The Second Opinion

A captured letter from Zawahiri

Perhaps taking a leaf from the lefties in the US, al-Qaeda's number two man, Zawahiri, has compared Iraq to Vietnam and is hoping that we will "run" and abandon Iraq just as we ran and abandoned South Vietnam thirty years ago.  Our troops in Iraq captured a letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, which has been translated into English and made available to the public by the US government.  It reads in part:

Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them.

We know from previous statements of bin Laden that he judged the United States as a paper tiger because we ran from Somalia.  To my mind, the Zawahiri letter is is further evidence - if there need be any - of the importance of staying the course in Iraq.  What's a stake if we pull out and al-Qaeda takes over?

It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt.

The war isn't about oil, or Halliburton, or Bush making some macho grandstand.  It isn't even about Saddam any more.  The terrorists want to remake the world in their image, and the Middle East is their front line.  Happily, things aren't going very well for them.  Zawahiri speaks of the capture of an al Qaeda operative, Abu al-Faraj, though he says that the damage from this to the rest of al Qaeda was limited.  The Pakastani army is apparently causing serious problems for al Qaeda.  He also gently chides Zarqawi for the bloody slaughter of hostages in Iraq:

Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.

Zawahiri also asks about any problems due to non-Iraqis leading the terrorists in Iraq:

I would like you to explain for us another issue related to Iraq, and I think without a doubt that you are the most knowledgeable about it. Can the assumption of leadership for the mujahedeen or a group of the mujahedeen by non-Iraqis stir up sensitivity for some people? And if there is sensitivity, what is its effect? And how can it be eliminated while preserving the commitment of the jihadist work and without exposing it to any shocks? Please inform us in detail regarding this matter.

The letter is very lengthy and discusses many more topics than only these, especially the Shia in Iraq.

In all, I find the letter frightening, but also satisfying to a certain degree.  It isn't often in war that one gets such a detailed self-appraisal by an enemy commander, and Zawahiri certainly sounds as if things aren't going quite as well as he'd like.  He also seems to handle Zarqawi with kid gloves, as though he's afraid to take him to task.  Perhaps he fears that Zarqawi will bolt from al Qaeda?  Who knows?

I recommend this letter to anybody interested in how the war is going.

A missile launch? (pt II)

(pt I)

Michelle Malkin has an anonymous tip from an FAA official that the 'irregularity' reported by America West flight 17 was a flock of birds.

Shades of the Cold War!

A missile launch?

Michelle Malkin reports that a story is circulating that a missile was fired at America West Flight 17 from JFK on Sept 15.  She called Phil Gee, Associate Manager of Media Relations for America West, who told her that the captain reported an 'irregularity' to air traffic control.  Nothing is confirmed yet, but the FBI interviewed the passengers and crew on the plane when it landed safely in Phoenix.

At this point, we don't know if the story is true.  Who saw the 'irregularity'?  What, exactly, did they see?  Did anybody on the ground see anything?

We've been worried about missile-armed terrorists lurking around our airports for some time (here's a 2003 article by Rich Lowry on the subject).  Indeed, a British businessman was convicted just a week ago of trying to sell such missiles to an FBI informant in New Jersey.  Whether or not a shoulder-fired missile like a Stinger or SA-16 could shoot down a jumbo jet is a subject for debate, but what I think ISN'T a subject for debate is the effect such an attack would have on our already tottering commercial airline industry.  Who wants to fly in what is essentially a big clay pidgeon?  Next time, take the train...

Defending against such a threat is possible.  We can equip commercial jets with missile warning sensors and countermeasures such as flare launchers.  The Navy is working on an even better system called TAD-IRCM which uses a laser to burn out the infrared seeker of shoulder-fired missiles (SUH-WEET!).  Obviously, however, we don't even want to allow terrorists to get their hands on missiles, and we certainly don't want to allow terrorists to infiltrate the United States.  While much has been done to improve our security since 9-11, much remains to be done.  Unfortunately, political will seems lacking.  If somebody DID shoot a missile at Flight 17, it should serve as a wake-up call to Washington and every American that we need to redouble our efforts to protect us from terrorism.

Flight 93 Memorial

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

A design for a memorial for the passengers and crew of Flight 93 that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on 9-11 has been finalized.

It actually appears to be a memorial for the terrorists.  And aerial view of the memorial clearly shows that its central feature is a red crescent, symbol of Islam.  Its designer, Paul Murdoch, calls it the "Crescent of Embrace".  The design also features a minaret such as those found atop mosques (this map has been overlayed with the crescent from the Tunisian flag; hat tip Zombie). 

Even better: it appears that the crescent is oriented toward Mecca (hat tip: Etaoin Shrdlu).

According to Paula Reed Ward of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

But the architects who created the winning design say their design has nothing to do with Islam.

"A crescent is part of architectural vocabulary. It's a generic form used in design," said Paul Murdoch, one of the winning architects. "We don't see any one group having ownership of it."

