, and to rebuild the government, State Department expertise is required.

DeYoung said that the diplomats don't want to be seen as "wimps," and they point out that hundreds of them have served in Iraq since 2003. But the way the potential forced assignments are being handled has made them angry.

4:38 PM ET | 11- 1-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Iraq Proposes Removing Contractors' Immunity

The immunity that private security contractors working in Iraq have enjoyed since 2004 could be on its way out. The Iraqi Cabinet approved a draft law today that would allow foreign security contractors to be arrested and prosecuted if they break Iraqi laws.

The Iraqi government's move followed the news that the U.S. State Department offered employees of one of the contractors, Blackwater USA, immunity from prosecution by the United States in exchange for their statements about a shooting last month that killed 17 Iraqi civilians. NPR national security correspondent Jackie Northam reports that the State Department wasn't authorized to make that offer and that the FBI now has to re-interview the guards without a promise of immunity, making it much harder to prosecute anyone. Several guards have reportedly refused to answer questions again.

But could the Iraqis prosecute the security guards under their own laws if immunity is removed?

Continue reading "Iraq Proposes Removing Contractors' Immunity" »

1:20 PM ET | 10-30-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

U.S. Role in Turkey-PKK Conflict Scrutinized

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (right) talks to Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan (left) with the help of a translator during a meeting today in Baghdad.

Ali Al-Saadi-Pool/Getty Images

Diplomatic efforts aimed at convincing Turkey not to invade northern Iraq to go after Kurdish rebels continued today with a promise from Iraq to help curb their attacks. As I've been following these unfolding negotiations, one thing I've been wondering about is the United States' role in the conflict between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.

"What role is that?" Jenny White responded with a laugh when I asked her to talk about it. White is an associate professor of anthropology at Boston University and an expert on Turkey.

"Really, it's kind of ludicrous," she continued. "I was in Turkey this past summer, and you could sense how mad Turks are at the U.S. And the decline in popular support was due to the fact that the U.S. was doing nothing to stop the PKK attacks against Turkish soldiers and civilians, despite the fact that the PKK was operating in territory supposedly under U.S. control. And the whole Armenian business in Congress made relations between Turkey and the U.S. even worse."

But, of course, the United States already has a lot to deal with in Iraq. On All Things Considered on Monday, Michele Kelemen talked to experts who pointed out that the U.S. military is not likely to transfer much-needed troops in areas like Baghdad to the northern edges of Iraq. And then there is the sense that the United States and Turkey are no longer "on the same wavelength," as they were in the days of the Cold War.

White said that when she was last in Washington, a military official talked about how things have changed, saying the U.S. was displeased with Turkey's relationship with Iran, which has tried to help fight the PKK.

With limited military options, the United States seems to be getting tough with its Kurdish allies in northern Iraq, even saying publicly that it is disappointed with Kurdish inaction against the PKK. So it becomes yet another diplomatic balancing act: putting pressure on one ally to avoid losing another in the largely hostile region.

4:00 PM ET | 10-23-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Mistrials in Muslim Charity Case Spark Questions

Now that the government's largest terrorism-funding case has spiraled into confusion and mistrials, one expert says it's time to look at how the government went after the now-defunct Muslim charity on trial in the first place.

David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, says what should cause concern about the case is the "secret process" the government used to shut down and freeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been accused of financing terrorists, almost six years ago.

"Now that the government has put all its evidence on the table, and they were unable to establish that a crime was committed, it really is time to look at how the initial decision was made," said Cole, the co-author of Less Safe, Less Free: Why America is Losing the War on Terror. "It looks like the government is trying to go farther than the law would justify."

However, The Investigative Project on Terrorism notes that a federal judge did find there was sufficient evidence connecting the charity to the Palestinian militant group Hamas to reject Holy Land's request to remove its designation as a terrorist group and unfreeze its funds in 2002.

And conservative Rod Dreher writes in his Crunchy Con blog at Beliefnet that he thinks the government didn't get a verdict in its favor in the criminal case because the jury didn't understand it.

Cole, a frequent critic of the Bush administration's policies in the war on terror, points out that this isn't the first time the government has had trouble getting a conviction in a federal terrorism case. Statistics from the 2006 Terrorist Trial Report Card from New York University's Center on Law and Security show the government has won 29 percent of cases since 2001.

12:07 PM ET | 10-23-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Canadian Gets Apology from U.S. Congressmen

Canadian Maher Arar heard two things Thursday he probably didn't expect. First, he got apologies from both Democratic and Republican congressmen for being wrongly sent by U.S. authorities in 2002 to Syria for suspected terrorist links. Arar was repeatedly tortured during the year he was in a Syrian prison.

And he heard Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler say, "There is nothing [in the U.S. government's secret dossier on Arar] to justify the continuation of this campaign of vilification against you or to deny you entry into this country." Nadler made the comments after saying he had read the file. "This was a kidnapping," Nadler said.

But the one thing Arar didn't get was permission to travel to the United States, which was the reason that he was testifying, by video link from Ottawa, to a House Judiciary subcommittee in Washington about his experiences. The Bush administration has refused to take Arar off its no-fly list even though he's been completely cleared by Canadian officials after an extensive judicial inquiry. The U.S. is also trying to squash a lawsuit that Arar has filed in New York.

And while they apologized to Arar for his treatment, Republican members of the committee defended the practice of extraordinary rendition, calling it a vital tool in the war on terror. They also noted that Canadian officials had made the first mistake about Arar. But the committee's chairman, Democrat William Delahunt, praised Canada for being accountable for its culpability in the case and said it "cries out" for a similar independent probe in the U.S.

11:48 AM ET | 10-19-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

Helping Iraqi Refugees in America and Abroad

Abood al-Khafajee says he's lucky. Out of the more than 2 million Iraqi refugees around the world, he's one of the 1,600 who have been allowed to settle in the U.S. in the past year.

Deborah Amos, who covers Iraq for NPR, spent time with al-Khafajee's family, now living in Brooklyn, N.Y. It's a new, unfamiliar landscape for the family members, who, for instance, had no idea what asparagus was the first time they saw it in a supermarket.

The family was forced to leave Iraq because al-Khafajee, who had worked as a translator for the U.S. military, was threatened. There are many Iraqis in similar situations, and one of al-Khafajee's daughters, Shaima, says she doesn't think the U.S. is doing enough to help others who were forced to flee.

Many refugees wind up stuck in a kind of legal limbo in places like Syria. They don't want to go home, but no countries will take them. Earlier this week, Deborah examined the problems facing these refugees and, in particular, their children. There are almost half a million Iraqi children in Syria, and their parents often can't afford school there, meaning a generation of Iraqi kids may go uneducated.

For its part, Syria says the international community is not doing enough to help. After leaving its borders open much longer than other neighboring countries, Syria imposed a strict visa requirement on all Iraqis on Oct. 1.

Now, as Deborah said to me, where will they go?

12:31 PM ET | 10-17-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Ill, Disabled Account for Many Afghan Suicide Attacks

It's a shake-your-head statistic. Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson reported on Morning Edition that a doctor's work shows most Afghan suicide bombers are sick, physically disabled or mentally ill.

Afghan security officials say that most of the bombers are foreigners. But a recent United Nations report says bombers caught before they could attack were overwhelmingly Afghan. Regardless of their nationalities, 80 percent of bombers are disabled or sick, says Dr. Yusef Yadgari, a pathologist who examines their remains.

"They are probably resentful because in Afghan society they are outcasts," Yadgari says. "They hold a grudge because many of them can't get a job. So, to make money for their families, they agree to become suicide bombers."

Interestingly, Afghan suicide bombers are "not celebrated" in the way that their counterparts elsewhere often are, says Christine Fair, co-author of the U.N. report. "Many parents don't even seem to know that their child or their relative blew themselves up in this act," she said.

4:47 PM ET | 10-15-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Blackwater Wants to Expand Military Work

U.S. officials are mulling a request from the Iraqi government to expel security firm Blackwater USA from the country within six months. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports, company founder Erik Prince is "laying plans for an expansion that would put his for-hire forces in hot spots around the world doing far more than guard duty."

Already, the 10-year-old company — which went from renting out shooting ranges for thousands of dollars in its early years to revenue of almost a half-billion dollars last year — is bidding on military work against industry giants such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. Mr. Prince says he is planning to build Blackwater's expertise in training, transportation and military support while expanding into making everything from remotely piloted blimps to an armored truck called the Grizzly that is tough enough to compete for the Army's latest armored-vehicle contract.

And on Sunday night, Prince defended his employees and himself against the accusations that they are mercenaries that have followed a shooting in Baghdad last month that left 17 Iraqis dead. "You know the definition of a mercenary is a professional soldier that works in the pay of a foreign army. I'm an American working for America," he said on CBS' 60 Minutes.

1:35 PM ET | 10-15-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Pentagon Uses Security Letters to Investigate Its Own

It is, as reporter Dina Temple-Raston called it, "sort of a big deal."

As she reported on All Things Considered Sunday, the American Civil Liberties Union has learned that the Pentagon, apparently working with the FBI, has used "national security letters" to investigate 455 people connected with the Defense Department over the past five years. These letters allow investigators to get people's personal records without a court order.

Dina noted that the most interesting aspect of the revelations is that officials have to show suspicion of a link to terrorism to obtain the letters, which would mean that the Pentagon has suspected hundreds of its own employees of being connected to terrorism in some way.

Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general and now head of a conservative group that monitors executive power, told Guy Raz on Morning Edition that if this is true, it indicates that there is a serious security breach in the Defense Department.

A senior Pentagon official told NPR that far fewer than 450 Pentagon employees are actually under investigation. Some are contractors and some are people who "made approaches" to Pentagon employees.

The ACLU, which accessed documents about the letters through a public records lawsuit, accuses the Pentagon of using the FBI as a "foil" to get information on its own people.

Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, says it also raises the issue of the Pentagon investigating civilians. Fein says this kind of probe should be left to the FBI.

10:34 AM ET | 10-15-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Security Firm Apologizes for Baghdad Shooting

The Australian-run security firm involved in a shooting Tuesday in Baghdad that killed two women has apologized and says "they will do whatever the Interior Ministry asks them to do," the Iraqi ministry's chief spokesman says. The Washington Post reports that Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said Unity Resources Group, which is registered with the Iraqi government, has "admitted what they have done."

The women were shot when their car drove up behind the last vehicle in a Unity-led convoy. A spokesman for the company said the occupants of the car were given repeated warnings before shots were fired, but Iraqi witnesses said the car didn't pose a threat.

Unity also was investigated for a shooting last year. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that in March 2006, an Iraqi-born Australian, Kays Juma, who was teaching at a Baghdad university, was killed when his vehicle apparently did not stop at a checkpoint. An internal Unity investigation cleared its staff of wrongdoing, and the Coalition Provincial Authority accepted the findings.

Meanwhile, as All Things Considered reported, the Iraqi prime minister's office says an initial investigation found that the U.S. security firm Blackwater USA "deliberately killed" 17 civilians in a Sept. 16 shooting. The Iraqi government wants Blackwater to pay $8 million in compensation to the families of those killed.

10:11 AM ET | 10-10-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Rice Orders New Measures for Security in Iraq

It appears that the days of little oversight of private security contractors in Iraq are ending.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced today an overhaul of U.S. security practices, introducing new measures that will allow the State Department to keep a tighter rein on contractors hired to protect government convoys.

The Associated Press reports that Rice accepted preliminary recommendations of an internal review board calling for "Diplomatic Security agents to accompany every convoy, the installation of video cameras in security vehicles, audio recordings of radio traffic between the embassy and such convoys and improved coordination and communication between convoys and the U.S. military."

This announcement comes the day after members of the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation holding U.S. contractors overseas accountable to U.S. law.

Rice ordered a review of security procedures after a Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater security guards that killed several Iraqis. Blackwater has denied its employees did anything wrong, but the Iraqi government has said the security contractors fired first. The Washington Post quotes a senior U.S. military official who says that military reports "indicate that [Blackwater] guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force against Iraqi civilians."

12:56 PM ET | 10- 5-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Iraq Goes Shopping for Weapons in China

Saying that the U.S. couldn't provide what it wanted and was too slow to deliver what it did want, the Iraqi government has decided to buy $100 million worth of light weapons from China. The Washington Post reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said the weapons will be used for the Iraqi police force. Talabani was in Washington for talks with President Bush.

The Post says that the deal worries military analysts because Iraq already has lost track of 190,000 weapons supplied by the United States. Many of those weapons are suspected to be in the hands of "Shiite and Sunni militias, insurgents and other forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and target U.S. troops."

"The problem is that the Iraqi government doesn't have — as yet — a clear plan for making sure that weapons are distributed, that they are properly monitored and repeatedly checked," said Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information, an independent think tank. "The end-use monitoring will be left in the hands of a government and military in Iraq that is not yet ready for it. And there's not a way for the U.S. to mandate them to do it if they're not U.S. weapons."

A Pentagon spokesman says the U.S. is working with Iraq on weapons purchases but acknowledged that there is a delivery problem. "We haven't converted toaster factories to produce carbines and we're working hard just to supply our own troops," an administration official told the newspaper.

9:44 AM ET | 10- 4-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Maliki Again Questions Future of Blackwater in Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (right) speaks as Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi looks on during a press conference today in Baghdad.

Hadi Mizban/Getty Images

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed to toughen his stance against the U.S. security firm Blackwater USA today, questioning whether the company has any future in Iraq after being involved in a number of shooting incidents.

"I believe the big numbers of accusations directed against (Blackwater) do not make it valid to stay in Iraq," Maliki told a news conference in Baghdad, according to Reuters.

On Tuesday, Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder, defended his company before a House committee. "I believe we acted appropriately at all times," he said. "We're the targets of the same ruthless enemies that have killed more than 3,800 American military personnel and thousands of innocent Iraqis."

But a report in today's Washington Post quotes former Blackwater guards who said security contractors fired their weapons far more often than has been previously reported. One former Blackwater guard told the Post that "his 20-man team averaged 'four or five' shootings a week, or several times the rate of 1.4 incidents a week reported by the company. The underreporting of shooting incidents was routine in Iraq, according to this former guard."

1:43 PM ET | 10- 3-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Britain to Withdraw More Troops from Iraq

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced during a surprise trip to Iraq that 1,000 additional British soldiers will be pulled out of southern Iraq by Christmas. However, opponents are criticizing his statement as spin.

USA Today reports that Brown said Britain would "fully turn control of Basra province over to Iraqi army and security forces in the next two months."

The reductions are a continuation of a plan started by former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Brown's office refused to comment on reports such as one in The Guardian that said even more troops would be withdrawn by spring, perhaps another 1,500 or more. Britain would have 4,500 troops in Iraq after the reductions announced Tuesday.

But The Telegraph reports that the announcement seems to have backfired on Brown. It emerged that half of the troop withdrawal had already been announced and some of the soldiers were already back in England. Critics were angry that the announcement wasn't made in parliament and accused Brown of treating the military like a "political football."

9:47 AM ET | 10- 3-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Report: Blackwater Involved in Other Civilian Deaths

A report prepared by congressional Democrats shows that Blackwater USA security contractors in Iraq were involved in at least 195 incidents in which weapons were fired since early 2005, including several previously unreported killings of Iraqi citizens, and that 122 employees have been fired for reasons such as misusing weapons, violent behavior and drug abuse problems.

Jackie Northam reported for All Things Considered that the State Department has asked the FBI to go to Iraq and examine the evidence in the Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater that killed at least 11 Iraqis. The FBI also may pursue any possible criminal charges related to the shooting. In a statement released Monday, Blackwater promised full cooperation with the FBI investigation.

Northam noted that the congressional report states that in more than 80 percent of the 195 shooting incidents, Blackwater employees fired first, often from moving vehicles and without stopping to see if anyone had been killed or injured. The data was gathered from hundreds of internal Blackwater and State Department documents.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have tried unsuccessfully to get the chairman, California Democrat Henry Waxman, to delay today's hearing into Blackwater's conduct until the investigations are completed, cautioning against turning the shooting into the State Department's "Abu Ghraib."

9:43 AM ET | 10- 2-2007 | permalink | comments (18) | e-mail post

Idea of Dividing Iraq Unites Iraqis in Opposition

In a rare show of political unity, the Iraqi parliament has basically told American politicians to leave the future of Iraq to the Iraqis.

Over the weekend, the divided political leadership of Iraq showed its contempt for a nonbinding resolution passed last week in the U.S. Senate that called on Iraq to be divided into three partitions (Sunni, Shiite and Kurd) with a weak central government. The Los Angeles Times reports that for many Sunni and Shiite parliamentarians in particular, the measure reminded them of how often outside powers have tried to shape the future of their country.

"We refuse the resolutions which decide Iraq's destiny from outside Iraq. This is a dangerous partitioning based on sectarianism and ethnicity," said Hashim Taie, a member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the parliament's main Sunni representation.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's political supporters joined their rivals in denouncing the U.S. Senate's measure. "This project is the strategic option for the American administration in its failure to igniting a sectarian war inside Iraq," Nasr Rubaie said. "They started to search for a replacement, which is to divide Iraqi."

In another rare occurrence, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad joined in criticizing the Senate resolution. In an unsigned statement, embassy officials said the resolution could seriously hamper Iraq's future stability.

9:28 AM ET | 10- 1-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Where Have All the Recruits Gone?

It might not seem like the best idea for a Navy recruiter to use the phrase "narcissistic praise junkies" to refer to potential sailors. But it turned up in a presentation at the Annual Navy Workforce Research and Analysis Conference to describe the qualities of so-called "millennial" kids, the ones they're trying to get to join the Navy now. Here's a link to the whole presentation. (Warning: It's a PowerPoint document.)

But along with the amusing pieces in the presentation (favorite line: "This is not just a generation gap, but dealing with a somewhat alien life force." And a translation of l33t speak: Navy! FTW!), there is something that shows what we've been hearing all along: that the kids today just aren't all that interested in heading over to Iraq. Check out the slide below, showing the negative effect of the Iraq war on kids' patriotism and their likelihood to join the military.

