Monday, August 10, 2009
Over 40 Dead in Morning Bombings in Baghdad
Iraq woke up to a bloody Monday morning, with three major bombings that left more than 40 dead according to Middle East Online writing in Arabic. The biggest attack was on the village of Khazna north of Mosul, where two truck bombs killed 25 persons, wounded 70, and leveled 35 houses!
This attack was not just mindless violence. Khazna is inhabited by the Shabak, a Kurdish people with their own dialect and their own form of religion, a form of folk Shiism. An attack on Khazna at the present juncture suggests an attempt by the Sunni Arab guerrillas based in Mosul to ethnically cleanse Shiites in Ninevah Province, and possibly to begin the long-feared Arab-Kurdish civil war.
Likewise, the bombings in Baghdad of day laborers targeted Shiites in neighborhoods that had been mixed but from which the Sunni Arabs had been subjected to ethnic cleansing. These attacks, in short, were revenge by displaced Sunni Arab guerrillas for the loss of their neighborhoods to Shiites who had advanced west and north.
The bombings tell two different kinds of story. The one in Khazna near Mosul signals a low-intensity Sunni-Shiite and Arab-Kurdish struggle in Ninevah province, from which some Sunni Arabs would like to ethnically cleanse other groups. Minority Shiites in Ninevah form a support group for the influence in the north of the Shiite government of Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad. And expansionist Kurds want to annex Ninevah to the Kurdistan Regional Government, or at least the parts of it (like Khazna) that have a largely Kurdish population (about a quarter of the province). The Baghdad story is in contrast not about the future but about the past, about Sunni Arabs sulking over what they have lost.
The point is that there are AQ in larger numbers elsewhere and has been along, now particularly in the border of Pakistan yet I don't hear you advocating going there and invading it nor have I have ever you advocating it.
... We were not made any safer by the invasion ...
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
[1:TRUE] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
[2: TRUE] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
[3: FALSE] Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
[4: FALSE] Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
[5: FALSE] Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
[6: FALSE] Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
[7: TRUE] Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
[8: FALSE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
[9:TRUE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
[10:TRUE] Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
[11:TRUE] Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
[12: FALSE] Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
[13: FALSE] Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
[14: FALSE] Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
[15: FALSE] Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
[16:TRUE] Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
[17:TRUE] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
[18:TRUE] Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
[19: FALSE] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
[20:TRUE] Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
[21:TRUE] Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
[22:TRUE] Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,
[23:TRUE] Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.
ican, Those "whereas" are worthless, because the Bush gang lied to congress about WMDs. Without WMDs, there was never an "emergency" to start a war.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
...
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
...October 16, 2003...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
The situation has gotten so bad that in February, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, called "a steady, direct attack against the command and control in sanctuary areas in Pakistan" essential to preempt the expected Taliban spring offensive. Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced similar concerns last month, saying, "Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it."
Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq, is re-emerging in strength in three alternative safe havens for training, operational planning and recruiting " Pakistan, Somalia and Algeria " according to Western intelligence and defence sources.
The core al-Qaeda headquarters in the tribal areas of Pakistan pose the gravest threat to the United Kingdom. But in Somalia and in Algeria, where the so-called al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was set up in 2004 as a powerful bin Laden offshoot, the organisation is recruiting energetically and its leaders are beelieved to have aspirations to hit Western targets.
There has been increasing evidence of bin Laden’s network rebuilding in Pakistan. The main figures are now well entrenched in the tribal areas, and although American Predator and Reaper surveillance drones, armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs, remain in the region to eliminate al-Qaeda commanders, it seems the terrorist leaders can still communicate with each other.
The 38 countries with troops based in Afghanistan are fighting to prevent al-Qaeda ever again using the country as a safe haven, but the core al-Qaeda leaders have settled down in Pakistan and, from there, keep in contact with their main franchises in Somalia and Algeria. Two al-Qaeda leaders have been killed this year by Predator attacks, and another, Abu Ubaida al-Masri, head of external relations, died of natural causes. But one American estimate is that up to 2,000 militants, many of them foreigners, are in training compounds in Pakistan.
May 30, 2008
CHAIRMAN ROCKEFELLER DISPUTES DIRECTOR HAYDEN'S ASSERTION IN TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST THAT AL QA'IDA IS ON THE RUN
Washington, DC -- Today, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller, issued a concerned letter to CIA Director Hayden stating that his interpretation of al Qa’ida as on the defensive does not square with intelligence assessments. Rockefeller specifically asked Hayden to inform the committee immediately if intelligence assessments had changed. Rockefeller also expressed concern that Hayden’s comments could leave the public with a misleading impression that the threat from al Qa’ida has been diminished.
The text of the letter follows:
May 30, 2008
The Honorable Michael V. Hayden
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
Dear Director Hayden:
If today’s article describing an interview you gave to the Washington Post is accurate, I am surprised and troubled by your comments.
The positions attributed to you are not consistent with assessments that have been provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee over the past year. If the Intelligence Community’s assessment of al-Qa’ida has changed, I would expect the Committee to be made aware of these changes immediately. If the assessment has not changed, then I ask that you explain why you would portray the terrorist movement as “on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.” In fact, I have seen nothing, including classified intelligence reporting, that would lead me to this conclusion.