How stupid does he think we are?

I can see no other explanation for this design other than a deliberate and malicious insult to the memory of the brave passengers and crew on the aircraft.  They fought back against the terrorists and unquestionably prevented a fourth crash, possibly into the White House or the Capitol building.  They are going to be memorialized with an Islamic crescent???

Can you imagine the outcry if the memorial had been in the shape of a Cross or a Star of David?

Unbelieveable.

NYgirl also has some good commentary on this issue.

Meantime, here are a few memorials that suggest a more appropriate design:

The Memorial at the Soldier's Cemetary, Gettysburg

The Pennsylvania State Memorial, Gettysburg

The Memorial Amphitheatre, Arlington

Spanish-American War Memorial, Arlington

The USS Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbor

Monumento a los Heroes Ninos, Mexico City

The Cenotaph, London

Never forget.

(hat tip: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

The Lesson of Tokyo Bay

This op-ed appeared in today's New York Post:

Sixty years ago today, Gen. Douglas MacArthur accepted Japan's surrender on the quarterdeck of USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

World War II was over.

As America marks this anniversary, it again finds itself engaged in a conflict not of its asking, but nonetheless of crucial importance to its peace and security.

"Once again war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood. Once again, we face determined enemies who follow a ruthless ideology that despises everything America stands for," President Bush said on Tuesday. "And once again, we will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure."

The history books are filled to overflowing with debate on whether World War II was properly fought — strategically and tactically — but today there is no doubt whatsoever that it had to be fought.

Unfortunately, while the long-term Islamofascist threat to America is no less deadly than that posed by Axis expansionism, there is no national consensus on the need to win this time, too.

Part of the cause is the media.

If, for example, America's blundering North Africa campaign — a traumatic learning experience for U.S. arms — had been covered with the same gleeful malevolence that marks much of today's Iraq coverage, the country would have had no stomach for D-Day or for the blood-drenched Central Pacific campaign that defeated Japan.(1)

And another part is the simple fact that terrorism — even state-sponsored terrorism — is fundamentally different than conventional warfare. Sometimes it's hard to identify the bad guys.

But, six decades ago, Americans of all political persuasions stood behind their troops and their policymakers. Today, malcontents bent on scoring political points attack not only the president, but work actively to undermine those doing the fighting.

Luckily, America has a president who understands, as he put it Tuesday, that "the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the spirit of liberty." It is that spirit, taking hold in Iraq — where elections have been held and a constitution is being hashed out — that will ultimately bring freedom to that tortured nation.

Even then, for America anyway, the war won't be over. There perhaps will never be a V-T — Victory over Terrorism — Day.

That doesn't make the war itself optional.

(1) Historical note by docjim505: Anybody who has seen the movie "Patton" will recall the opening scene where General Omar Bradley (Karl Malden) and his staff view the battlefield at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia.  The series of battles fought in that area from January 30 - February 25, 1943 was the first major engagement between the US Army and the German army.  According to Army historian Martin Blumenthal in America's First Battles, 1776 - 1965, pg 261:

About 30,000 Americans engaged in the Kasserine fighting under II Corps, and probably 300 were killed, almost 3,000 wounded, nearly 3,000 missing . It would take 7,000 replacements to bring the units to authorized strengths . The 34th Division under the French XIX Corps at Sbiba sustained approximately 50 men killed, 200 wounded, and 250 missing . II Corps lost 183 tanks, 104 half-tracks, 208 artillery pieces, and 512 trucks and jeeps, plus large amounts of supplies-more than the combined stocks in American depots in Algeria and Morocco . The series of operations known as the Battle of Kasserine Pass - from the start at Faid through Sidi bou Zid and Sbeitla to the final act at the Kasserine defile - was a disaster for the U .S . Army.

Progress in Iraq

(hat tip: The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

As more Iraqi forces become better trained, they are becoming increasingly able to take over security duties from US and coalition troops even in a high-risk area like the Diyala Valley, which borders the Sunni Triangle in central Iraq.  According to the Christian Science Monitor's Neil MacDonald:

In the fertile "bread basket" of central Iraq's Diyala valley, roadside-bomb attacks have nearly stopped.

This ethnically complex patchwork of towns, villages, fields, and orchards, which US commanders call a "little Iraq," has seen its share of insurgent activity since 2003. But nowadays, the local Sunni Arabs appear inclined to climb aboard the US-backed political process, rather than trying to derail it through violence.

The relative peace in the breadbasket is the result of a carefully managed transition from US to Iraqi security responsibility, US and Iraqi commanders say.

...

US troops recently closed down one of their forward operating bases near here, "since the area was so calm," Lt. Col. Roger Cloutier, a US battalion commander, says.

Well, well, well...

The article goes on to note that there are problems with the Iraqi army: corruption in their Ministry of Defense, antiquated Soviet-era vehicles, and a chain of command that is 'top-heavy' even by US standards.  The success of the 2/2 Battalion in Diyala is not being replicated all over the country, and the Iraqis still rely heavily on US support for planning, logistics, and heavy firepower if the going gets really tough.