Total sidenote: In the slide of the presentation that talks about the millennials' trademarks (never seen a film camera, always been online, etc.), there is one odd lapse for a military document. It says, "WW1 started nearly a century before he was born (For Boomers, Civil War started a century before birth)." Now, check me on this, but World War I started in 1914 (1917 if you're dating it to when America entered the war), which is 60-70 years before the millennials start being born (depending on when you count the beginning of the millennial generation). And the Civil War started in 1861, and assuming we're counting the boomers as being born after World War II but before the Vietnam War, that's about 80-some-odd years later. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but don't they teach bloody dates at Annapolis anymore?

(Thanks to Danger Room.)

- JJ Sutherland

A slide from a presentation about recruiting members of the millennial generation at the Annual Navy Workforce Research and Analysis Conference.

Conference Web site

 

4:58 PM ET | 09-28-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

The Questions Being Asked Later

(Tom Regan is off today. NPR's JJ Sutherland is filling in.)

I never saw Baghdad before the war. I've heard it described as impeccably clean. A spread-out city more akin to Los Angeles than the densely packed old cities in the Middle East. Not much traffic, not a lot of cars.

It's still spread out, but the cleanliness and traffic have changed. Rubble and trash litter the streets. Sometimes someone has made a half-hearted effort to sweep the rubble into loose piles. The occasional burned-out car, usually from a car bomb, can be seen on the side of the road. Massive concrete walls seal off buildings and neighborhoods and markets in an attempt to secure them. Miles of razor wire spill in loose coils onto the street. It is not a pretty city.

But the scariest part to me is all the guys with guns. There seem to be dozens of different uniforms and vehicles, and many of them wear masks. But they all carry weapons, and they seem to be pointed at you all the time. It is not uncommon to be sitting in Baghdad's horrific traffic with some guy in a pickup truck or van or SUV pointing a rifle at you, and the only thing you can think is: "Who are those guys?"

And of those guys with guns, the Blackwater guys with their mirrored shades stood out. The rumors and stories about them among Iraqis are unending.

And so, this latest incident that is causing all the furor here and in Iraq didn't really surprise me. But reading The New York Times today did.

Continue reading "The Questions Being Asked Later" »

11:19 AM ET | 09-28-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

GAO: Canadian Border Presents Security Concerns

A threat from the Great White North, eh?

A Government Accountability Office report, presented today to the Senate Finance Committee, says there are too many vulnerable spots along the 5,000-mile-long U.S.-Canadian border where someone could smuggle radioactive materials into the United States.

CongressDaily reports that on three separate occasions GAO officials "probed apparently unmonitored and unmanned sections of the northern border, finding that they could sneak from Canada into the United States undetected even while carrying a red duffel bag to simulate the smuggling of radioactive materials or other contraband." A GAO video shows agents going back and forth across the border.

A Customs and Border Protection spokesman downplayed the findings and hinted that officials might have been aware of what the GAO was doing but determined it wasn't a threat. CBS reports that border officials still believe the border with Mexico is a far greater threat.

3:57 PM ET | 09-27-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

GAO Takes Administration to Task over Vet Benefits

The Government Accountability Office took the Bush administration to task today over veterans' benefits — or, to be more precise, the lack of them. The testimony before a House subcommittee was the first preliminary assessment of how things are going since The Washington Post documented problems with outpatient treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The Army has touted the creation of more personalized medical care units to prevent wounded veterans from falling through the cracks, but GAO officials found that 46 percent of returning service members who were eligible didn't get the service because of staffing shortages.

GAO officials reported that the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department remain "far away" from having a comprehensive system for sharing medical records, even after 10 years of review, The Associated Press reports. The administration also lacks a solution for delays in disability payments, which average almost six months, despite reviews at multiple levels of government.

USA Today's On Politics blog speculates that the GAO's report could reignite a debate about veterans' care among the presidential candidates. You might even see it discussed during the Democrats' debate tonight in New Hampshire.

3:05 PM ET | 09-26-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Report: U.S., Israel Shared Data about Syrian Site

Well, it looks like the recent speculation that Israel conducted a raid in Syria because of possible nuclear activity there might have been on the money. The Washington Post reports that Israel decided to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear site after sharing information with the United States that indicated North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria.

Ultimately, however, the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid, which hit the Syrian facility in the dead of night to minimize possible casualties, the sources said.

But some proliferation experts have doubts about the intelligence that precipitated Israel's strike, the Post reports. They say Syria showed no interest in nuclear weapons in the past and it's possible North Korea was just unloading what it didn't need. North Korea denied this week that it was giving the country any nuclear aid.

Simon Tisdall of The Guardian writes that this "nuclear spectre has been conjured largely by American officials, some of whom famously misdirected similar WMD allegations at Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." He says another explanation for the attack seems more plausible: that Israel was targeting Iranian arms on their way to Hezbollah. While Iran says it only provides financial support to the Lebanese organization, Tisdall writes, there are "persistent, credible reports" that Iranian weapons are making their way through Syria from northern Iraq.

10:17 AM ET | 09-21-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Blackwater Affair a Propaganda Victory for U.S. Foes

While U.S. politicians and talk show hosts debate what really happened in Sunday's deadly shooting involving security firm Blackwater USA in Baghdad, the Iraqi public seems to have already decided the matter — they think Blackwater's employees are guilty of murder, CBS News reports.

For instance, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a press conference Wednesday that he cannot tolerate "the killing of our citizens in cold blood."

The shooting has become a "huge propaganda victory for America's enemies in Iraq" at a time when the U.S. felt it was making positive strides, CBS reports.

The already negative image of the security contractors was reinforced by televised interviews with survivors of the shooting (including Hassan Jaber Salma, 50, a lawyer who suffered eight gunshot wounds), who said they had been trying to help the diplomatic convoy that Blackwater employees were guarding get through the intersection but were shot anyway.

Anne Garrels reported for All Things Considered that reports of similar incidents involving Blackwater have poured out since Sunday's shootings, as if "the lid of compliance and silence was suddenly broken."

Karim Muhammed, who owns a furniture store, said he's seen people killed by foreign security companies. He said Iraqi officials should have done something about this a long time ago. "Why do they consider American blood first class, and ours a cheap commodity?" Muhammed said. "Are they better than us?"

11:24 AM ET | 09-20-2007 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post

Iraqi Report: Blackwater Convoy Was Not Ambushed

The Iraqi Interior Ministry's preliminary report on a shooting involving security firm Blackwater USA, in which several Iraqis were killed, seems to contradict the company's account that their employees only fired after they were fired upon. According to The New York Times, the report, though unverified, says that Blackwater personnel "were not ambushed ... but instead fired at a car when it did not heed a policeman's call to stop, killing a couple and their infant."

The ministry also says 20 civilians were killed in the shooting, a higher number than was reported earlier.

The United States has suspended all land travel by diplomats and other civilian officials in Iraq outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone — a sign of just how much the shooting has increased tensions between the U.S. and the Iraqi government. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has called on the U.S. to replace Blackwater with another firm.

"This is what happens when government fails to act," writes Peter Singer, a security industry expert, on the Brookings Institution's Web site. According to Singer, The Associated Press reports, nearly a year after a law was passed that holds contracted employees to the same code of justice as military personnel, the Bush administration has not published guidance on how military lawyers should do that.

Laura Dickinson, a University of Connecticut law professor who has studied the use of private contractors on the battlefield, says to enforce the many laws that apply to contracted security firms, a single government office should monitor contracts and keep Congress informed.

12:06 PM ET | 09-19-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

Iraqi Refugees Face Long, Often Dangerous Waits

We all know that living in Iraq can be dangerous. Trying to leave it can be a problem, too.

The number of displaced Iraqis has topped 4 million: 2 million within the country, along with 2.2 million refugees. The U.S. has said that it will help resettle more than 2 million refugees, but as Deborah Amos reported for Morning Edition today, that is often complicated by U.S. relations with Syria and other countries where the refugees are living.

But waiting for a visa in Syria is probably preferable to waiting for one in Iraq. Newsweek tells the story of Hazim Hanna and his wife, Emel Meskoni, two of the first Iraqis to work for the U.S.-led coalition after the fall of Baghdad. They passionately believed in a new Iraq, but as the situation in the country grew worse, life became too dangerous for them. They were waiting for final approval to immigrate to the United States in late May when kidnappers grabbed Hanna. Meskoni disappeared a few days later when she went to deliver the ransom for her husband. Their bodies were found about a month later.

Their deaths prompted Ambassador Ryan Crocker to send a memo pressing Washington to process visas for Iraqis more quickly. (Newsweek reports that the United States will have approved about 1,700 asylum requests by the end of September, according to a Homeland Security estimate.) Judging from the Morning Edition report, however, it doesn't seem to have sped things up.

4:10 PM ET | 09-18-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

French Foreign Minister: Get Ready for War with Iran

Ah, the French. It seems their new government's desire to make amends with the Bush administration is no passing fancy. Officials seem to be taking a tougher approach to foreign affairs. For instance, take the statement Sunday by France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who said that the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear program.

Kouchner also called for "more effective sanctions" against Iran if it continues to resist the demands of the international community to curtail its nuclear program. He said the European Union should prepare its own set of sanctions outside of any imposed by the United Nations Security Council, and he has asked several large private companies not to do business with Iran.

Not everyone is happy with the new tough garcon image Kouchner projected. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said she can't comprehend why Kouchner "is resorting to such martial rhetoric at this time." Ha'aretz reports that Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called the comments "hype."

"There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 70,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," ElBaradei told reporters.

But if the French keep up all this tough talk, which the BBC reports is seen as a way to court favor with the U.S., there might not be any more talk of "freedom fries" in the congressional cafeteria.

2:03 PM ET | 09-17-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Iraq Cancels Blackwater's Operating License

The Iraqi government says it's canceling the operating license of U.S. security firm Blackwater USA after accusations that it was involved in a deadly shootout in Baghdad. The firm provides personal security for many U.S. officials working in the country.

Agence-France Presse reports that the shootout Sunday in a Baghdad neighborhood, which involved a U.S. diplomatic convoy, left at least eight people dead and 13 others wounded. Officials say that most of the dead and wounded were bystanders.

"The interior minister (Jawad al-Bolani) has issued an order to cancel Blackwater's licence and the company is prohibited from operating anywhere in Iraq," interior ministry director of operations Major General Abdel Karim Khalaf said. "We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime."

All Blackwater employees have been told to leave Iraq immediately, except for those involved in the shooting, the BBC reports. Blackwater hasn't commented so far.

As Jackie Northam reported recently for Morning Edition, there are thousands of private contractors in Iraq — with little oversight. Critics say the contractors often are not trained properly, the BBC reports.

11:16 AM ET | 09-17-2007 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post

Pentagon Releases Audio of Terror Suspects' Hearings

The Pentagon has released audio recordings from the military hearings of several terror suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba. Morning Edition reports that the detainees were among those sent to Cuba about a year ago after being held in secret CIA prisons for years.

The audio, available on the Pentagon's Web site, includes the 40-minute-long hearing of suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, officials deleted a section that they felt could be used to recruit future terrorists, NPR's Jackie Northam reports.

The censored section includes a 10-minute passage about the capture and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and Mohammed explaining why Islamic radicals are waging war on the U.S., The Associated Press reports.

A transcript of Mohammed's hearing, which was posted on the Pentagon's Web site in March, includes some of the sections removed from the tape. Officials told AP that they felt the audio version could be used by al-Qaida in recruitment.

In another statement cut from the audio, Mohammed said he felt some sorrow over Sept. 11.

"The language of the war is victims," Mohammed said in a part of the transcript that was cut from the audio. He compared al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden to George Washington, saying Americans view Washington as a hero for his role in the Revolutionary War and many Muslims view bin Laden in the same light.

9:37 AM ET | 09-14-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Bomb Kills Sheik Helping U.S. in Anbar Province

Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha

Sabah Arar/AFP/Getty Images

Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq today — a blow that has the potential to set back some of the gains the U.S. has made in Anbar province.

Abu Risha was the leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, the group of Sunni clans backing U.S. troops in the province. He was among a group of tribal leaders that met with President Bush at al-Asad Air Base earlier this month.

The Associated Press reports that no group has claimed responsibility, but suspicion has fallen on al-Qaida in Iraq. U.S. officials say the terrorist group has suffered serious setbacks because of Abu Risha and the movement referred to as the "Anbar Awakening." It also appears that an act of generosity may have led to his death. A Ramadi police officer said Abu Risha had received a group of poor people at his home earlier in the day to mark the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The policeman said authorities believe one of the visitors planted the bomb.

Gen. David Petraeus told The Washington Post that Abu Risha's death is a tragic loss. "It's a terrible loss for Anbar province and all of Iraq. It shows how significant his importance was and it shows al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a very dangerous and barbaric enemy."

2:04 PM ET | 09-13-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Poll Results Question Assumptions about Muslim World

Here's an eye-opener for you.

The Gallup World Poll analyzed a series of polls taken between 2005 and 2007 that covered about 90 percent of the Muslim world. It found that just 7 percent of those surveyed said the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were morally justified.

That's despite strong anti-Americanism in many Muslim nations. In one of them, Indonesia, no one who supported the attacks did so for religious reasons — instead, they cited mostly secular issues like U.S. foreign policy. In fact, many of those who didn't support the attacks gave humanitarian or religious reasons.

Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Center for Muslim Studies at the Gallup Organization, writes that the results of the polls question the assumptions of the war on terror. "Defining the current conflict as a battle between Western values and 'radical Islam' misses the root cause of terrorism while energizing the very perception that fuel sympathy for it — that Islam itself is under attack," she writes.

The study of the polls did show that the minority who approved of the attacks often said the greatest danger their countries faced was "occupation and U.S. domination." If the West wants better relations with the Muslim world, they said, it "should respect Islam and stop imposing its beliefs and policies."

Among moderates, economics was the main danger for their countries, "and along with respecting Islam, they see economic support and investments as a way for the West to better relations." (This supports the findings of a separate poll done by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.)

12:58 PM ET | 09-13-2007 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post

When It Comes to Iraq, Six Months Can Last for Years

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker couldn't be pinned down when asked how long it would be before the U.S. could possibly leave Iraq during their Senate testimony on Tuesday. They did, however, say that support for the surge until next spring — in about six months — is crucial.

When it comes to Iraq, it seems the next six months are always the most important. Almost from the moment the invasion was launched in March 2003, lawmakers, military commanders and pundits have said the fate of Iraq will be determined in "the next six months." Democrats, Republicans, independents ... all have used the six-month time frame as a kind of magic number.

For instance, The Guardian reported in February that an "elite team of officers" had told Petraeus that the U.S. had six months to turn around the situation in Iraq or it could face a Vietnam-style collapse that could force the military into a "hasty retreat."

Back in June 2006, Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that the next six months would be crucial to stabilizing Iraq.

A month later, Defense and the National Interest, a conservative Web site dedicated to fostering debate about role of the armed forces after the Cold War, started a list of these "next six months" statements. By my count, it has found at least 27 examples.

Those on the list include Sen. John McCain, Sen. Hillary Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sen. Chuck Hagel and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who has used the six-months figure as a marker several times. Friedman's use of the phrase even prompted liberal blogger Atrios to start measuring a six-month unit as a "Friedman" in May 2006.

12:07 PM ET | 09-12-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Muslims: The Other Victims of Sept. 11

There is no doubt that Americans' lives were deeply affected by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in lasting ways. (For example, I overheard two men on the Washington, D.C., subway this morning talking about where they keep their gas masks in case of an attack.) Yet one of the groups most affected — on a global level — has been the Muslim "ummah," or community.

Although Osama bin Laden likes to say that he is making war on the West, since the Sept. 11 attacks, Muslims have overwhelmingly been the main targets of his brand of jihadist terrorism. The State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism around the world show that Muslims are the most frequent victims of terrorist attacks. This may help explain why recent surveys like the Pew Global Attitudes Project have shown that support for bin Laden is falling sharply in some Muslim countries.

Meanwhile, the Iraq Body Count Web site (which many consider a conservative estimate) says that between 71,000 and 78,000 Iraqis have died from a combination of insurgent attacks, sectarian violence and U.S.-led coalition operations since the invasion of 2003.

There is also the price North American Muslims pay every day in many ways since Sept. 11, 2001, also thanks to bin Laden. Some of those experiences have been draconian, like those of Capt. James Yee, one-time Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo, or Portland, Ore., lawyer Brandon Mayfield, at one point accused of being involved in the Madrid bombings. The Canadian case of Maher Arar also stands out.

But most of the time, the price is just dealing with everyday suspicion because you happen to be Muslim — or look Arab. Take, for instance, the San Diego flight that was delayed when a passenger reported that a group of Iraqi men (who turned out to be instructing Marines in the area) were speaking Arabic.

3:40 PM ET | 09-11-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Poll Shows Most Iraqis Believe Surge Has Failed

Talk about your mixed messages. While Gen. David Petraeus is back on Capitol Hill today with his message that the surge is working, and while Iraqi politicians are welcoming the positive report, a poll finds a solid majority of Iraqis believe the surge has failed.

In the poll of 2,000 Iraqis from across the country, conducted jointly for the BBC, ABC News and Japan's NHK, about 70 percent say that "security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military 'surge' of the past six months." Even worse, about 60 percent say attacks on U.S. troops are justified.

The poll indicates the mood in Iraq is just as negative as it has been since the 2003 invasion, the BBC reports, despite the upbeat assessments from Iraqi and American politicians and military commanders. Only 29 percent of Iraqis polled think things will improve in the next year, compared with 64 percent two years ago.

There were similar negative responses about many other issues in Iraq — 65 percent to 70 percent of those surveyed said things have gotten worse in the areas of: security outside the area covered by the surge; conditions for political dialogue; the ability of the Iraqi government to do its work; the pace of reconstruction; and the pace of economic development.

