Sic Semper Tyrannis

Policy in Afghanistan

I have been asked to "put up or shut up" about Afghanistan. In other words, I have been asked to make clear my views on an appropriate US policy for Afghanistan.  I thought I had done that, but, no matter.

I think that we Americans need to stop exagerating the level of threat to the United States that originates or will originate in Afghanistan.  The temptation to see the activities and scheming of takfiri jihadis as parts of a world war between the Islamic "House of War" and the rest of us has caused us to begin to re-design our society(ies) for total war against an all powerful and virtually eternal enemy.  This is nonsense.  Islam, Islamdom, and Islamicate Civilization are much given, as are other such cultural constructs, to revivalism in a pattern that recurs over centuries as memory of the costs of each revival fades from the living collective mind.  The present phenomenon of Islamic zealotry is not something new.  It is something old come again.  This wave of revivalism has peaked and will decline under the pressure of local government and religious establishments, foreign military intervention and the competition presented by other forms of Islam, each with its claim to universal authenticity and its own circle of adherents. 

National Journal - 28 April 2009

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/04/teetering-pakistan.php#1325478

pl

Giraldi on Harman

"The real Harman story is about Israel intelligence operations directed against the United States which have brought about the systematic corruption of the America’s political system by a foreign power aided and abetted by friends strategically placed throughout the government and the media. Just imagine if Harman had obtained either senior intelligence position that she sought. She would have had access to every sort of top secret intelligence possessed by the US government and would have been in a good position to influence policy. From the Israeli perspective, she would have been their spy, a highly placed agent of influence who could also provide every bit of sensitive intelligence in the CIA cupboard. The apparent fact that she agreed to help an agent of a foreign government and was to be rewarded with advancement makes her something like Kim Philby, the British spy of the 1960s who progressed through his own system while secretly working for another country, Russia. Philby was a whole lot smarter, but the essential betrayal was the same. Those who argue that Israel is no Cold War Russia miss the point, as the national interests of the U.S. and Israel are far from identical, particularly after a series of right-wing governments in Tel Aviv has culminated in the current monstrosity of Netanyahu-Lieberman. "  Giraldi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This requires no comment from me.  pl

 

Iraq and Afghanistan Policy - 26 April 2009

Iraq:  Let's not "kid" ourselves, the Maliki government appears to be reverting to Shia sectarian "protectionism" as its basic policy.  Success in creating security and governmental "reach" in Iraq has been based on inclusion of Sunni Arab groups (tribes, parties, etc) in the country's polity.  The US did that and dragged the Maliki along behind it in the drection of that policy.  Did money play a part in that?  Of course it did.  Does anyone "here" live without money?  Well, neither can the Sunni Arabs in Iraq.  Now the Shia dominated government there is showing signs of seeking to "put down" the Sunni Arabs.  The predictable response has been for those Sunni Arabs to begin once again to support the Sunni extremist enemies of the Shia.  This phenomenon has little to do with the impending US troop withdrawal except that this future seems to have made the Maliki government feel free to "get on with" its true agenda.  This problem is something that can be dealt with if the US exerts itself and stops "kidding itself" about the nature of the Maliki government and the limits of national unity in Iraq.

Afghanistan:  The announced Obama policy set the goals as essentially negative actions intended to confound and disrupt America's enemies.  Covert action, limited SOF commando strikes, political support for our friends, some measure of basic infrastructure aid (roads, etc), these would be the kind of tools in such an effort.  In spite of the announcement of these reasonable goals and implied actions, there continues to be a constant drum beat of talk, leaks, panel discussions in which people both within and without the administration insist that the real policy is a full blown COIN campaign in which the United States will commit itself to an effort to create a socety in Afghanistan so attractive that rural Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc. will support a unifying national government against Islamic zealots who do not believe in the legitmiacy of national governments at all.  Such an effort would be hugely expensive and would last for decades.  Well, which is it, Obama Administration, which is it?  These two visions of the future are not comptible.  pl

"Who Serves in the US Military?" Heritage Foundation

"Who serves in the active-duty ranks of the U.S. all-volunteer military? Conventional wisdom holds that military service disproportionately attracts minorities and men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many believe that troops enlist because they have few options, not because they want to serve their country. Others believe that the war in Iraq has forced the military to lower its recruiting standards.