The most recent National Intelligence Estimate related to the terrorist threat to the United States was issued in July 2007. The declassified key judgments noted:
“Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), its operational lieutenants and its top leadership.”
During a February 5, 2008, open hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said:
“…al-Qa’ida remains the preeminent terror threat against the United States, both here at home and abroad. Despite our successes over the years, the group has retained or regenerated key elements of its capability, including its top leadership, operational lieutenants, and a de facto safe haven...in the Pakistani border area with Afghanistan known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA.
He noted further that:
“…al-Qa’ida’s central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is its most dangerous component. …al-Qa’ida’s central leadership in the past two years has been able to regenerate core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks on the Homeland.”
The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said at the same hearing:
“We believe that al-Qa’ida has expanded its support to the Afghan insurgency and presents an increased threat to Pakistan, while it continues to plan, support and direct transnational attacks. Al-Qa’ida has extended its operational reach through partnerships with compatible regional terrorist groups, including a continued effort to expand into Africa. Al-Qa’ida maintains its desire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Pakistani military operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas have had limited effect on al-Qa’ida.”
In April 2008, the State Department’s 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism noted:
“Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and associated networks remained the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners in 2007. It has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities through the exploitation of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), replacement of captured or killed operational lieutenants, and the restoration of some central control by its top leadership, in particular Ayman al-Zawahiri.
“…instability, coupled with the Islamabad brokered cease-fire agreement in effect for the first half of 2007 along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, appeared to have provided AQ leadership greater mobility and ability to conduct training and operational planning, particularly that targeting Western Europe and the United States. Numerous senior AQ operatives have been captured or killed, but AQ leaders continued to plot attacks and to cultivate stronger operational connections that radiated outward from Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe.
“Throughout 2007, AQ increased propaganda efforts seeking to inspire support in Muslim populations, undermine Western confidence, and enhance the perception of a powerful worldwide movement. Terrorists consider information operations a principal part of their effort. Use of the Internet for propaganda, recruiting, fundraising and, increasingly, training, has made the Internet a ‘virtual safe haven.’ International intervention in Iraq continued to be exploited by AQ as a rallying cry for radicalization and terrorist activity, as were other conflicts such as Afghanistan and Sudan. The international community has yet to muster a coordinated and effectively resourced program to counter extremist propaganda.”
Most recently, at his May 6, 2008, confirmation hearing to be the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, currently the Acting Director of the NCTC, said:
“…we have clearly not succeeded in stopping core al-Qa’ida plotting. We're better at disrupting it, but we have not disrupted the senior leadership that exists in the FATA, and we have also not stopped the organization from promulgating a message which has successfully gained them more recruits.”
Mr. Leiter also noted that al-Qa’ida’s safe haven in the FATA poses a “dire threat” to the United States and U.S. interests.
There is no doubt that our superb military has had success against al-Qa’ida in Iraq over the last year. It also is accurate that the government of Saudi Arabia has had success at disrupting plots internal to that country. Both of these efforts are important in the global battle against al-Qa’ida, but these were always regional battlegrounds and the recent improvements represent tactical, not strategic, successes. As all of the quotes above illustrate, the primary threat to the United States emanates from the ungoverned regions of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, not from Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Likewise, the deaths of three senior leaders that you mentioned, while important, are unlikely to have long term effect. Al-Qa’ida has been losing senior operatives on a regular basis for more than six years and there has been no shortage of replacements.
I also dispute your assertion that the Congress is more focused on tactics than on the threat. The Intelligence Committee’s primary focus has been on the threat to the United States. On February 5, 2008, the Committee held an open hearing to examine worldwide threats. You testified at that hearing along with Director McConnell and the heads of the other major analytic components of the Intelligence Community. On February 28, the Committee held a closed hearing on Afghanistan and Pakistan. On April 10, the Committee held another hearing examining the question of terrorist safehavens. The Committee has established a staff working group to look at terrorist ideology, the Intelligence Community’s efforts to understand it, and the government’s efforts to counter it.
The article suggests that your comments about Congress were intended as a criticism of efforts to end the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques on prisoners. If you view this effort as a focus on tactics, then you have failed to recognize that this program has done far more damage to our national security than any purported benefit it has provided.
Finally, this article includes, but simultaneously undercuts, what I believe is an important message " that we must avoid a return to complacency and the mindset that we are safe. The threat of terrorism driven by extremist ideology will be here for many years, perhaps even generations. If you agree and are worried about a lack of focus, why would you make statements to the press leaving the misimpression that al-Qa’ida is on the run?
To take the question a step further, why would you give such an interview to the press in the first place? At your confirmation hearing to be Director of the CIA you stated, “CIA needs to get out of the news as source and subject and focus on protecting the American people by acquiring secrets and providing high-quality all-source analysis.” How do this interview and this story further that goal?
I am intrigued, not only by the substance, but by the timing of this interview. I understand that comments sometimes get misinterpreted or taken out of context. I ask that you provide the Committee with a full explanation of both the rationale for, and the substance of, your interview with the Washington Post, and that you correct any inaccuracies or misimpressions from the article. I look forward to your reply.
So we have had successes in routing out terrorist in some places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia only for them to keep growing in others so the Iraq invasion had little success in making us any safer.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Over 40 Dead in Morning Bombings in Baghdad