12:28 PM ET | 09-11-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

So Is the U.S. Going to Bomb Iran?

It was interesting that both Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker took the opportunity during their congressional testimony Monday to bash Iran. For example, Petraeus said the flow of weapons from Iran has increased but that Iranian Quds Force trainers have pulled out. He accused Iran of trying to create a Hezbollah-like force using Iraqi Shiite militants.

So is the United States going to attack Iran? Mike Shuster examined that question for All Things Considered. The answer? Maybe yes, maybe no. What's perhaps most worrying is that hardliners from both countries see an attack as a way to support their respective agendas.

The war camp in Tehran has its reflection in the war camp in Washington, [Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University] says. "The danger is that these two camps will do for one another what needs to be done to make their desire come true," Milani says.

The Washington Post reports that, regardless of the possibility of an attack, there is no doubt that Washington and Tehran are "vying for influence in Iraq and the wider region."

"What is striking about what [Petraeus and Crocker] said today, comparing U.S.-Iran talks with five years ago on Afghanistan, is that we're dealing with an Iranian government that feels the wind is behind it and America's moment in the Middle East is receding — and Iran wants to give us a firm push from behind as we depart so we will never, ever think about intervening on the ground in the Gulf again, and certainly not into Iran," [Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA, National Security Council and Pentagon official who opposed the war and the troop buildup] said.

9:56 AM ET | 09-11-2007 | permalink | comments (13) | e-mail post

Bin Laden's Video — and Beard Job?

You're holed up in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan with a bunch of guys who all probably smell really bad. Your second-in-command has been getting all the press lately. You're worried about losing your edge. So maybe you decide you want to spruce up a bit for your next jihadist video.

Still, Osama bin Laden is the last guy in the world I would have suspected of using Just for Men beard coloring.

ABC reports that intelligence sources say they believe that a new video from bin Laden is authentic and recently produced. The video itself apparently doesn't say much new, but, boy, that beard. It looks like the victim of one of the worst dye jobs since Ronald Reagan's hair. I mean, just look at it. All the gray from 2004 is gone.

"It does look oddly like he is wearing a false beard," Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official and now ABC News consultant, said. "If we go back to the tape three years [ago], he had a very white beard. This looks like a phony beard that has been passed on."

You know, now that Clarke mentions it, the beard could be a fake, not a dye job. It does remind me of those fake beards the women bought in that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian so they could get in on stoning someone.

3:18 PM ET | 09- 7-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Report: Homeland Security Not So Secure

After reading that a group of Australian comics got past $250 million worth of security with a fake motorcade at the APEC summit Thursday in Sydney, you might think that kind of thing would never happen in the United States. But not so fast.

A government report released Thursday is casting doubt on how well the Department of Homeland Security is doing its job. Auditors from the Government Accountability Office (which seems to be kicking butt and taking names lately) said that the department cannot take credit for the fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001. (Ouch.)

"Auditors said the nation is safer than it was that day in 2001, but the department has poorly managed its mission," The Associated Press reports. The GAO identified 171 performance expectations and found the department "achieved fewer than half since it formed four years ago."

The GAO gave the department high marks for maritime security, an area in which it made "substantial progress." But its efforts in emergency preparedness and response, science and technology, human capital management and information technology management all got the lowest marks.

Homeland Security is disputing the report. Maybe the department wants to talk to the GAO about some of its grading, just like the Pentagon did after a GAO report challenged its rosier picture of what's happening in Iraq.

12:54 PM ET | 09- 7-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

I'll Show You My Iraq Stats If You Show Me Yours

Lies, damn lies and statistics, as the saying goes. I remember my father, who once worked on Parliament Hill in Canada, used to tell me that quoting a statistic, even one you knew was completely wrong, made up or twisted around, could work wonders for your argument. "People are more likely to believe you 86.7 percent of the time," he would say with a wink.

That's why I found Guy Raz's Morning Edition piece today on the use of statistics in the Iraq debate so fascinating. Accusations that numbers are being cherry-picked have been a persistent feature of the war. Now, statistics are playing a large role in the argument over whether the surge in Iraq is improving security.

For instance, take Anbar province, which President Bush visited over the weekend. He called it one of the safest places in Iraq. While it may be true, it's relative — being safe in Iraq is not like being safe in, say, Des Moines. And while military casualties in Anbar are definitely down, it is still the second-deadliest place for U.S. troops in Iraq, Raz reports. Baghdad remains Numero Uno.

Or how about another stat from this morning's piece: Every month this year, more American troops have been killed as compared with the same month last year. Or that the Pentagon won't include in sectarian violence figures the deaths of 500 ethnic Yezidis in August because officials don't consider large bombings examples of sectarian violence.

Former Army National Guard Lt. Paul Rieckhoff writes about statistics in his firsthand account of the war in Iraq, Chasing Ghosts:

"American politicians, military commanders and media personalities are preoccupied with numbers. They can understand numbers. They can plug numbers into an article or use them as talking points. They can slice and manipulate numbers. Self-proclaimed experts gauge whether America is winning or losing the war in Iraq based on numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq, or daily attacks on Americans or Iraq security forces trained. All these numbers are useless without security."

So has security improved in Iraq? What information do you use to form your opinion?

10:15 AM ET | 09- 6-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Report: Some U.S. Troops Showing Disregard for Rules

The American Civil Liberties Union today released about 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents involving U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They show several examples, some unreported before today, of U.S. troops killing local citizens while falsely believing they were within the law.

The Associated Press reports that the documents were obtained through a federal Freedom of Information Act request that the ACLU filed more than a year ago. The organization asked for all documents relevant to U.S. military involvement in the deaths of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only the Army responded to the request. The ACLU is suing to get the remaining documents.

The released documents include examples of U.S. troops shooting wounded Iraqis and killing suspected insurgents in custody.

In one case, AP reports, lawyers for a soldier argued that "the rules of engagement are clear and in favor of soldiers, contending that the perception of hostility merits deadly action." But a retired Army intelligence colonel who reviewed the documents for the ACLU disagreed. Michael Pheneger said the "fog of war" is a reality, but that "it's perfectly obvious that there is no rule of engagement that would authorize someone to kill someone in custody."

6:06 PM ET | 09- 4-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

The Dora Market: Petraeus' 'Potemkin Village'?

As Congress returns to Washington this week, Morning Edition reports it will be Iraq 'round the clock — at least until Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deliver their report next week on how things are going. They are expected to say that security is improving.

One of the main examples Petraeus uses to support his optimism is the Dora market in Baghdad. The Washington Post quotes a soldier who calls it "General Petraeus's baby." The market, once a target for roadside bombings and other attacks, now boasts 349 vendors. (Before the American-led invasion in 2003, there were more than 850.) It's often shown to politicians and other generals who travel to the country.

But while used as a symbol of improved security, the market is also a bit of a mirage ... or "a Potemkin village of sorts," the Post reports. The area is heavily patrolled by U.S. troops. Merchants are given $2,500 by the U.S. to open a stall. The military has rebuilt shops that burned down. The market attracts few people from outside Dora because of the danger. And the shops are only open for a few hours a day.

1st Lt. Jose Molina, who is in charge of monitoring and disbursing the grant money, said the U.S. military includes barely operating stores in its tally. "Although they sell dust, they are open for business," said Molina, 35, from Dallas. "They intend to sell goods or they may just have a handful of goods. But they are still counted."

The Dora market is a great example of the dilemma faced by the U.S. On the one hand, security has improved enough to allow the Dora market to be open for business. But on the other hand, the improvement is heavily propped up by the U.S. military, leaving one to wonder what happens once the U.S. leaves.

10:07 AM ET | 09- 4-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

IAEA: Iran Slows Uranium Enrichment

In what it calls a "significant" development, the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has slowed enrichment of uranium and increased cooperation with the agency — meaning Iran could be cleared of suspicions that its nuclear work in the past was part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

Bloomberg reports that IAEA officials in Vienna say that it's the first time that they've agreed with Iran on a plan to resolve the outstanding issues that triggered sanctions from the United Nations Security Council.

But the development probably won't satisfy Iran's biggest critic, the United States, Bloomberg reports.

Today's report "is good news in itself, but I doubt it will be welcomed wholeheartedly by the UN Security Council," Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history and an associate fellow at the Chatham House international affairs institute in London, said in a telephone interview. "Washington will say Iran is being manipulative, giving a little to avoid sanctions in the short term.''

The United States is expected to press for a third round of sanctions next month. But Iranian officials have threatened to pull out of the agreement with the IAEA if the sanctions go ahead.

1:28 PM ET | 08-30-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Bush Sells War Optimism, but Not Everyone Is Buying

You really have to give President Bush credit: He stays on message. Regardless of what is happening, he doesn't seem to waiver in his depiction of the war in Iraq — that the latest strategy (currently, the surge) appears to be working and that momentum is on the American side.

That's the message he gave to the American Legion convention on Tuesday. It's almost the same message he gave the group last year as well, when he said, "America has a clear strategy to help the Iraqi people protect their new freedom and build a democracy that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself."

But The Washington Post reports that the message was greeted with more skepticism this year. A few months after last year's speech, U.S. officials acknowledged that sectarian violence had spun out of control and that the strategy to increase security had collapsed. That has some vets wary this time. "His credibility went way down" after past predictions fell short, said Dave Rehbein, a Vietnam War-era veteran at the convention.

Recent upbeat assessments by visitors to Iraq have helped bolster the president's message, but some analysts say Bush has a tendency to oversell that may hurt him.

"The history of this presidency has been to over-promise and under-perform," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The resulting expectations have often led Americans to feel like we are failing. From what I have seen to date, we are repeating the process."

Well, it looks like we'll soon get a chance to see what Congress thinks about the momentum. On the same day Bush spoke to the Legion, a White House official told the Post that the president plans to ask Congress in September to give him an additional $50 billion to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

10:09 AM ET | 08-29-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Magazine's Terrorism Index Catches Attention in Israel

Here's a tidbit that didn't get much attention in the United States but "raised eyebrows" in Israel, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Last week, Foreign Policy magazine published its Terrorism Index, which surveyed American foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum on various U.S. national security issues. One of the questions asked the experts to choose the country that least serves U.S. national security interests.

Russia led the list at 34 percent. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were next. But tucked away in fourth place was Israel at 14 percent.

One diplomatic official in Jerusalem, while acknowledging that 14% is a considerable minority, said he was still worried by the trend. "Considering the closeness and importance of our ties with Washington, this is something we need to watch," he said.

In the past, the Post articles notes, that kind of argument only seemed to come from far-right voices like former presidential candidate and TV pundit Pat Buchanan or far-left ones like outspoken MIT professor Noam Chomsky. But after John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University argued in a paper last year that the U.S.-Israel relationship needs to be rethought, the idea is beginning to make its way into the mainstream of American intellectuals.

And the debate will likely deepen when Mearsheimer and Walt's book comes out next week. It argues that, with the end of the Cold War, Israel is a strategic liability for the United States.

4:43 PM ET | 08-28-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Reports: Taliban Agree to Release S. Korean Hostages

It looks like there might be some good news out of Afghanistan. The Associated Press is reporting that the Taliban have agreed to release the remaining 19 South Korean missionaries who they have been holding captive since July. The Taliban have already killed two of the male hostages and released two women.

The New York Times adds a cautionary note, however, reporting that it is not yet clear if the reports from Seoul and elsewhere are accurate.

AP reports that as part of the deal, South Korea has pledged to end all Christian missionary work in Afghanistan and to keep a promise to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year.

Then again, if true, South Korea didn't agree to anything new. The Seoul government had already said it would pull its 200 non-combat troops out by year's end and would stop missionaries from "causing trouble" in countries where they are not wanted.

The South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo notes that the agreement does not mean that the hostages will be released immediately. Negotiations will continue with the Taliban. The paper quotes a government spokesman who mentions one potential reason that the Taliban were ready to deal — it was just getting too inconvenient to hold so many people for such a long time.

12:15 PM ET | 08-28-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Iraq's Sectarian Death Toll Doubles from Last Year

The surge in Iraq is working, according to military and administration officials. Some experts who have visited Iraq also say they see signs of progress. But then again, to paraphrase a former president, it might depend on what your definition of "is" is.

Over the weekend, The Associated Press released some eye-opening figures on the rate of deaths from sectarian violence in Iraq — it's about double last year's rate. The figures — which AP considers conservative and do not include insurgents' deaths — show that Iraq is suffering an average of 62 war-related deaths a day. In 2006, it was 33 a day.

Also, the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization says that, as of the end of July, 1.14 million Iraqis have been displaced by the violence. On Jan. 1 of this year, it was 447,337.

However, the figures do show that Baghdad now accounts for 52 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in the country, down from 76 percent in January. What that seems to show is that insurgents and al-Qaida fighters who have been pushed out of Baghdad by the surge are taking their deadly business to other parts of the country. This appears to be particularly the case in the north, where the death toll has risen this year.

Meanwhile, senior U.S. military figures, who insist violence is down, are also warning that we can expect major assaults in the next few weeks because of three factors: the report to Congress on the situation in the country; the start of Ramadan; and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Political Animal blog offers this comment: The military is "simultaneously trying to suggest that the surge is responsible for the recent seasonal decline in fatalities and preemptively insisting that no one should blame the surge when seasonal deaths go back up in the fall."

I think it's going to be another long fall in Iraq this year.

5:20 PM ET | 08-27-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Troops Told Not to Follow New CIA Interrogation Rules

Top military lawyers have told U.S. senators that President Bush's new rules for CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists could allow violations of the Geneva Conventions, The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage reports.

Savage reports that the Judge Advocates General of all military branches believe "a July 20 executive order establishing rules for the treatment of CIA prisoners appeared to be carefully worded to allow humiliating or degrading interrogation techniques when the interrogators' objective is to protect national security rather than to satisfy sadistic impulses."

After the meeting with the senators in late July, the top JAG for the U.S. Army, Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, told lower-ranking soldiers in a note that Bush's order applies only to the CIA and not to the military. Black told them that the standards of the Geneva Conventions are still their standards.

In an e-mail to Savage, the Justice Department said the president's order follows the Geneva Conventions.

However, law-of-war specialists zeroed in on a particular section of the new order for criticism. The new order forbids "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual." The key phrase is "for the purpose," according to the experts. Many believe it creates an "escape clause" for interrogators that would allow abusive treatment if done for "national security."

11:34 AM ET | 08-27-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

NIE: Iraqi Leaders 'Unable to Govern Effectively'

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki must be sensing a pattern in U.S. reaction to his government: Tuesday he was down, Wednesday he was up, so he's due for another down day, right?

Today, the negative reaction comes in the form of a National Intelligence Estimate. The Associated Press reports that the intelligence analysts who wrote the 10-page document (the consensus judgment of the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies) doubt he "can overcome sectarian divisions and meet benchmarks intended to promote political unity." The document also says Iraq's security services, while performing better, are still not ready to operate without help from U.S. forces.

The silver lining for the Iraqi prime minister is that the report also says that any attempt to replace him right now could "paralyze the government."

Meanwhile, papers around the Middle East tend see the Bush-al-Maliki relationship in two ways: Either Bush is trying to set al-Maliki up to be a scapegoat for failed policies in Iraq, or al-Maliki is to blame for not being able to unite the factions in his country.

3:41 PM ET | 08-23-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Is Vietnam the Right Comparison for Iraq?

President Bush took a big chance Wednesday and drew comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the situations that the United States has faced over the years in Asia, such as in Japan in World War II and in Korea and Vietnam.

But are those appropriate analogies? All Things Considered talked to four scholars to find out.

Francis Fukuyama of the School of International Studies at Johns Hopkins University says the analogy to Southeast Asia is more appropriate than the president's previous use of the Cold War. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations favors comparisons to conflicts in Algeria and Malaysia. In Malaysia, the British were able to overcome an insurrection. In Algeria, the French won militarily but ultimately lost politically.

Ronald Steel of the University of Southern California thinks the U.S. involvement in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century is the best example — an analogy I've always favored as well. The United States overthrew a then-dictatorial power, Spain, but failed to recognize that there was a strong liberation movement among the people, who wanted the U.S. to let them run their own country. When the U.S. didn't leave, a long period of violent insurgency followed, during which U.S. troops committed several atrocities.

Then again, Joseph Nye at Harvard doesn't like any analogy, although he says Vietnam may be appropriate or perhaps Britain's role in Iraq in 1920s. But in the end, he believes, all analogies fall apart on some level.

Maybe it's like the old Shiite saying that host Robert Siegel quotes: "The first to reason by analogy was the devil."

9:41 AM ET | 08-23-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

Bush Says He Supports al-Maliki, But Is It Returned?

On the one hand...

On Tuesday in Canada, President Bush seemed to back away from supporting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, saying that he has "a certain level of frustration" with the Iraqi government's failure to solve its secular divisions.

But then today, Bush reaffirmed his support for al-Maliki while speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, describing him as "a good guy, a good man, with a difficult job, and I support him."

On the other hand...

NPR reports that al-Maliki had a few things of his own to say. During a trip to Syria, he lashed out at U.S. criticism of his government, saying, "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government." And then he added, "Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere."

Friends elsewhere, eh? Hmm.

6:32 PM ET | 08-22-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Are We Hearing from the Right People About Iran?

Boy, there sure seems to be a lot of chatter in the media these days about bombing Iran. Perhaps that's why I'm having that feeling of deja vu all over again — the feeling I got in the weeks before the attack on Iraq in 2003. It seems possible that the groundwork is being laid for an attack on Iran.

So I find myself wanting more comprehensive information about the situation. NPR's six-part series about Iran's relationship with both the West and its neighbors in the region has been a good place to start.

Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist/blogger Dan Froomkin is calling on journalists to talk to more than the usual suspects. He argues in a piece for the Nieman Foundation's Nieman Watchdog that reporters are relying too much on the same people who said invading Iraq would be a good idea. He suggests that they interview some of the experts who believe there are many downsides to attacking Iran. (Most of the experts surveyed for Foreign Policy magazine's Terrorism Index, for example, were not in favor of military action in Iran.)

Froomkin says the media should be talking to people like Paul R. Pillar, formerly the CIA's top Middle East analyst and now a Georgetown University professor; Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations; and Shaul Bakhash, George Mason University professor and former Iranian journalist, to a name few.

5:43 PM ET | 08-22-2007 | permalink | comments (9) | e-mail post

Petraeus Report's Outcome 'Practically a Fait Accompli'

Political pundits hate August in D.C. Once Congress leaves Washington, the town slows to a crawl. The one subject that has been keeping the talking heads on their toes, however, is guessing what Gen. David Petraeus will tell Congress in September about the troop surge -- and if that might lead to a quick exit from Iraq.

But why bother? It seems that the Petraeus report will have all the suspense of an episode of Happy Days. NPR's Guy Raz reports that the White House has been working Congress hard to build support for the as-yet-unheard report and head off any opposition to extending the surge -- which is exactly what the White House wants.

Not only that, but NPR's Ron Elving writes in his Watching Washington column that there are concerns that the White House is basically writing the report for the general. Seems that the administration might be worried that the general will be a little too honest and, particularly on the issue of Iraqi politics, might undercut the "good news" on the military front.

Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel now at the U.S. Institute of Peace, argues in Raz's piece that a report that has the White House's fingerprints all over it is seriously compromised. "For them to be writing this report is going to diminish whatever ground truth that Gen. Petraeus or Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker have put into the reports," he says.

9:47 AM ET | 08-22-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Experts, Left and Right, Say U.S. Losing War on Terror

The United States isn't winning the war on terror, and the world is becoming a more dangerous place for Americans.

That's not my opinion. It's the overwhelming consensus of about 100 experts from across the political spectrum surveyed by Foreign Policy magazine for its yearly Terrorism Index. The survey is "an attempt to discern the American foreign-policy establishment's assessment of how the United States is fighting the war on terror," Morning Edition reports.

Pakistan is seen as the country most likely to become the next al-Qaida stronghold and Russia as the ally that least serves America's interests.

And, although military strikes against Iran seem to be the strategy increasingly favored by the White House, according to some media reports, only 8 percent of those surveyed favor that option.

In some ways, this survey is just more of the same stuff we've been hearing for a while. Do you think reports like this make any difference to the people making the foreign policy decisions in the administration?

2:51 PM ET | 08-21-2007 | permalink | comments (14) | e-mail post

The Debate Over 'Getting Somewhere in Iraq'

It all started with "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq." Those words, written by Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon and his colleague, Kenneth Pollack, were part of an op-ed piece in The New York Times that sparked a rush of media attention -- and more than a bit of backlash.

The lasher-in-chief in this case was Salon blogger and columnist Glenn Greenwald, who revealed, based on his interview with O'Hanlon, that the trip to Iraq that sparked the piece had been coordinated by the U.S. military. Basically, Greenwald's argument was that the duo reached their relatively optimistic appraisal of the situation in Iraq because they were given the "golden tour," so to speak.

Greenwald's contentions clearly ruffled O'Hanlon's feathers. When O'Hanlon appeared on Boston's WBUR's On Point this week, he said, "I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time rebutting Mr. Greenwald because he's had frankly more time and more readership than he deserves." Ouch.

But Greenwald did zero in on an important point -- by not disclosing the details of their trip, O'Hanlon and Pollack made it easier for critics to accuse them of being military cheerleaders (a point that O'Hanlon acknowledged). However, what Greenwald doesn't note is that the military also helped to set up the duo's interviews on their previous trips to Iraq, which they use as points of comparison (I checked on this with Brookings). Their argument that things have improved since those trips carries a little more weight when you know they were planned similarly.

Another major complaint made about the piece was that, in the media, the two were being cast as "critics" of the war who had found good things happening in Iraq, when, actually, O'Hanlon himself has rejected that characterization. (O'Hanlon supported the initial invasion but has been critical about how some aspects of the war have been managed.)

But looking at all the backlash, one does get a sense of piling on here. And, leaving aside the particular criticisms of this piece, it makes you wonder: How willing are people to accept any good news coming out of Iraq?

3:40 PM ET | 08-17-2007 | permalink | comments (26) | e-mail post

Just Your Average, Ordinary ... Terrorist?

I worry that life may have just gotten a whole lot harder for any immigrant Muslim male in America between the ages of, oh, 15 and 35, especially if they have steady, unremarkable jobs, don't smoke or drink, grow facial hair and like the Internet. Because the New York Police Department advises looking more closely at them as potential terrorists.

At least, that's the impression I got when I read the department's report, Radicalism in the West: A Homegrown Threat. (It's 90 pages, so be ready for a long read.) The report says, as The New York Times puts it, that the key for law enforcement officials in the United States and abroad to prevent terrorism is "understanding how seemingly ordinary people become radicalized and hatch homegrown terror plots."

The report, which looked at several recent examples of "homegrown" terrorism, lists several reasons why these ordinary people can become radicalized, including "Personal crises -- such as losing a job or suffering from racism." And it says this radicalism happens not necessarily in mosques, but in "cafes, cab driver hangouts, flop houses, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, hookah bars, butcher shops and bookstores." The Internet also plays an important role.

The report calls for more "intelligence gathering," which is, of course, another way of saying "spying."

The NYPD says that these potential terrorists "look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them." So if ordinary, everyday behavior means that anyone could be a suspect, how does one behave? And if everyone is a treated like a suspect, then might that create stronger feelings of discrimination, leading right back to radicalization? It could be a great big neat circle.

The report's analysis of how people become radicalized can be a useful tool for law enforcement if used in the right way. But if it is used as an excuse to be suspicious of every young Muslim, it could backfire.

1:52 PM ET | 08-16-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Being a Diplomat May Be Risky for Your Mental Health

It's not easy being an American diplomat these days. Not only is America's image in the world taking a consistent beating, but it can also be downright dangerous, as the recent threat from al-Qaida showed. And now an internal State Department survey shows that it can also really mess up your mind.

The Associated Press reports that the document shows that 2 percent of the 2,600 diplomats who serve in locations where spouses and dependents are not allowed for security reasons likely have post-traumatic stress disorder. Another 15 percent "possibly have this disorder but would require a more thorough examination to make a definitive diagnosis."

But the union that represents U.S. diplomats, the American Foreign Service Association, argues the survey underplays the number of these cases that occur in places like Baghdad or Kabul. AFSA says its information shows that 40 percent of diplomats, especially those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, "struggle to readjust to civilian life and suffer from stress disorders, including thoughts of suicide."

The State Department questions some of AFSA's numbers but also announced today that it plans to create a new mental care office and require employees to take more vacation time to relax.

I confess there are days when I worry that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is creating a whole generation of mental health problems for this country.

5:58 PM ET | 08-14-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

The New Republic Stands By Its Baghdad Diarist

The Army says he's a liar. The conservative magazine The Weekly Standard calls him reckless. But The New Republic is still supporting Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

In three articles in the magazine, Beauchamp detailed the petty cruelties of the U.S. Army in Baghdad. In one anecdote, he talks about a soldier playing with the skull of an Iraqi child. In another, he writes about making fun of a woman whose face was disfigured.

On today's All Things Considered, NPR's Media Correspondent David Folkenflik tries to sort out who's telling the truth and concludes the story is at an impasse. The New Republic claims to have verified almost all of the details in Beauchamp's writing, except for one. The story about mocking the injured woman happened in Kuwait, not Baghdad. Folkenflik writes:

Leaving aside how one mistakes a base in one country for a base in another, that would mean, if true, Beauchamp's agonizing self-analysis occurred BEFORE his time in combat areas, not during or after, which would seem to undermine the validity of the origins of his cruelty. TNR Editor Franklin Foer stands behind the veracity of the event for now, however, saying he spoke to the other soldier.

The Weekly Standard claims that Beauchamp admitted that the stories were lies. The New Republic denies it. And the man in the middle says nothing: Beauchamp has been stripped of his laptop and cell phone, and no one has heard his side of the story.

- Robert Smith

4:36 PM ET | 08- 8-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Sending Terrorists Running for the Bathroom

If the war on terror makes you sick, well, soon you won't be the only one. The Department of Homeland Security is developing a new weapon to fight the bad guys: a flashlight that makes a person throw up. It looks like an old-fashioned, if somewhat bulky, light. But don't look too closely. The bright light pulses, which vary in color and duration, induce disorientation, vertigo and nausea.

The DHS says the flashlight could be in use by 2010. Of course, terrorists could just close their eyes or wear dark glasses or run away. But if they look, watch out: barf-o-rama.

Technology Review reports that researchers are now analyzing combinations of wavelengths and light intensities to see which ones make you sickest. And this fall, they will test the device on subjects who have some experience driving the porcelain bus, Penn State University students.

- Robert Smith

6:25 PM ET | 08- 7-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

Final Words from Baghdad

The New York Times' man in Baghdad, John Burns, is finally going home. After five years of covering Iraq, what he calls "the most compelling story of our time," Burns is headed to England to become London bureau chief. NPR's Day to Day did an exit interview with Burns and got some surprising stuff.

Burns' early reporting on the brutality of Saddam Hussein helped cement U.S. public opinion against the dictator. But looking back, Burns says:

I would have spent more of my energies trying to write about what lay beneath, if you will, the carapace of terror here. The deeply fissured sectarian society that was just below the surface and into which the United States was stepping. ... It was certainly not ... fertile ground in which to implant Western, democratic ideals.

But even if the mission was doomed from the start, Burns is reluctant to conclude that it is now completely lost. How does he explain the contradiction?

The head tells us that this situation is close to, if not, irretrievable. The heart tells us that once America makes that judgment, and inevitably, if it does, decides to come home, the trauma of the Iraqi people is going to become very much worse. ... The alternative to some kind of limited success here is so ghastly that it is very hard to give up on the idea that there might be -- even now, there might be -- a turning of the tide, improbable as it seems.

And Burns has a personal stake in the outcome. His wife is staying in Baghdad. She runs the Times' bureau there and feels like she has to stay. So Burns is stuck in the uncomfortable position that is all too familiar to military families: He will now have to get any bad news from Iraq secondhand, always, as he puts it, keeping "my fingers crossed."

Read one of his last stories from Iraq, about Saddam's grave, here.

- Robert Smith

3:44 PM ET | 08- 7-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

The Banality of Torture

I have been fascinated all morning with Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece about allegations of torture in the CIA's secret prisons. She pieces together the path of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka K.S.M.), the admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11 attack, from capture in Pakistan, through secret prisons to Guantanamo.

By the time the CIA got done with him, he had admitted to 31 plots, including the attempted shoe bombing, the Bali nightclub explosion, the 1993 World Trade Center blast and planned attacks on President Clinton, President Carter, the pope and London's Big Ben and Heathrow airport. After he claimed to have personally decapitated Daniel Pearl, Pearl's father told the New Yorker, "Something is fishy. There are a lot of unanswered questions. K.S.M. can say he killed Jesus. He has nothing to lose."

A lot has been written about the alleged use of waterboarding to get the confessions, but Mayer's article details the other psychological techniques likely used by the CIA on K.S.M. One interrogator tells Mayer about inducing "learned helplessness":

It starts with isolation. Then they eliminate the prisoners' ability to forecast the future -- when their next meal is, when they can go to the bathroom. It creates dread and dependency. It was the K.G.B. model. But the K.G.B. used it to get people who had turned against the state to confess falsely. The K.G.B. wasn't after intelligence.

Mayer documents the precision and ingenuity of CIA techniques. Even innocuous things like varying the size of meals from one day to the next can add to the confusion. And the article goes to show how difficult it can be to regulate interrogation techniques when even mild methods like forced standing and sleep deprivation can be extended to such lengths that only the word "torture" is appropriate. One expert she quotes says:

People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process.

Over at the blog Metafilter, one poster noted that once again real life seems to be imitating the satirical world of The Onion.

- Robert Smith

2:22 PM ET | 08- 6-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

White House Looking to Expand Eavesdropping Powers

Stampede! Stampede!

That's how critics of President Bush are describing his effort to push Congress into passing legislation expanding eavesdropping powers before lawmakers go on vacation Monday. They say this "stampede" bears resemblance to the one on Capitol Hill after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Congress passed terrorism bills without bothering to read them.

So why is the White House seeking expanded powers now? While no official has said it directly, various media sources are reporting that a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act panel recently rejected a Bush administration request to intercept certain e-mails and telephone calls of suspected terrorists overseas on a legal technicality involving the way data moves through the United States.

So the administration is using that to argue for a complete overhaul of the 1978 act that would give it greatly expanded powers. The White House and its supporters warn that if it doesn't happen before Congress' vacation, the country will be in grave danger ... like right NOW!

The Democrats seem willing to pass some form of legislation, but the stumbling block is that the White House had wanted the bill to allow the attorney general -- now Alberto Gonzales -- to OK eavesdropping without going to the courts (as long as the target is "reasonably believed to be outside of the United States") and be able to compel U.S. telephone and Internet companies to cooperate.

The Democrats (especially Sen. Patrick Leahy, the head of the Judiciary Committee), who believe that Gonzalez has repeatedly misled them about intelligence matters, aren't going to buy that at all. The White House has tried to soften the legislation by making the national intelligence director part of the approval process and permitting the FISA court to review certain activities.

The Los Angeles Times offers this approach to the problem: "Hurry up and wait." Fix the technicality hindering intelligence gathering, but wait until after Congress returns to debate broader changes.

12:04 PM ET | 08- 3-2007 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post

MP: Economic Policies Driving Iraq 'to Brink of Collapse'

As if Iraq didn't have enough problems with ongoing sectarian violence, al-Qaida in Iraq and key parties in the government's tenuous coalition dropping out (just to name a few), now the country is getting bad economic news.

The Daily Star reports that Mehdi Hafedh, the former Iraqi planning and cooperation minister and a current member of parliament, warned at a conference Wednesday in Lebanon that current economic policies are "not viable and are pushing the country further toward the brink of total collapse." He also said that Iraq's "dependence on oil is not sustainable" and called for diversifying economic activity.

Hafedh said too many obstacles stand in the way of the private sector in Iraq, including interest rates that run higher than 23 percent. The Iraqi MP says this means businesses need to make a return of more than 30 percent to have a chance at making a profit.

But Safa Saber al-Helou, a member of the Union of Iraq Businessmen, told The Daily Star that there are areas of the country where investing makes sense: "Although many Lebanese might not be aware, the fact is that north Iraq is almost 100 percent safe, and the south is around 85 percent safe. Investments in these areas are not risky. The danger is mostly in the center of Iraq and the capital."

11:38 AM ET | 08- 2-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Mullen's Plain Talk About U.S. Mistakes in Iraq

U.S. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has some pretty interesting answers to a question posed to him by the Senate Armed Services Committee. As the IraqSlogger blog notes, the admiral listed in writing seven major mistakes in Iraq in response to a policy question asked in advance of Tuesday's hearing. The seven mistakes Mullen noted are that the United States:

1. Did not fully integrate all elements of U.S. national power in Iraq.

2. Focused most attention on the Iraqi national power structures with limited engagement of the tribal and local power structures.
3. Did not establish an early and significant dialogue with neighboring countries, adding to the complex security environment a problematic border situation.
4. Disbanded the entire Iraqi Army, a potentially valuable asset for security, reconstruction, and provision of services to the Iraqi people, providing a recruiting pool for extremist groups.
5. Pursued a de-Baathification process that proved more divisive than helpful, created a lingering vacuum in governmental capability that still lingers, and exacerbated sectarian tensions.
6. Attempted to transition to stability operations with an insufficient force.
7. Unsuccessful in communicating and convincing Iraqis and regional audience of our intended goals.

U.S. News & World Report's Terry Atlas writes that Mullen "didn't name names, but he hardly needed to since these mistakes were based on key decisions and orders so closely tied to former Iraq occupation chief Paul Bremer (who disbanded the Army and ordered de-Baathification), former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who held down troop levels and froze out the State Department in post-war planning), Vice President Cheney, and President Bush himself."

Always nice for the president when his own nominee hangs him and many of his top appointees out to dry -- even if he's polite enough not to use names.

3:08 PM ET | 08- 1-2007 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post

Iraqi Legislature Breaks for Recess Without Progress

Nothing, it seems, nothing, can make Iraqi legislators move faster toward the set of benchmarks the U.S. Congress feels absolutely necessary to achieve.

So it was time to go on vacation.

Iraqi legislators are starting a monthlong recess today. The break comes, however, after the current session had been extended by a month to try and reach deals on important issues like "oil investment and revenue-sharing among regions, the re-integration of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime into government, and provincial elections," the Los Angeles Times reports. But it just wasn't going to happen. And, based on the sectarian divides in parliament, it seems unlikely that these benchmarks will be reached anytime soon.

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is not helping the situation. The Associated Press reports that it is apparently so poor that al-Maliki may ask Washington to withdraw Petraeus. Petraeus' decision to arm some Sunni militant groups to battle al-Qaida in Iraq has infuriated the Iraqi PM, who is a Shiite.

An unnamed diplomat quoted by the Times says we had better get used to frustration with the parliament: "Politically, there isn't going to be a breakthrough," said the diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not stating official policy. "There isn't going to be the sun comes up one day and everybody loves each other. They are going to muddle through, but in this part of the world, a lot of governments just muddle through for years."

I doubt, however, that "muddling through" is going to thrill American lawmakers who know that progress in Iraq may be the key to their re-election -- or their defeat -- at the polls next year.