However, this is another very hopeful sign that Iraq is moving in the right direction.  As the 2/2 proves that it can handle security in Diyala, it will provide impetus for more Iraqi units to follow in their footsteps.

CIA Inspector General's Report: The CIA dropped the ball on 9-11

(hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

Yesterday, I wrote about the LA Time's hack job on Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair.  One of the paranoid ramblings contentions of the article was that Dick Cheney and a number of his staff didn't trust the CIA when it came to intelligence matters.  How unfair!

Well, the CIA's own Inspector General, John Helgerson, has finished his own investigation into the CIA's performance before 9-11, and has possible DISCPLINARY ACTION against CIA analysts and other officials for their abysmal failure to deal with al Qaeda prior to 9-11.  According to the AP's Katherine Schrader:

Following a two-year review into what went wrong before the suicide hijackings, people familiar with the report say Helgerson harshly criticizes a number of the agency's most senior officials. Among them are former CIA Director George Tenet, former clandestine service chief Jim Pavitt and former counterterrorism center head Cofer Black. The former officials are likely candidates for proceedings before an accountability board.

The [disciplinary] boards could take a number of actions, including letters of reprimand or dismissal. They could also clear them of wrongdoing.

The problem is that the CIA's morale is not exactly sky-high these days.  The Agency came in for a lot of criticism during both the blue-ribbon 9-11 Commission hearings and the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iraq report.  It's never easy to go after former big-shots like George Tenent, because they are political appointees and attempting to discipline them can quickly become a political cat fight.  Not only is it thus unfair to discipline the lower-level CIA employees, but that also raises problems of its own:

Despite public outcries for accountability, many in the intelligence community believe [CIA Director] Goss would be loath to try to discipline popular former senior officials and cause unrest within the agency.

He may not want to go after less senior people still in the CIA's employ. Intelligence veterans say these CIA employees are the government's mostly highly trained in counterterrorism and before the Sept. 11 attacks, devoted their time to trying to stop al-Qaida. The hearings would force them to defend their careers rather than working against extremist groups.

I must say that it's also hard to criticize anybody for honest mistakes, no matter how terrible the consequences.  Was the CIA lax and even stupid in dealing with the issue of terrorism?  Unquestionably.  Should the CIA have done more before 9-11 to get bin Laden and al Qaeda?  Certainly, but that raises the questions of 'what' and 'how'?  In a post-9-11 world, it's easy to say that we should have bent every effort to kill bin Laden and broken up al Qaeda.  Before 9-11, however, it would have been difficult to summon the political will to do so, and even more difficult to have withstood the firestorm of criticism that would have followed.  Imagine headlines like these:

CIA Assassinates Former Mujahadeen Leader

Afghan Government Accuses US of Plotting Coup Attempt

ACLU Files Lawsuit to Stop CIA Spying on Immigrants

Privacy Groups Demand End to CIA / FBI Domestic Intelligence Operations

Even after 9-11, we've seen a great deal of debate on how best to combat terrorism.  Can you imagine what it would have been like in 1998?

I hope that the CIA takes the report to heart and undertakes an internal program to correct the problems that plagued the Agency before 9-11.  However, Congress and the American people also ought to take heed and give this issue a good deal of consideration: what do we want the CIA to do to stop terrorism?  How far should it go?  And what will we do when / if they foul up?

Captain Ziegenfuss

Captain Charles 'Chuck' Ziegenfuss, USA (Armor) was badly injured in June by an IED in Iraq.

He walked out of Walter Reed today.

Where do we get such men?

British cops shot the wrong man (pt II)

A few weeks ago, British cops in London shot to death a man they suspected of being a terrorist bomber.

Turns out he wasn't a terrorist.

Now it apparenly turns out that he wasn't wearing a heavy coat, he wasn't carrying a bag, he bore no resemblence to known terrorists, he didn't jump the barricades, he didn't run from the police (he DID run... to catch the train).  According to the London Times' Daniel McGrory and Stuart Tendler:

CONTRADICTIONS

Police: de Menezes wearing suspicious clothing

Evidence to inquiry: Wearing only thin denim jacket

Police: Acting suspiciously on way to Stockwell station

Evidence to inquiry: Nothing odd in his behaviour

Police: Challenged at station and refused to obey instructions

Evidence: Challenged for first time while seated on train

Police: de Menezes vaulted ticket barrier to escape

Evidence: Did not vault. Ran only to catch train

Police: Eight shots fired into him

Evidence: Eleven shots fired, three missed

Wow.

It's hard to believe that the London police could foul up so badly.  I hope that there is more to this story, or that the Times has gotten it wrong.

But I - along with many other bloggers - thought that the police did the right thing at the time.  If what the Times reports now is accurate, they really blew it.

And so did I.