9:23 AM ET | 07-31-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

Poll: Most Americans Support Surveillance Camera Use

A security camera in the World Trade Center PATH station in New York. A London-style surveillance system is being planned there that will blanket the area with 3,000 security cameras.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

My wife spotted them first. "Look at those," she said, pointing to the rather obvious cameras now parked on the top of the stoplights by the Tysons Corner mall in Virginia. No doubt the cameras' blatant positioning sent as strong a message as their actual activities: "We're watching now, so no more running that red light or trying to sneak through on a late yellow. And let's keep to the speed limit, OK."

Cameras are sprouting up everywhere these days, both the red-light traffic kind and regular surveillance cameras. But when it comes to the latter, a new ABC News poll shows Americans apparently don't care. In fact, they would like to see more of it -- 71 percent support the increased use of surveillance cameras. Republicans overwhelmingly favor it -- 81 percent like the idea -- but Democrats and independents back it as well, although by smaller margins, 66 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

What do you think about the use of surveillance cameras? And, while we're on the subject of cameras, what about the red-light ones like those I saw with my wife?

4:29 PM ET | 07-30-2007 | permalink | comments (14) | e-mail post

Australia Drops Charge Against Indian Doctor

After plenty of fumbling, bumbling and stumbling by Australian authorities, the country's top prosecutor dropped a terrorism charge today against Mohamed Haneef, an Indian doctor whose cousins are suspected of involvement in the bombing attempts in London and Glasgow.

A short time later, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews -- who had moved to keep Haneef in custody by canceling his visa after a court ordered him released on bail earlier this month -- announced Haneef would be released. He will continue to be under residential detention.

Haneef had been charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organization after authorities said he gave his cell phone SIM card to a cousin when he left Britain for Australia.

But government prosecutors acknowledged two major mistakes in Haneef's case. First, they said the SIM card that he had given to his cousin was found at the crash site at the Glasgow airport, and it wasn't. Second, they said he had lived with some of the suspects before moving to Australia, when he hadn't.

There's always an argument in terrorism cases that it's better to be safe than sorry. (Hey, I lived in Boston, where we shut down an entire city over some colored panels showing cartoon characters.) But, in this case, even the judge who ordered Haneef released on bail pointed out that there was no clear evidence that he was involved in the British plots.

Now, Australian officials are forced into "an embarrassing climbdown," as The Guardian puts it. There is more finger-pointing going on in Canberra than there is in L.A. after a Lakers playoff loss. However, the officials involved have refused to even offer an apology.

This is the kind of mistake that can bring a government down in the parliamentary system. It will be worth watching the fallout in the coming days.

4:03 PM ET | 07-27-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Tillman's Mother Still Upset with Army over His Death

Pat Tillman's mom is furious, and she's not afraid to let people know it.

The mother of the NFL-player-turned-Army-Ranger, who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, said Thursday that the Army's latest investigation into her son's death is a "sham."

"It's so humiliating and disrespectful," Mary Tillman told the New York Daily News. "It's one more example of the Army investigating itself. It was all done to glorify this war ... Pat deserves the truth."

(The Associated Press also reports some new details about Tillman's death. They include the rather disturbing revelation that, at one point, medical examiners felt that the bullet holes in Tillman's forehead were so close together that it appeared the bullets were fired from just 10 feet away. The Army even did a criminal investigation to see if Tillman "was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed." Tillman's death was ultimately ruled an accident.)

Army Secretary Pete Geren is not expected to recommend any criminal action in Tillman's death. He will likely urge that four generals and three others be reprimanded for "'critical errors' that misled the family and the nation into thinking Tillman was killed in combat in April 2004." Geren is expected to recommend that retired Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger be busted down to major general -- which will cost him about $900 a month off his pension.

But Mary Tillman isn't buying any of it. She says that Kensinger is just the "fall guy" and suggests that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also knew the truth but hid the real facts so that her son's death could be used for war propaganda.

It's unlikely that Mary Tillman or her family will get the satisfaction they want from the Army. But the Army's "critical errors" in telling the truth also appear to have created a formidable opponent who will not let her son's death rest.

2:22 PM ET | 07-27-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

TSA Praised for Latest Warning on Terrorist Dry-Runs

It's amazing what finding a block of cheese can do for your reputation. In the case of the Transportation Security Administration, it's won it praise from security experts, politicians and even longtime critics.

On Wednesday, CBS News/AP reported that TSA recently sent out a routine advisory to the nation's airport security workers, warning them to be on watch for terrorists doing dry-runs. The advisory was prompted by four recent seizures of possible bomb-like ingredients in people's luggage. In one case, a bag "contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese."

Block cheese is of interest to TSA because it has a consistency similar to some explosives.

These seizures elicited praise even from longtime critics, who say this shows that TSA has matured beyond seizing scissors and cigarette lighters, AP reports. "This is what TSA should be doing whether it turns out to be a whole bunch of harmless coincidences or part of a plot," said James Carafano, a security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who in the past called for TSA's abolition.

The cheese, by the way, turned out to be a false alarm in at least once case. But that really doesn't matter to Brian Jenkins, a RAND Corp. terrorism expert. "I'm glad they are picking up these things whatever they turn out to be. The TSA did their job. The police did their job. No sweat."

9:51 AM ET | 07-26-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings Plunges

A new Pew Global Attitudes Project survey shows that support in many Muslim nations for suicide bombings is way down. But the dark lining in this silver cloud is that concern about the Sunni-Shiite divide is widespread.

As part of a larger survey of 47 nations on global attitudes toward a variety of issues, Pew researchers asked residents of 16 predominantly Muslim nations if suicide bombing is justifiable.

Muslims in eight of these countries were asked this question in 2002, and only one country has seen an increase in support since then: Those in Turkey who believe suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified moved from 13 percent to 16 percent. In other Muslim countries, the percentage plummeted: In Lebanon it fell 40 points to 34 percent; in Jordan it was down 20 points to 23 percent; and 9 percent of Pakistanis approve, down from 33 percent five years ago.

In the eight new nations surveyed, the percentages were in a similar range, from 8 percent to 39 percent, except in the Palestinian territories, where 70 percent approved.

A Los Angeles Times editorial argues that the drop in support for this kind of terrorist action might provide the West an opportunity for reconciliation with the Muslim world.

But the survey also bears the marks of an emerging problem -- the growing animosity between the Shiite and Sunni branches of Islam. In many of the countries where people were surveyed, a majority expressed concern about this sectarian feud.

5:17 PM ET | 07-25-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

Australian Police Make a Bungle in Terrorism Case

Australia's federal police force has had more than a bit of egg on its face over the past few days. Seems it dropped the ball on what was supposed to be a key piece of evidence against Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor charged in Australia with "recklessly" supporting the attempted terrorist bombings in London and Glasgow.

Haneef is accused of giving his cousins his cell phone's SIM card when he moved from Britain to Australia. The government prosecutor, based on information from the police, reported in court hearings that the SIM card was found in the Jeep that his cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, allegedly drove into the Glasgow airport terminal.

Whoops. Wrong. Turns out that the SIM card wasn't anywhere near Glasgow, Australian media reported. In fact, it was back in Liverpool with another cousin, Sabeel Ahmed, who also has been charged in the case. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that a "source close to the British investigation" said Scotland Yard had nothing to do with the screw-up -- it was all the Australian police.

Haneef's lawyers slammed the police over the weekend, saying that they were leaking damaging allegations to the media about their client because the case is weak. The government revoked Haneef's visa to keep him in custody even after a court granted him bail.

2:09 PM ET | 07-25-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Sunni Bloc Suspends Membership in Iraqi Government

Well, this isn't going to help the situation in Iraq. The news this morning is that the largest Sunni bloc has decided to suspend its membership in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government.

The Associated Press reports that the Iraqi Accordance Front gave al-Maliki a week to meet its demands or it will make its decision to leave final.

Reading from a prepared statement, [Sheik Khalaf al-Elyan] said the front's demands were a pardon for security detainees not charged with specific crimes, a firm commitment by the government to human rights and the disbanding of militias.

The last demand on the list is a direct shot fired across the bow of the influential radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (whose support is key to al-Maliki's hold on power) and his Mahdi militia. The Sunni group had threatened earlier this month that it might take such an action if it felt al-Maliki, a Shiite, was not responsive to their proposals.

The Accordance Front has five cabinet members in the current Iraqi administration and 44 of the parliament's 275 seats.

9:24 AM ET | 07-25-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Commanders in Iraq Prepare Plan for Next Two Years

The New York Times headline reads "U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least '09." But the real news in reporter Michael Gordon's story is the American command's new two-year plan to restore security in Iraq.

The plan, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is the brainchild of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Its first aim is to restore security in localized areas around the country by the summer of 2008 and then to build on that to restore security nationwide by 2009.

Military officials, as is to be expected, aren't willing to guarantee success, considering the fate of other plans in Iraq -- especially former commander Gen. George Casey's plan to train Iraqi soldiers to take over responsibility from U.S. troops. We all know how well that one turned out.

The k/o blog notes that The Washington Post reported in late May that Petraeus and Crocker were working on a new plan that would emphasize the political over the military in terms of moving conflicts to the local level so they could be solved more easily. k/o writes that the plan "extends for at least two years into the future the fig leaf of the Iraqi government or military taking any action for or by itself without significant United States intervention."

Shaun Mullen at The Moderate Voice blog writes that the mere fact that this plan was shared with a Times reporter "shows how concerned commanders, and presumably the White House, are that ... public support for the war has eroded severely."

1:54 PM ET | 07-24-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Is the Government Blurring the Definition of Terrorism?

When most people think of terrorism, they likely consider the actions of al-Qaida and the kinds of groups mentioned in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is being released today.

But Shane Harris, National Journal's national security correspondent, writes that terrorism legislation is also being used against people in groups like the violent environmentalist Earth Liberation Front whose actions make them criminals but what some consider dubious "terrorists."

Harris mentions in particular "the so-called terrorism enhancement, an obscure measure that allows judges to dramatically increase a person's sentence if his or her offense 'involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism,' as defined by Congress."

... an extensive examination by National Journal of cases where the enhancement was in play suggests that the government more often targets individuals who didn't commit a religiously motivated act of terrorism, or who consciously avoided human casualties. Some defendants were driven by political outrage, and specifically targeted government facilities. But their crimes, while serious and violent, were covered by well-established definitions and punishments.

In June, NPR's Talk of the Nation looked at the issue of terrorism enhancements, and the question of how to define terrorism.

Harris reports that Justice officials were reluctant to talk about their use of terrorism enhancement or how they determine when they will ask a judge to apply it.

12:22 PM ET | 07-17-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Rights Groups Upset over Terror Charges in Australia

The Australian government today revoked the immigration visa of a man charged with giving support to those who planned the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow in a move to keep him behind bars.

Only hours earlier, a magistrate had granted bail to Mohamed Haneef, a 27-year-old hospital registrar. Australian Associated Press reports that legal experts are accusing the government of undermining the independence of the court system with the decision.

Haneef was charged with "recklessly" supporting a terrorism organization because police say he gave his cell phone SIM card to relatives accused of being involved in the attacks, The Age reports.

From the beginning, his case has caused an outcry from human rights groups, who warn that even sympathizing with a designated terrorist group has become "a thought crime" in Australia. They say it could mean similar charges against thousands of people if they show even "a minute level of support to a terrorist organization."

According to human rights lawyer Greg Barns, such laws would have led to the jailing of thousands of ordinary people -- and politicians and sports stars -- who donated to Nelson Mandela's ANC or supported the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s.

Even the Australian police acknowledge that Haneef may not have intended harm, the International Herald Tribune reports. "The specific allegation regards recklessness rather than intention," said Mick Keelty, the head of the Australian Federal Police.

9:49 AM ET | 07-16-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Speech Seen as Signal of British Foreign Policy Shift

A speech given by a British official in Washington this week is being described as an indication of the change that new Prime Minister Gordon Brown will bring to his country's relationship with the United States.

The Guardian reports that Douglas Alexander, the British trade and development secretary, called on the U.S. to "change its priorities and said a country's strength should no longer be measured by its destructive military power." Speaking Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations, he said:

"In the 20th century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st century strength should be measured by what we can build together. And so we must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world." He described this as "a new alliance of opportunity."

The BBC reports that Alexander, who once worked as an aide in the U.S. Congress, was careful to state the importance of the U.S.-UK relationship. But he also said it was time for the U.S. and its allies to "recognize the importance of a rules based international system."

Although the speech has been portrayed as the signal of a policy shift, David Blair, diplomatic correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, writes that a certain amount of "wishful thinking" has crept into the analysis of the speech. In fact, he writes, it is a speech that could easily have been given by former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

2:58 PM ET | 07-13-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

More New U.S. Troops Have Criminal Records

About one in 10 U.S. Army recruits has needed a "moral waiver" because of a criminal record this year -- a figure that's 2 1/2 times the percentage of recruits who needed one four years ago, The Boston Globe reports.

According to figures from the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, "11.6 percent of new active-duty and Army Reserve troops in 2007 have received a so-called 'moral waiver,' up from 7.9 percent in fiscal year 2006." In fiscal 2003 and 2004, 4.6 percent of new recruits got waivers.

One expert says this change can lead to increased discipline problems.

"Somebody who has demonstrated themselves to be guilty of misbehavior in civilian life has a good chance of behaving in the same way in the military," said John Hutson, judge advocate general of the Navy until 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center at the University of New Hampshire.

Hutson said in the 1970s, the last time moral waivers were given out in large numbers, many of the soldiers who needed them ended up in military court, often for what he calls "frustration offenses" -- drug use, burglary and violent behavior.

William Arkin, the national and homeland security blogger at The Washington Post, writes that right now, the Army is only meeting its recruitment goals because of the way it's stretching the rules. That includes accepting recruits without a high-school diploma and those previously rejected for being physically unfit, along with those with criminal records, he writes.

Is it OK for the Army to meet its goals this way? Does it hurt the military in the long run, or is the shorter term goal of meeting recruitment targets more important in the face of the Iraq war and other commitments around the globe? Love to hear your opinions.

11:30 AM ET | 07-13-2007 | permalink | comments (21) | e-mail post

Report: Iraqi Insurgents Winning Public Relations War

In the war for the hearts and minds of Iraqis, media-savvy insurgents seem to be doing a very good job of getting their message out.

Reporting for All Things Considered, Michele Keleman looked at a recent report from the U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on how Sunni insurgents use media, particularly the Internet.

The Washington Post reported last month on one of the insurgent productions, a "Top 20" compilation video of attacks on U.S. forces that is designed to create a "healthy rivalry" between insurgent groups. Daniel Kimmage, one of the report's authors, described it as "fast-paced and clearly aimed at the video game generation."

But Kimmage and co-author Kathleen Ridolfo also saw something else in their study of insurgent media. The RFE/RL Web site reports:

Kimmage and Ridolfo argue that the loss of coordination and message control that results from decentralization has revealed fundamental disagreements about Iraq's present and future between nationalist and global jihadist groups in Iraq and that these disagreements are ripe for exploitation by those interested in a liberal and democratic Iraq.

The Bush administration has already spent millions on Arabic-language broadcasting to try to get its message across, including on satellite channel Al-Hurra, but it has consistently failed to gain large audiences in the Arab world. One of the problems was demonstrated recently in disagreements in Washington about Al-Hurra's programming. As long as politicians continue to argue over these sorts of questions, it's unlikely that the U.S. will be able to take the upper hand in the media war.

9:35 AM ET | 07-13-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Bloggers Weigh In on Bush Press Conference

The blogosphere is buzzing following President Bush's press conference today to talk about the Iraq benchmarks report. Conservative bloggers seemed to zero in on the questions asked by the media, which were characterized by some as propaganda. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, focused on what they saw as the president's attempt to spin the situation in Iraq.

"The press was entirely uninterested in asking the President questions, and instead chose to use their airtime to make political statements," Pat Dollard wrote at his blog. "Statements mostly quasi-disguised as questions, but to no rational mind recognizable as anything other than propaganda."

Over at NewsBusters, a site dedicated to "exposing and combating liberal media bias," Ken Shepherd live-blogged the conference, quoting the questions the media asked without any of the answers from Bush.

Meanwhile, Joe Sudbay at Americablog, a liberal site, said President Bush was in "spin mode." (Sudbay also live-blogged the event, focusing on Bush's answers.) "That's all he does. When Karl Rove is in the room directing the Iraq response, we can expect nothing but political machinations."

James Fallows at The Atlantic Online said he didn't know what was "the most contemptible part" of the president's press conference:

But it's going to be hard to top what he just uttered: the most blatant attempt so far to blame everything that went wrong in Iraq on the advice of the military.

Don't have the transcript in front of me now, but the point was: Hey, I asked Tommy Franks if he was ready to go -- including the postwar phase; and he said Sure, no problem. So (says the President), Don't blame me! I was listening to the experts!

3:15 PM ET | 07-12-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

New Report Says Al-Qaida Has Grown Stronger

Six years after the United States and its allies declared war on al-Qaida, the terrorist network has regained strength using a safe haven in western Pakistan and is in a better position to plan future attacks, NPR reports.

The warning comes in a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, entitled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," according to The Washington Post. John A. Kringen, the CIA's deputy director for intelligence, told a House committee Wednesday that al-Qaida appears "to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan."

Reuters notes that the situation is complicated by the U.S. relationship with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The Bush administration sees him as a key ally and has avoided actions that could harm his government. For instance, The New York Times has reported that a secret operation to capture top al-Qaida leaders in 2005 was called off at the last second over fears it could jeopardize relations with Pakistan.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Kringen also downplayed comments made by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who had told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune earlier this week that he has a "gut feeling" an attack might occur this summer.

Chertoff clarified his remarks in an interview with NPR on Thursday, saying that "the phrase 'gut feeling' was just perhaps a little more colloquial way of saying 'informed judgment' or 'informed conclusion.'" But Pam Fessler reports that the lack of specific details in Chertoff's comments has disturbed some people, including Michael Greenberger, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health & Homeland Security.

"The American people are well aware there is a threat, and I don't see this casual comment advancing the ball very much. And I find it troubling in terms of the overt lack of preparedness on the part of the administration," Greenberger said.

10:56 AM ET | 07-12-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Lebanese Army Shells Refugee Camp Held by Militants

Smoke and fire rise from the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon today.

Joseph Barrak/AFP/Getty Images

Lebanese army troops shelled the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon today. The Associated Press reports two soldiers were killed during the shelling of the camp, which is held by members of the al-Qaida-inspired Fatah al-Islam militant group.

Witnesses say the shells were often being fired at a rate of seven to 10 a minute, The Guardian reports.

More than 150 Palestinian refugees fled a few hours before the firing started, fearing the army was preparing for a final assault. The Daily Star of Lebanon reports that seven members of the militant group also surrendered.

According to Reuters, "Security and political sources said the army was concerned it was being dragged into a war of attrition with the militants dug in inside the camp's narrow alleys and decided to move in to crush them after they refused repeated calls for surrender."

Since the fighting started in late May, more than 200 people have been killed.

AP also reports that today's fighting comes on the first anniversary of the start of Israel's war with Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon. Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called for "putting a final end" to the standoff at the camp in an address to the nation Wednesday night to mark the anniversary.

9:27 AM ET | 07-12-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Marine Charged in Haditha Slayings May Be Cleared

A hearing officer has recommended that all charges be dropped against Marine Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt in the killings of Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Lt. Col. Paul Ware said conflicting statements by Iraqis, inconclusive forensic evidence and questionable legal theories used by the prosecution were inadequate to send Sharratt to a court-martial on charges of killing three Iraqi brothers.

The Washington Post reports that Sharratt was never linked to a major role in the group of houses where most of the Iraqi civilians were allegedly killed. Sharratt has said that he shot three or four men who he believed were threatening him with weapons later in another house.

Ware recommended that Sharratt be given immunity to testify in other cases connected to the Haditha incidents on Nov. 19, 2005. Two other Marines are charged with murder, and four officers in the unit are charged with failing to investigate.

As the Post reports, the shooting involving Sharratt "came hours after Marines shot five unarmed men who were ordered out of a car on a residential street and after a squad stormed into two nearby houses, using grenades and rifles to kill numerous people. Those shootings are still under intense scrutiny and will be the subject of future military hearings."

Another Marine has already been cleared in the case. Cpl. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, who acknowledged shooting at the men near the car after they were down, was granted immunity to testify. (Dela Cruz has already told a military hearing that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich shot the five men outside the cab as they stood still with their hands in the air, then told him to lie about it.)

5:16 PM ET | 07-11-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Leahy: Planned Terrorism Database 'Ripe for Abuse'

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has derided a 38-page report from the Justice Department on the FBI's data mining practices, saying it "raises more questions than it answers." The Associated Press reports that Leahy also said that a planned government database mentioned in the report that would determine the threat posed by potential or suspected terrorists is "ripe for abuse."

The report, which was required by lawmakers when they renewed the Patriot Act in 2005, was given to Congress on Tuesday. It showed that the FBI is using databases to find "potential terrorists, insurance cheats and crooked pharmacists."

The Washington Post reports that the system the FBI is developing to look for terrorists is called the System to Assess Risk, or STAR.

Leahy's concerns about STAR center on the government's lack of accountability in the way it collects and uses personal information. "The Bush administration has expanded the use of this technology, often in secret, to collect and sift through Americans' most sensitive personal information," he said.

While the government insists the system would be secure, the ACLU worries that bad information will get into the system and innocent people will be labeled as terrorists. And the ABC News blog The Blotter reports that other experts are concerned that the FBI's plans to use private companies to store collected phone and Internet records is just a way to skirt a law that forbids the agency from holding the records.

It's not the first time the FBI's methods of data mining have been questioned in recent months. In June, The Blotter reported that lawmakers from both parties were worried about another proposed FBI plan to gather information, the National Security Analysis Center, which "would bring together nearly 1.5 billion records created or collected by the FBI and other government agencies."

2:55 PM ET | 07-11-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Use of British-Style Security Cameras Debated in U.S.

The average Londoner is caught on camera 300 times a day. That's because Britain has an estimated 5 million closed-circuit security cameras in operation nationwide -- one camera for every 12 people as of October 2006, according to The New Statesman.

The cameras were thrust back into the news this week after the thwarted terrorist attacks in the country. Closed-circuit TVs captured the attempted Glasgow bombing. Officials have extensive video of the area of London where two car bombs were left. And a camera system that allows police to track license plates helped them find and stop two suspects on a major highway.

Now, All Things Considered reports that calls are increasing for a similar style of camera network in the U.S.

Miami police chief John Timoney, who opposed a similar system when he was police chief in Philadelphia because it was too intrusive, says he's now a believer.

"In the olden days -- the olden days meaning six, eight, 10 years ago -- even John Timoney had concerns about privacy -- the storage of these things, how the videos would be used," he said. "I think most of those concerns have been dealt with."

Other police chiefs and some presidential candidates agree with Timoney. But civil liberty advocates, such as the ACLU's Barry Steinhardt, say it's just too great an invasion of privacy.

"But the cost of pervasive video surveillance includes the potential for tracking innocent people, it includes voyeurism -- police officers and others using these cameras looking for attractive women, for example, and other abuses. And it could really have a tremendously chilling effect on our public life."

This is a rather "sticky wicket," as they say in Britain. On the one hand, CCTV would help police in criminal and terrorist investigations. But the "Big Brother" aspect of being constantly watched can't be easily dismissed. Your thoughts?

11:44 AM ET | 07- 5-2007 | permalink | comments (13) | e-mail post

Australian Official: Oil a Reason for Being in Iraq

The Australian government was scrambling today to try to quell a political storm set off by remarks from Defense Minister Brendan Nelson that indicated oil is a key reason to keep his country's 1,500 troops in the Middle East.

"Energy security is extremely important to all nations throughout the world, and of course, in protecting and securing Australia's interests," he said. "The Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy oil, in particular, to the rest of the world."

Nelson also said the main reason Australian troops are still in Iraq is to ensure that the humanitarian crisis there does not get worse.

Prime Minister John Howard, who has also made remarks that seem to indicate that oil is an important reason to be in Iraq, rushed to play down Nelson's comments, saying: "A lot of oil comes from the Middle East -- we all know that -- but the reason we remain there is that we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy."

Opposition leader Kevin Rudd, however, seized on Nelson's comments as evidence of a government flip-flop. "Mr. Howard was asked back in 2003 whether this war had anything to do with oil. Mr. Howard said in no way did this have anything to do with oil. This government simply makes it up as it goes along," he said.

9:33 AM ET | 07- 5-2007 | permalink | comments (11) | e-mail post

Doctors Arrested in British Terrorism Investigation

There's been a lot of speculation during the past few days about the nature of the foiled terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow. But some of the most illuminating comments I've heard came from John Ydstie's interview on Morning Edition today with Kim Sengupta, a reporter for The Independent in London.

When Sengupta was asked about the fact that many of those arrested so far in the investigation are doctors or in the medical profession, he observed that they appeared to have been chosen because they were working in a respected field. If their profession made those responsible less likely to be viewed suspiciously, that could help explain why they were undetected by British counterterrorism officials.

Sengupta noted those accused also may have exploited the shortage of doctors in Britain's National Health Service, as there are fewer checks on medical professionals who want to come and work in the UK than most other immigrants. As Sengupta said, this shows a "degree of focus and imagination, almost, on the part of the terrorists."

Der Spiegel reports that one result of this outcome is that thousands of foreign doctors now working in Britain are under suspicion.

And The Washington Post reports that the style of attack foiled in the UK is what many U.S. counterterrorism experts believe will likely happen in the United States: "relatively unsophisticated, near-simultaneous attacks ... designed more to provoke widespread fear and panic than to cause major losses of life."

4:40 PM ET | 07- 3-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

Missing Soldier's Wife Gets Green Card

Here's an update to the story of the missing soldier's wife who had been facing deportation.

Yaderlin Hiraldo Jimenez, whose husband, Army Spec. Alex Jimenez, has been missing in Iraq since his unit was attacked May 12, has been given a green card after all.

Hiraldo Jimenez entered the U.S. illegally and was facing deportation until those proceedings were stopped. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry had written a letter to Department of Homeland Security asking that she be given her green card under the circumstances.

5:37 PM ET | 07- 2-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Arms Maker BAE Wins U.S. Military Contracts

British arms manufacturer BAE Systems may be under a cloud in Britain over reports that it made secret payments to a Saudi prince in connection with the largest arms deal in the country's history, but that doesn't mean it can't still get multimillion dollar contracts from the U.S. military.

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating BAE, which denies wrongdoing, over allegations that the U.S. banking system was used to make payments to the prince. And the Sunday Telegraph reports that Britain's Serious Fraud Office is about to start interviewing company executives about its dealings in Romania, the Czech Republic, Tanzania and South Africa.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Army is giving BAE's U.S. subsidiary a $183 million contract to produce thermal weapon imaging equipment for U.S. soldiers in combat operations.

That follows Thursday's announcement that the U.S. Navy gave BAE Systems a $212.4 million contract to build Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. And there was more good news for BAE:

Last week, a government panel that oversees foreign investment in the U.S. approved a pending $4.1 billion buyout of armored vehicle maker Armor Holdings Inc. BAE proposed the acquisition on May 7 as part of a bid to tap into a heavy demand for American military for vehicles in Iraq and other war zone. Armor Holdings is one of the nine companies vying for a stake in the MRAP program.

3:25 PM ET | 07- 2-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Al-Qaida Regrouping Along Pakistani Border

All too often, al-Qaida reminds me of that old Timex watch commercial: It takes a licking, but keeps on ticking.

The leaders of the terrorist organization have been forced to retreat into the mountainous regions of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But despite the harsh conditions in the area, senior U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement officials say al-Qaida is "recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding," McClatchy reports. The "new sanctuary" along the border was made possible by last September's cease-fire agreement between the Pakistani government and pro-Taliban tribes in the province of Waziristan.

The threat from Islamic radicals there is more dangerous than from Iraq, according to intelligence officials.

The remote Pakistani region "is the real heart of the war on terror, and we're losing," said a U.S. intelligence official who, like most of his colleagues, requested anonymity because intelligence reports on the matter are highly classified and because their pessimism conflicts with the administration's public statements. "We took our eye off the ball when we went into Iraq."

TPMmuckraker has posted video showing retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, a former division commander in Iraq who has become a critic of the war, warning the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week about the dangers of focusing too much on al-Qaida in Iraq to the exclusion of other parts of the world. "I also believe we cannot attribute all the violence in Iraq to al-Qaida. There's a tendency now to lump it all together, and call it al-Qaida. We have to be very careful with that. ... Al-Qaida is a worldwide organization. It recognizes no national boundaries. And it's in areas where we ought to be focused," he said.

9:08 AM ET | 06-29-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Baghdad: In Pictures by Iraqis

Since before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraqi bloggers have often presented a view of life in their country that is darker than the one presented on American evening newscasts or cable network news shows. For instance, most American media outlets, for a variety of reasons (and many of them good ones), have largely refrained from showing pictures or films of the bodies of those killed in the fighting.

But using blogs and other tools like YouTube, some Iraqis have opened a window on daily life -- and death -- in a war zone.

Healing Iraq is one Iraqi blog I read regularly. Its author, Zeyad A., a former dentist turned blogger/journalist has been featured in publications like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Zeyad writes that he "had become frustrated with the negative media coverage from Iraq so I decided to start a personal blog to present the positive side which was not getting enough attention at the time."

And yet, over time, Healing Iraq has chronicled "Iraq's daily deterioration," as the Journal put it.

I would like to share two recent Healing Iraq posts. One contains several YouTube videos about the plight of Iraqi refugees, a subject Zeyad notes is seldom covered on American TV.

The other post contains pictures taken by residents of western Baghdad in the months of April, May and June. You should know that some are quite graphic, but as Zeyad writes, "they provide a glimpse of life in the Iraqi capital four years after the ... American invasion."

9:34 AM ET | 06-26-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

General: Hearts and Minds Surge Needed in Iraq

The U.S. general in charge of working with the Iraqi population says the current troop surge is being jeopardized by the lack of an equivalent hearts-and-minds surge among the general population. In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Lt. Gen. Jack Stultz also said that cultural differences between U.S. and Iraqi soldiers were endangering the effort to train Iraqis to take control of security.

"You can't treat everyone as if they're an American soldier," Stultz said. "Everyone's culture is different." The Telegraph notes that British commanders have held this belief for a long time, but it's "remarkably frank" coming from an American general while the troop surge is under scrutiny.

In a May interview, the American Forces Press Service noted the general, who is on a four-year leave of absence as operations manager of Proctor & Gamble, tends to think as much like a businessman as a three-star general. This approach is evident in the Telegraph interview when Stultz talks about the need for U.S. troops to adopt a different approach with their Iraqi cohorts. He relates a story told to him by a major under his command:

"The Army Reserve soldier had a different perspective of how to handle the situation from the active army. He said, 'the first reaction working with the Iraqi soldiers from the active army was the traditional drill sergeant approach: just yell at the guy. ...'"

The general said the major had told him that "those of us in the Army Reserve who deal with the civilian population of America would never scream at a customer because I know he would just walk away".

"You've got to build trust with the local people, to say, 'Help us,'" Stultz said. "If we're going to turn around the situation, we need to have the local population identify [insurgents]."

1:15 PM ET | 06-25-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Judge Takes Swipe at Handling of Domestic Spying

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, the former chief judge of a secret national security court, had some harsh things to say about the administration's handling of the recently halted domestic spying program at a meeting of the American Library Association on Saturday.

McClatchy reports:

Lamberth declined to say whether he believes the National Security Agency's wiretap program was illegal. But he said he has "never seen a better way" to conduct domestic spying than under the national security court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The court secretly approves warrants for wiretaps and searches in counterterrorism and espionage investigations.

"I've seen a proposal for a worse way," Lamberth said. "That's what the president did with the NSA program."

Lamberth said he had insisted from the beginning that information the NSA gathered from the domestic spying program not be mixed with intelligence collected under court warrants. He said he never had to rule on the legality of the president's spying program.

The Jurist reports that Lamberth said he understands the need to act quickly during national emergencies, but that the president's wiretapping program went too far. "We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," he said. Lamberth also said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "keeps [the executive] honest."

12:07 PM ET | 06-25-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran...Version 2.0

Norman Podhoretz, considered by many to be a key thinker in the neoconservative movement, is praying that the U.S. will bomb Iran. He makes an appeal in the current issue of the magazine Commentary in a cover story entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran." As Think Progress writes:

Podhoretz's article appeals to President Bush, "a man who knows evil when he sees it" and who has been "battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory," to carry out military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. U.S. diplomats are now pointing to the essay to pressure foreign diplomats to increase pressure on Iran.

In an interview, Podhoretz does admit that such an attack could unleash a tidal wave of anti-Americanism across the globe that would make present day sentiments look like a "lovefest." But he says it would be worth it to slow down Iran's nuclear program for five to 10 years.

But some folks disagree with this thesis. American Progress senior fellow Joseph Cirincione has argued that it would not slow down the Iranians' progress but speed it up, just as the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor sped up that program in the '80s.

4:08 PM ET | 06-21-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

Kerry Asks Government Not to Deport Missing GI's Wife

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking that immigration officials "cease and desist" with all efforts to deport the wife of Army Spec. Alex Jimenez, who has been missing in Iraq since his unit was attacked on May 12.

CBS/AP reports that authorities were alerted to Yaderlin Hiraldo's presence when Jimenez applied for a green card and legal residence status for her after their marriage in 2004 at his Army base in New York. The Boston Herald reports that the DHS delayed her case after her husband went to Iraq in 2006. So far, the government hasn't granted the hardship waiver her lawyer has requested.

5:36 PM ET | 06-20-2007 | permalink | comments (5) | e-mail post

Abu Ghraib Investigator: Senior Officials Knew of Abuses

Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba testifies during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Army general who led the investigation into the abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq tells Seymour Hersh in this week's New Yorker that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, knew about the abuses before they became public and misled Congress about it.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba also told Hersh that he was ostracized and eventually forced to resign after he issued a report that said the abuse at the prison, depicted in the now infamous photos, was "sadistic, blatant and wanton."

Taguba also wrote that military intelligence officers were "directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses." This, he claims, was at odds with the picture the administration wanted to present of a small group of low-ranking individuals gone bad.

A few weeks after the report became public, Taguba told Hersh, he was riding in a car in Kuwait with Gen. John Abizaid, then the head of Central Command. Abizaid turned to him, Taguba recalls, and said, "You and your report will be investigated."

"I wasn't angry about what he said but disappointed that he would say that to me," Taguba said. "I'd been in the Army thirty-two years by then, and it was the first time that I thought I was in the Mafia."

The Washington Post reports that Lawrence T. Di Rita, Rumsfeld's former spokesman at the Pentagon, disputed several of Taguba's remarks. The White House also refuted the idea that President Bush may have known about abuses earlier than previously stated.

An editorial in USA Today notes that Taguba's story serves as a reminder that a proper Abu Ghraib inquiry, which might explain how abuses occurred at other U.S. facilities if no higher-ups were involved, remains to be completed.

4:16 PM ET | 06-19-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Iraq Now Second on Most Unstable Countries List

It's not the kind of achievement that's going to have Iraqi leaders waving their hands in the air, chanting, "We're number two! We're number two!"

The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine release their "Failed State Index" every year. At the top of the 2007 list, unsurprisingly, is Sudan, largely because of the Darfur crisis. But just behind at No. 2 (with a bullet, so to speak, according to survey officials) is Iraq. Last year, Iraq finished fourth. But it has declined in almost all of the 12 categories used to measure stability, The Washington Post reports.

"The report tells us that Iraq is sinking fast," said Fund for Peace President Pauline Baker. "We believe it's reached the point of no return. We have recommended -- based on studies done every six months since the U.S. invasion -- that the administration face up to the reality that the only choices for Iraq are how and how violently it will break up."

Iraq is now "ahead" of countries like Somalia and Zimbabwe on the list.

Here's the key question that arises from a ranking like this: One of the main selling points for the recent troop surge in Iraq was that it would enable the U.S. to hand the keys to the car over to the Iraqi government in the next few months. But in the current violent environment, how do you hand over control to the government of a country that by next year may rank as the most unstable in the world?

2:05 PM ET | 06-19-2007 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post

How Much Power Did Bush Give Himself in Emergencies?

My father, who worked in politics for decades, once said to me, "Always be suspicious of anything a politician does that doesn't include a press release." Now, a new directive that President Bush signed quietly has raised questions on both sides of the political fence about how much unchecked power the president has given himself in times of emergency.

The directive Bush signed in May outlines a new plan for what would happen in the U.S. in the event of a "catastrophic" national emergency. Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe, one of the few reporters to write about the document, notes that the new plan -- which replaces a Clinton-era document -- moves disaster planning from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to officials inside the White House. (Savage is a great reporter who last year won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for his coverage of how Bush used signing statements to bypass provisions of laws he didn't like.)

The White House defended the lack of notice about the directive by saying that after the Sept. 11 attack, "the American public needs no explanation of such plans."

Savage reports that "specialists at both the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, and the American Civil Liberties Union said they have taken calls and e-mails from people who are worried about what the new policy may portend." The biggest concern seems to be that the document doesn't discuss "consulting Congress about when to invoke emergency powers -- or when to turn them off."

Homeland security and legal specialists point out that America has had a "doomsday response" dating back to the Cold War. But some legal experts say the White House needs to be more specific about two major points: What circumstances would trigger implementation of the plan, and what legal limits does the White House recognize on its own emergency powers?

3:36 PM ET | 06-15-2007 | permalink | comments (18) | e-mail post

Navy College Professor: Iraq Will Plague U.S. for Years

Is the Iraq War lost?

Christopher J. Fettweis, an assistant professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, believes it is, and he argues its aftermath will create a new Vietnam-like syndrome in the American people. He writes in the Los Angeles Times:

The American people seem to understand, however -- and historians will certainly agree -- that the war itself was a catastrophic mistake. It was a faulty grand strategy, not poor implementation. The Bush administration was operating under an illusion, one that is further discredited with every car bombing of a crowded Baghdad marketplace and every Iraqi doctor who packs up his family and flees his country.

Fettweis believes that the aftermath of the war will throw "American politics into a downward spiral of bitter recriminations the likes of which it has not seen in a generation." (For his part, President Bush has long believed that history will vindicate his actions in Iraq.)

Fettweis' piece has generated an extraordinary amount of comment in the blogosphere.

For example, on the Veterans Blog at the Armed Forces Mutual Benefit Association site, Joe Dougherty calls Fettweis' piece "a very uninformed opinion" and says he hates to think that "he is spreading this rubbish around."

But a posting on the liberal Daily Kos agrees with Fettweis, writing "Iraq was a war that didn't have to be. Now [it's] going to take a massive effort to avoid another war at home."

11:10 AM ET | 06-15-2007 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post

Samarra Mosque Bombed Again

The destroyed shrine of the Askariya mosque is seen today in the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad.

Getty Images

(Note from Tom: JJ Sutherland is filling in for the rest of today. See you tomorrow.)

Everyone pretty much agrees on when Iraq's civil war began. In February of last year, al-Qaida types blew up the famous golden dome of the Askariya mosque in Samarra. It's one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam, serving as the mausoleum for the 10th and 11th imams. (I'll forbear the lecture on the imams and just point you to this Wikipedia article.)

After that bombing, the sectarian killings went wild for a year. Fifty to 100 bodies a day turned up on the streets of Baghdad alone. They were bound, blindfolded and shot in the head. Many of them showed signs of torture, the electric drill being a favorite. It was this kind of mass sectarian bloodshed that really sent the country over the edge for a while.

And today, the mosque was bombed again, and, understandably, people are freaked. I just got off the phone with NPR's Jamie Tarabay in Baghdad. She says that the two minarets of the mosque, the most remarkable things remaining standing, are gone. A curfew has been put in place in Baghdad; no one knows for how long. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went on TV and said that everyone responsible for protecting the holy shrine has been arrested.

And that's one interesting question: Exactly how was this allowed to happen, as there were numerous security forces tasked with protecting the mosque?

Jamie says that Baghdad is incredibly tense. The first reaction of everyone was to go home and hunker down, fearing the worst. One Sunni mosque has already been set on fire. She says a massive gun battle broke out in the city between two ministerial convoys; it's not known exactly who they were, but it's being seen as a sign of just how on edge everyone is.

Everyone, including radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, is calling for restraint, and some members of his Mehdi Army actually went out to protect Sunni mosques in the southern city of Basra. But it remains to be seen whether the death squads will once again go out in force.

As a good Iraqi friend of mine says often when he tells me of the latest attacks there, "The fun never stops."

- JJ Sutherland

11:31 AM ET | 06-13-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

What to Read Before You Go to War

If you're curious to see what Marines being sent overseas are reading, the Small Wars Journal blog offers this list, courtesy of Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command, of what's required and recommended.

The list offers a variety of viewpoints. Those who prefer a neoconservative flavor will find books and articles by writers like Max Boot, Robert Kaplan and Bernard Lewis, who argue it's important to see America as an empire and discuss what that means for its position in the world. They also warn about what they see as a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam.

For a more nuanced view of Islam and the Middle East, the list includes Amin Maalouf's The Crusades Through Arab Eyes and John Esposito's What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam. Also listed is former NPR reporter Sarah Chayes' The Punishment of Virtue, which details why she believes the U.S. made a tragic blunder in Afghanistan by not having a concept of how to create a civil society after a military invasion.

There is also plenty of good material about heroism and warfare, as well as tactical manuals that make for heavy but absorbing reading.

If I could add books to the list, I would include Michael Herr's haunting Vietnam-era Dispatches, the best war book I've ever read. And then there's But Not for the Fuehrer by Helmut Jung, a former German solider whose 2004 book offers an eye-opening look at why ordinary soldiers commit terrible atrocities.

So let's open this up for discussion. Any other books you folks would like to see on such a list? Or recommendations for ones that are already there?

9:45 AM ET | 06-12-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

Gates to Replace Head of Joint Chiefs

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says he will recommend Adm. Mike Mullen, currently the chief of naval operations, to replace Marine Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Associated Press reports that Gates was originally going to recommend Pace for an additional two-year term but felt it would result in a "divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War." Gates said he had talked with leaders of both parties and said the confirmation process for Pace would be about the past and not the future.

NPR reports that Mullen has served as naval chief of staff since 2005.

1:46 PM ET | 06- 8-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Inquiry: CIA Had Secret Jails in Poland, Romania

A special inquiry has found the U.S. was imprisoning and interrogating some of its top terrorism suspects in jails in Poland and Romania between 2003 and 2005, and that top European leaders knew about it.

The Daily Telegraph reports that Dick Marty, who led the Council of Europe's inquiry, accuses Polish and Romanian authorities of being aware "at the highest levels" of secret CIA detention cells and says leaders of Germany and Italy tried to cover up their existence.

Marty's report notes, "What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven: large numbers of people have been abducted from various locations across the world and transferred to countries where they have been persecuted and where it is known that torture is common practice."

Marty, who says he has proof of his accusations, wrote that the U.S. picked Romania and Poland because they were "economically vulnerable, emerging from difficult transitional periods in their history, and dependent on U.S. support for their strategic development." Reuters provides a full brief on Marty's report.

Poland and Romania have repeatedly denied these allegations. But the European Union today called for leaders of the countries to "hold urgent, independent investigations into the allegations and ensure any victims were compensated."

Tom Update: The BBC reported this afternoon that the CIA has dismissed the Council of Europe report that alleged it ran secret prisons in Europe. The CIA called the report " biased and distorted, and that the agency had operated lawfully." President Bush admitted last year that the prisons existed overseas, but he did not say where the prisons were located.

12:12 PM ET | 06- 8-2007 | permalink | comments (11) | e-mail post

Al-Hurra Fails in Bid for Additional Program Funding

Al-Hurra, the U.S.-run Arabic satellite channel designed to promote American values in the Middle East, felt the pinch this week -- a congressional panel denied its request for additional funding for new programming.

Joel Mowbray -- an outspoken critic of Al-Hurra's news director, Larry Register, for allowing spokesmen for Hamas and Hezbollah on the satellite channel -- writes at the conservative Power Line blog that this "sharp blow" came even though the funding request had been backed by Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Mowbray suggests that only Register's resignation will satisfy the congressional panel that oversees the channel's budget.

Jeb Koogler at the Moderate Voice blog takes issue with Mowbray's criticisms of Register and Al-Hurra, which he calls misleading. He says Mowbray makes it seem as if Al-Hurra "was successfully promoting democracy and supporting human rights until new, corrupt leadership suddenly made it all go astray." But that's not the case at all, Koogler writes.

A more accurate critique of the network would point out that al-Hurra has always been a failed venture at public diplomacy, it has never gained a sizable viewing audience, and it has never furthered the causes that we wish it would. Criticizing the new leadership as soft on Arab autocrats and Islamic extremism is to miss to point: that's the way it's always been.

It wasn't all bad news for Al-Hurra. A congressional staffer working for the House Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee said while it turned down the $14 million request, it approved $2.2 million for live streaming of Al-Hurra on the Web, as well an additional $2 million to hire a firm to provide English transcripts for some programming.

However, The Associated Press reports that the federal Broadcasting Board of Governors will ask for an outside review of Al-Hurra programming. The review will be carried out by "a university or other academic institution with experience in Middle Eastern affairs and journalism."

5:12 PM ET | 06- 7-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Does Latest Al-Qaida Message Signal U.S. Attack?

The man who led the CIA hunt for Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999 believes that al-Qaida has signaled to the United States that it is about to launch another attack.

In an article for the Jamestown Foundation, where he is now a senior fellow, Michael Scheuer looks at the role of Adam Gadahn -- the American from California now known as Azzam al-Amriki (Azzam the American). Scheuer believes that Gadahn, while only a member of the al-Qaida media committee (who knew they even had one), has become the third most important public spokesman for the terrorist group, especially in its occasional messages meant for the American public.

Scheuer sees Gadahn's most recent video message, delivered not in the strident tones of bin Laden, but in the slang and catchphrases of an American, as a blunt warning from al-Qaida that time is up for Americans.

Gadahn's words also have a note of finality about them, as if he is saying there will be no more warnings from al-Qaida, and the choice for Americans is between surrender and domestic attack. Again, this is out of character for the rhetoric of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, and it suggests that they ordered Gadahn to make a last-warning to Americans before al-Qaida attacks inside the United States.

But Gadahn's "warnings" are just a list of "implacable demands" that al-Qaida knows will never be met. Scheuer compares them to the type of demands the Austro-Hungarian Empire made of Serbia in 1914 just before it attacked.

10:35 AM ET | 06- 7-2007 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post

Experts: JFK Plot May Not Have Been Quite So 'Chilling'

We've seen this happen before. Authorities line up before a microphone and tell the assembled media throngs that a serious terrorist plot has just been averted. Words like "chilling," or "catastrophic" or "unthinkable devastation," are often used.

But on closer examination, it turns out to be not quite the chilling plot first imagined.

Now, some experts are questioning if the alleged plot to blow up fuel lines at New York's JFK International Airport was quite as dangerous as federal prosecutors made it out to be.

Newsday talks to Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. While Greenberger says the authorities were absolutely correct to pursue those accused of the plot, he also believes that "there's a pattern here of Justice Department attorneys overstating what they have."

In this case, none of the accused had any military training or had attended a terrorist training camp (hallmarks of those who actually carry out terrorist attacks from Timothy McVeigh to the London bombers). The plot was not close to being operational. And the man accused of being the mastermind, Russell Defreitas, is looking less like a criminal genius and more "hapless and episodically homeless," Newsday reports. (Anthony Kaufman of Huffington Post wonders why the headline for the story wasn't "Bombers not smart enough to blow up JFK.")

Steven Simon, a terrorism expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, points out that hyping these arrests creates a problem, especially when the true story begins to emerge, because it creates the false impression that "the adversary is just a bunch of losers who do not have to be feared."

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg downplayed the threat. When asked Monday about the alleged plot, he basically told people to "get a life." He added, "You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."

4:50 PM ET | 06- 6-2007 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post

New Vehicles for Marines May Need Even More Armor

The Marine Corps has ordered 1,200 more of a type of vehicle with a good record of protecting troops against the improvised explosive devices used in roadside attacks in Iraq. However, the new vehicles, known as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, might not be enough to give the troops the protection they need.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that insurgents in Iraq are using bigger and better bombs that have increased the number of U.S. troops killed as opposed to wounded in roadside attacks. Last week, USA Today reported that Pentagon documents show the MRAPs may not be able to withstand these new types of explosives, known as explosively formed penetrators, and may need additional armor.

Because of the MRAPs' success against the improvised explosive devices, the Pentagon documents suggest insurgents can be expected to use significantly more of the explosively formed penetrators. The military has tested armor that can withstand the new explosive, but it will add to the cost of the vehicles.

The Marine Corps Times reports that the military has plans to order 23,200 MRAPs by 2010. The Marines' latest $623 million purchase from a subsidiary of Navistar International means that 1,700 of the vehicles have been ordered since 2003.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently called the effort to get more MRAPs into the field the military's highest purchasing priority.

But Jason Sherman of InsideDefense writes that the military's "mad rush" to get as many of the MRAPs in the field as possible "could stall due to short supplies of key industrial resources such as manpower and steel, which may prompt the Defense Department to divert key commodities away from other weapons programs, according to defense officials and documents."

9:59 AM ET | 06- 4-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

'Awakening' Movement in Iraq Battles al-Qaida

Residents of western Baghdad, tired of al-Qaida in Iraq's attempts to control their area, rose up against the terrorist group Thursday and called in U.S. troops to help them. The Associated Press reports that a member of the district council said people were tired of the random gunfire that kept them indoors and threats that prevented students from taking final exams.

The incident in Baghdad is not an isolated one, Bill Roggio notes in his The Fourth Rail blog at Military.com. Sunni anti-al-Qaida tribes, community leaders and even insurgent groups are increasingly coming together to battle al-Qaida in what is called the "Iraq Awakening" movement. Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi in the Ramadi region of Anbar province created the model for the Awakening movement. AP reported in April that 200 Sunni sheiks in Anbar joined together in Iraq Awakening to oppose al-Qaida.

At Pundit Review, you can hear an interview with Michael Yon, an independent journalist in Hit, Iraq, who talks about the success of the movement.

Al-Qaida has reportedly not taken the threat lightly. The Kuwait News Agency reports that al-Qaida gunmen attacked and seriously wounded a tribal chief who had been working with the Awakening movement and his wife.

The Marine Corps Times reports that coalition officials, while pleased to see the trend, said they have seen "too many false dawns" to publicly declare the movement a "turning point." "We're naturally cautious people," said a senior British coalition officer. "We don't do excitement."

(Tom's Update: Just saw this story from Agence-France Presse. Sunni tribal fighters from the Anbar region have gone to Baghdad to join the fight against al-Qaida in the Amiriyah neighborhood of western Baghdad.)

9:38 AM ET | 06- 1-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Iraq: The New South Korea for U.S. Troops?

So how long can we expect U.S. troops to remain in Iraq? Maybe the next 50 or 60 years.

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said President Bush would like to see a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea, where U.S. troops provide stability but do not have a front-line combat role. U.S. troops have been in Korea since the early '50s.

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters. ...

"I think the point he's trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence," Snow said.

Jules Crittenden, an editor at the Boston Herald who writes the Forward Movement blog, wonders if anyone is "seriously surprised" by this statement. But he thinks it makes a lot of sense because of the need for new Middle East bases, the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq and "Iranian meddling and attempts at regional domination." Blogger Don Surber concurs.

But Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sees it as another example of the Bush administration being out of touch with reality and history. Juan Cole at Informed Comment sees the analogy "as frankly ridiculous" because Iraq isn't like Korea in any way.

5:58 PM ET | 05-31-2007 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post

The Role Oil Plays in the Iraq War

Is the war in Iraq about oil after all?

Writing in the liberal truthout.org, Anne Wright (who served 29 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves) furiously attacks last week's legislation to give additional funding to the troops in Iraq as a means to take oil rights away from the Iraqi people. As part of the funding package, Congress approved language that says if the Iraqi parliament refuses to pass oil legislation currently under review, then the U.S. will withhold reconstruction funds.

But Wright sees the Iraqi legislation as a Trojan horse for U.S. oil companies -- under the legislation, Iraq's national oil company would control only 17 of 78 known oil fields (some of these 78 have been identified but are not yet in production). The remaining known fields and all unknown ones would be up for grabs.

As Antonia Juhasz noted in an L.A. Times opinion piece in December, the much-ignored Iraq Study Group called for the privatization of Iraqi oil. Oil companies argue "increasing state ownership and rising resource nationalism" are long-term threats to global oil supplies. In this piece by NPR, an Iraqi oil expert argues that Iraq needs foreign investment, and that the new legislation would actually make it more difficult for foreign firms to invest.

But Iraqi Raed Jarrar writes in his In The Middle blog that the legislation is a direct intervention in Iraq's domestic politics and would result only in more violence in Iraq. No other Middle Eastern nation has privatized its oil reserves, Wright points out. Not surprisingly, most Iraqis want to retain control of the country's oil.

This story from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland seems to show that both sides have a point: Iraq does need foreign-based technology and companies to get its oil fields back in production, but the price may be the nation loses control of its greatest asset.

10:25 AM ET | 05-29-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Report: Using the War on Terror to Get U.S. Aid

Many U.S. allies in the war on terror supported the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies in an effort to get more foreign aid, according to a new series of reports in the Center For Public Integrity's ongoing series "Collateral Damage."

This new wave of foreign lobbying, combined with an emphasis "on counterterrorism objectives over broader human rights concerns," has cost the United States both financially and politically, according to the center's reports.

Countries like Poland and Romania -- two of the European countries accused of hosting secret CIA prisons where terrorism suspects could be held and possibly tortured -- saw the level of their foreign aid from the United States skyrocket after the Sept. 11 attack.

In the three years before 9/11, Poland received just over $33 million in U.S. military training and assistance. Three years after, the amount was nearly tenfold, more than $300 million in mostly Coalition Support Funds to reimburse expenses incurred by Polish forces in Iraq, according to ICIJ's database of military training and assistance. Since 1998, Romania has received more than $100 million in U.S. military aid, primarily from the Foreign Military Financing program, which provides grants to buy U.S. military equipment and services.

According to the reports, many of the countries that received increases in U.S. foreign aid also saw an increase in human rights violations.

Collateral Damage involved 10 investigative journalists working on four continents "who examined U.S. military assistance and foreign lobbying expenditures and human rights abuses after 9/11." The center's team combed through thousands of Department of Justice lobbying records and human rights reports and used Freedom of Information Act requests to get information on U.S. funding for the countries covered in the series.

5:21 PM ET | 05-24-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Army Awards New Vest Contract Despite Media Report

A couple of days ago we told you about the controversy over the type of body armor used by the military. NBC News had done an investigative report that included interviews with experts who said that an armored protective vest known as Dragon Skin, made by Pinnacle Armor, would better protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the current vest, known as Interceptor.

But the Pentagon produced test results that it said showed Dragon Skin was actually inferior to the current model, and some defense commentators at blogs like RedState backed the military. Then Wednesday, The Army Times reported that the brouhaha over the right vest didn't stop the Army from awarding new contracts worth $167 million for a new vest to protect soldiers.

Specialty Defense of Dunmore, Pa., and Point Blank of Pompano Beach, Fla., were awarded the contracts Monday to make the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, a redesigned version of the Interceptor that offers design improvements including a quick release system, increased coverage, lighter weight, and better fit and comfort, according to a press release from Program Executive Office Soldier.

10:07 AM ET | 05-24-2007 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post

Controversy Emerges Over Military's Body Armor

The U.S. military is hustling to explain to Congress that it already offers its troops the best body armor available after NBC News aired a report that questioned this claim. Military.com reports that the Army's top equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, will meet with members of Congress and staff to explain why the military believes an armored vest known as "Dragon Skin" is not the best choice. On Monday at a Pentagon briefing, Brown made his case publicly.

Brown appeared at the Pentagon briefing with the actual test articles that had failed to stop armor-piercing rounds, which Army officials claim its current enhanced small arms protective insert plate can withstand ... The Dragon Skin vests tested by the Army in May suffered 13 penetrations in 48 shots, service officials said.

In its investigative report, however, NBC interviewed Jim Magee, a retired Marine colonel who designed the current body armor in use by the military, known as Interceptor. Magee said he felt Dragon Skin was the best available -- "two steps ahead of anything I've ever seen." Other people interviewed for the show claimed that officers at lower levels tried to sabotage the use of Dragon Skin because it was not Army developed and would threaten their funding and programs.

NBC also reported that the CIA had approved Dragon Skin for its elite operatives and that select soldiers assigned to protect generals and VIPs in Iraq and Afghanistan wore Dragon Skin.

The Army has decided to launch "an aggressive campaign" to counter the claims of NBC and the company that makes Dragon Skin, Pinnacle Armor, so I doubt we've heard the last of this one. The discussion boards at Military.com are already filled with comments pro and con.

3:33 PM ET | 05-22-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't, Al Hurra

If you want to know why the U.S.-backed Al Hurra Arabic satellite TV network will never reach the levels of audience penetration that its competitors, like Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya, have reached, it's illustrated rather neatly in this piece from Thursday's New York Times.

Executives from the cable channel were chastised by both Democrats and Republicans for airing the views of leaders of the militant Islamist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Washington-based politicians saw this as a no-no. One problem is that none of the top executives who run Al Hurra, which is based in Virginia, actually speak Arabic, so they have to rely on the Arabic-speaking staff to tell them if a program or interview is OK.

Congress has a perfectly understandable position -- it funds the program, it gets to call the tune. But it's also why Al Hurra will struggle to overcome the perception that it is little more than an American propaganda outlet in Iraq. This piece by Courtney Radsch at Arabisto gives a good overview of the difficulty of Al Hurra's position.

Joaquin F. Blaya, a Hurra executive, did point out that it didn't make much sense for a station designed to promote democracy and free speech not to practice it. But this being America, where you can air different viewpoints, one exists, of course -- Joel Mowbray presents it at Power Line.

1:37 PM ET | 05-22-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Bolton, BBC Interviewer Spar On Air

Boy, the BBC sure had to deal with some heated situations last week.

There was the whole dust-up between the BBC and the Church of Scientology. And John Bolton, the man who used to be America's top diplomat at the United Nations, had a rather interesting exchange with a BBC presenter late last week.

It seems that Bolton didn't like it when John Humphrys, the host of the BBC's flagship "Today" radio program, asked if the Bush administration was a "busted flush" after the failures in Iraq, Agence France-Presse reports.

"You're absolutely wrong ... The people who express the point of view that you just expressed I think were largely anti-American beforehand anyway," said the ex-ambassador.

When Humphrys suggested that billionaire philanthropist George Soros might take that view, Bolton shot back: "Are you kidding me? This is a man of the extreme left."

"I'm sure you would find a great deal in common with him as would many others on the continent," he added, referring to widespread anti-American sentiment in Europe.

The BBC man defended himself, saying he was impartial but just asking questions as a devil's advocate and adding: "Maybe they don't do it like that in the United States."

Bolton: "I know, you're a superior Brit, aren't you?"

During the interview, Bolton also denied that he was a neoconservative, but he did say he felt the "neocon adventure" was very much alive.

Earlier in the week, Bolton basically said it's time to stop fooling around with Iran. He said economic sanctions with "pain" need to be the next step taken, then an attempt to overthrow the ruling regime, and if that doesn't work, military force would be necessary.

4:48 PM ET | 05-21-2007 | permalink | comments (10) | e-mail post

Key Leaders Leave Iraq to Handle Health Problems

As if the U.S. wasn't having enough problems getting the Iraqi parliament to move on key issues, like deciding on oil rights and revenues, the effort just got a lot harder. Two of Iraq's top leaders are out of the country dealing with health problems.

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of Iraq's largest Shia party, is undergoing cancer treatment in Iran. Al Jazeera reports that al-Hakim flew to the U.S. on Wednesday after a U.S.-run hospital in Baghdad "detected signs of cancer in one of his lungs." The hospital he visited in Texas confirmed the preliminary diagnosis.

Al-Hakim began chemotherapy Sunday in Iran, rather than the U.S., because he wanted to be close to his family. This move also reflects his close ties to the regime there. He could be gone several months or longer, "thus robbing Iraq from a key political player who has been a major partner in US efforts to build a democratic system regardless of his ties to Iran," Al Jazeera reports.

Meanwhile, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani arrived in the U.S. on Sunday, "tired and battling obesity," according to the Gulf Daily News of Bahrain. Talabani's office denied he had any health problems other than his obesity, which he plans to get help with in the U.S. In February, he went to Jordan for treatment of extreme exhaustion and dehydration.

Talabani is expected to be in the U.S. about three weeks.

9:29 AM ET | 05-21-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Chatham House Report: Iraq On Verge Of Collapse

Iraq is on the "verge of becoming a failed state," according to a report issued today by The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, also known as Chatham House. Al Jazeera reports that the study suggests that, despite the recent surge of troops in Baghdad, U.S. forces have only managed to push insurgents to nearby cities, and that they cannot create the conditions where various groups can resolve differences with each other.

Gareth Stansfield, author of the report, Accepting Realities in Iraq, also writes that there is not one civil war in Iraq, but many. And he writes that each of Iraq's three main neighboring states -- Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia -- have reasons of their own to see the current instability in Iraq continue.

Syndicated columnist David Ignatius, writing from Baghdad, also concludes that time to reconcile the different factions in Iraq is quickly running out.

Meanwhile, Agence France-Presse interviews an Iraqi tribal leader who says "the key to saving Iraq from the scourge of Al-Qaeda is to subject captured fighters to the swift and deadly rule of tribal justice."

"I always tell the Americans 'Why detain the enemy? Leave him to me, don't detain him,'" he chuckled during an interview with AFP in a Baghdad hotel.

"We have our own tribal legal system and this is constant and cannot be changed. Murderers must be killed under tribal law and unless we use this force against terrorism, terrorism will continue to rise."

5:38 PM ET | 05-17-2007 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post

Nobel Laureate to Defend U.S.-Iranian Scholar

Iranian Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has announced that she will defend U.S.-Iranian scholar Haleh Esfandiari, who has been accused of "acting against national security" in Iran. Ebadi and two other lawyers from her Human Rights Defenders Center have sent a letter to Iranian authorities asking for the right to meet with their new client.

Esfandiari, who works for the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, was arrested and imprisoned May 8 after not being allowed to leave Iran for several months. Her supporters believe that accusations that she is an Israeli spy are an effort by the mullah-led regime to silence another independent voice.

Esfandiari's supporters also have started a letter-writing campaign at FreeHaleh.com to call for her release from Iran's Evin prison.

Esfandiari's arrest appears to be just the latest in a campaign against leading intellectuals by the Iranian government.

5:21 PM ET | 05-16-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Green Zone Residents, Iraqi Academics in Constant Fear

Some Green Zone residents in Iraq apparently are as mad as hell and have decided not to take it anymore. So three unnamed State Department employees in Baghdad sat down with a reporter from McClatchy and aired their complaints about the security -- or the lack thereof -- in the Green Zone.

The zone has long been considered the safest part of the country because of the overwhelming U.S. military presence centered behind its walls in Baghdad, but the three U.S. embassy employees said they are increasingly angry over the lack of protection for those inside the zone. Bulletproof vests and helmets must be worn at all times -- except, apparently, when high-level visitors come from Washington, they say, to create the impression that the situation is safer than it really is.

But it doesn't always work. Just last week, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe told reporters that the situation in the Green Zone was "infinitely worse" than her visit there last year.

It's not just residents of the Green Zone concerned about their safety. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the university system in Iraq has almost been destroyed and, "Hundreds of professors and students have been killed or kidnapped, hundreds more have fled, and those who remain face daily threats of violence."

At the University of Baghdad alone, 78 professors have been killed.

To John Agresto, senior adviser to the higher-education ministry in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, it is clear why academics are targets. "University professors are usually more secular than the general population, more open-minded, interested in things other than religious proselytizing, devoted to academic interest more than religious causes," he says. "Their secular nature is what is getting them targeted."

Iraqi officials estimate that at least 30 percent of all professors, doctors, pharmacists and engineers who lived in Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion have now fled the country, the Chronicle reports.

1:57 PM ET | 05-16-2007 | permalink | comments (4) | e-mail post

General's Letter Against Torture

Marty Lederman at the Balkinization blog calls it a "remarkable, powerful letter." He's referring to a letter written last week by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, to all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen serving under his command. The message in the letter is pretty blunt -- torture and "other expedient methods" of obtaining information from the enemy is just plain wrong and does not obtain the desired results.

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone 'talk'; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

Petraeus wrote the letter after last week's Pentagon poll showed that fewer than half of those troops surveyed would report a comrade for illegal actions. Lederman notes that if such a letter had been widely circulated in 2003, many of the incidents that have severely damaged the U.S. image around the world, like Abu Ghraib and the shooting at Haditha, may have been avoided. Lederman had blogged in February 2006 about how the Pentagon under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld had come to adopt what many military lawyers considered "legally indefensible" guidelines about conducting interrogations as official policy.

Meanwhile, in a report from his fifth trip to Iraq, Guardian photographer Sean Smith, embedded with the U.S. 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, writes that the surge in troop levels is creating some stability, but Smith wonders how long it can last. Smith also writes that the only contact the U.S. soldiers have with local residents is in "stress" situations, which intensifies any contact. He also writes that the Iraqi army "is a fiction."

There are Iraqi soldiers alongside the Americans, but they owe their allegiance to a unit commander who is usually someone known to them previously. They are small bands or gangs of soldiers, not a national force.

9:49 AM ET | 05-14-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

Killing Civilians in Afghanistan

The issue of the U.S. military killing civilians in its battles against the Taliban in Afghanistan is starting to gather steam once again. Recently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai blasted the U.S. for not being more vigilant and said that his people "can no longer accept casualties the way they occur."

In early March, insurgents ambushed a convoy of U.S. troops in Jalalabad. As the troops fled, they fired on civilians and their cars, killing 19 people, an act that one U.S. commander said Tuesday left him feeling "deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry." (At the time of the incident, U.S. troops seized photo and video footage from journalists covering the aftermath.)

Later in the month, the U.S. military killed 13 civilians in a bombing raid. And the Belfast Telegraph reports that Afghan authorities say 21 more civilians were killed in a raid in the village of Soro, near Sangin in Helmand province, on the same day the U.S. commander was making his above apology for the March 4 incident. The U.S. military denied the reports.

A spokesman for the US forces, Major William Mitchell, declared that the troops had killed a "significant" number of insurgents in firefights and the subsequent bombing.

"We don't have any reports of civilian casualties" he said. "There are enemy casualties - I think the number is significant."

One problem with this statement is that it's the same thing the U.S. military says every time one of these incidents occurs, and then it's often forced to eat crow after it turns out that innocent people were killed. The Economist reports that there have been five incidents in total since March where Western forces have been accused of killing civilians.

But the U.S. military isn't the only one who may be killing civilians. Human Rights Watch finds that civilian deaths from insurgent attacks in Afghanistan have increased dramatically over the past 15 months, according to a Voice of America report. The Human Rights Watch report says that many of the anti-government forces are deliberately ignoring internationally agreed upon laws of war and protection of civilians' rights.

6:03 PM ET | 05-10-2007 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post

Kidnapped Reporter Named Broadcaster of the Year

Paul Brannan of the BBC has sent out a notice to the Online News Association's International Committee, telling us that kidnapped Beeb reporter Alan Johnston was named Broadcaster of the Year at the London Press Awards last night. The Press Gazette notes that Johnston had actually been nominated for the award, based on his three years' worth of work covering the Gaza Strip, long before he was kidnapped in Gaza by Palestinian militants on March 13.

BBC director-general Mark Thompson, who accepted the award on Johnston's behalf, said: "Alan stayed there [Gaza] so long, and stayed after so many Western correspondents had left, because he wanted to tell the story of Gaza and to tell it not from a studio in London or by voicing over pictures taken by an agency or freelance thousands of miles away, but on the ground and among the people of Gaza."

Paul added in his note that Thompson also paid tribute to Johnston's family "who have shown extraordinary strength and courage over these last few weeks...The real prize will be Alan's safe return."

3:22 PM ET | 05-10-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

When "Homegrown Terrorism" Is Not Exactly Grown at Home

Before I came to NPR, I covered terrorism and security for the Christian Science Monitor for several years. During that time, I learned a few things about the way the administration and law enforcement deal with the war on terror.

First, don't assume that because charges have been made that a conviction will result. The FBI's record at getting convictions on these high-profile cases is spotty at best. Here's a piece that I wrote in March 2006 that highlights cases where the government said it was terrorism but it wasn't. (Remember Capt. James Yee?)

Second, the language used by government prosecutors (and the media) in describing these cases is frequently incorrect. For instance, in the case of the six men accused of planning an attack on Ford Dix, N.J., I've heard the words "homegrown terrorism" thrown around a lot.

Only one problem with that description: None of these men is homegrown. All are foreign born. In fact, three are illegal aliens.

In Britain, when the phrase "homegrown terrorism" is used, it refers to young men or women born in Britain who turn to terrorism. For instance, this piece written by Munira Mirza last August for Spiked-online.com talks about the idea of "homegrown terrorism" as a British-born-and-bred phenomenon. Canada's Haroon Siddiqui offers a good description as well.

The difference is significant. In Britain's case it implies that a strong -- and much talked about -- disconnect exists between young British-born Muslims and the larger society. When you use "homegrown" in the way it's being used in the Fort Dix case, it implies that the same kind of problem exits in the U.S., which I think is a questionable assumption. I would argue that one reason there have been so few terrorist plots in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks is that young American-born Muslims are more integrated into society than their British counterparts are across the Atlantic.

1:46 PM ET | 05- 9-2007 | permalink | e-mail post

We're a Little Fuzzy on This Whole Benchmarks Thing

If it appears that Pentagon and administration officials start to mumble a lot and look at the ceiling or down at their shoes whenever they talk about benchmarks for Iraq, that could be because they want it that way. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "The Defense Department has allowed the public's understanding of the benchmarks to remain murky, offering up little in the way of specifics when it comes to how the surge will actually be assessed come September."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, particularly Democrats, want to define benchmarks with specific dates and "measureables." But the military and White House, judging by their responses to questions about benchmarks, seem to be trying to keep them as vague as possible.

Military experts see keeping benchmarks broad as a way for President Bush to portray the current surge operation as a victory. The Monitor reports:

All of this suggests that the administration is not prepared to dole out any tough love to the Iraqi government anytime soon, says Paul Eaton, a retired Army two-star general who most recently led the US command in Iraq that trained Iraqi forces. Mr. Eaton has been very critical of the administration, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the way in which President Bush has executed the war. He believes the US won't significantly withdraw forces until Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009.

"This undisciplined government cannot hope to provide discipline to another government and that is the basis of our problem," Eaton says. "They will not impose discipline."

12:51 PM ET | 05- 8-2007 | permalink | e-mail post