Previous Heritage Foundation studies that examined the backgrounds of enlisted personnel refute this interpretation.  This report expands on those studies by using an improved methodology to study the demographic characteristics of newly commissioned officers and personnel who enlisted in 2006 and 2007."  Heritage

------------------------------------------------------------------

I was at a conference at NYU yesterday.  This was at the "Center on Lawand Security" in the law school.  This paper was presented by one of the authors.  I thought it was so interesting as a corrective that I would recommend it to you. I have included a site for Vietnam era statistics as a comparison.  pl

http://vietnamresearch.com/history/stats.html

 

"The Gamble House" on TA

I would encourage you all to visit Maureen's post on "The Athenaeum."  pl

Nuremberg and American Exceptionalism

The egregious Chris Matthews is a real "tough guy" in interviewing "guests" until they begin to compare American actions to those of various unclean regimes in recent history.  His childlike belief in the uniqueness of the United States and its status as the "city on the hill" causes him to break out in a skin rash at the thought that we might have done some really base things in "moments" of unguarded and banal ordinariness.

He is not alone in this reaction.  Recently one Jeffrey Smith, General Counsel of the CIA in the Clinton era defended career CIA "officers" on the Newshour on the basis that they were following orders and defending the national interest and therefore should be held blameless for anything they did under orders (waterboarding, walling, nakeding, hosing down with fire hoses, etc.)  There have been various repetitions of this basic message in the media recently. 

I don't have a quarrel with the Obamanian decision to avoid prosecuting people from the Bush Administration for war crimes connected with Iraq.  I understand the evident decision.  Politically, such prosecutions would sharply divide the country and probably hurt the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections in 2010 or the genral in 2012.  More importantly, a precedent of prosecution of members of a previous administration is likely to lead to retaliation on an unending basis.  I understand the decision but I don't like it.

"I was ordered to..." has been a a discredited and unacceptable basis for a defense in war crimes trial since the trials of the Nazis at Nuremberg.  "Things were tough..." is an equally discredited defense.

What are we saying?  Is it our position that international law applies to eveyone but us and that it does not apply to us because we are "special?"

Are we that childish?   pl

Harper on the Harman/AIPAC affair.

Before commenting on the significance of the Harmon affair, I want to just spell out some relevant dates, to situate the actions of AIPAC, Harmon, etc. I think it is pretty clear that the NSA intercept occurred in late 2005. Here is a brief timeline.

May 26, 2005, Larry Franklin is indicted for passing classified material to Israeli agents.

August 4, 2005, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, both AIPAC employees, are indicted as part of the Franklin spy operation.

December 16, 2005, James Risen's story on the Bush Administration's warrantless-wiretaps appears in the New York Times.

January 20, 2006, Larry Franklin is sentenced to 12 years in prison, as part of a plea agreement, under which he promises to fully cooperate with Federal prosecutors on any investigation in which he may have material evidence.

According to Jeff Stein's CQ initial story of April 19, 2009, AG Gonzales intervened to quash the probe of Harmon, in return for her sounding off in defense of the Administration, when the Risen article came out. Clearly, Risen and his New York Times fact-checkers were calling into the Administration prior to publication, so the White House and AG Office knew it was coming.

So my guess is that the 2005 or 2006 conflicting reports on when the NSA wiretap of Rep. Harmon occurred is somewhat settled. It was most likely some time in late 2005, prior to the publication of the Risen story.

Now, for the meat of the matter. Israel was desperate to get its hands on Pentagon reports on U.S. posture towards Iran and Iran's nuclear weapons program, asymmetric operations in Iraq, etc. They wanted hard copy of a specific document, and the AIPAC boys went to Franklin to get it. Those facts are pretty clearly spelled out in the Franklin and Rosen/Weissman indictments. So this is not such a gray area case of simply getting verbal intelligence over lunch. This was cold, hard espionage.

Robert Willman on Harman/AIPAC

There was a discussion on CNN this morning in which the network's legal adviser, Jeffrey Toobin, answered questions about the Harman/AIPAC affair.  He was extremely dismissive and clearly inclined to change the subject as soon as possible.  In that context I think it is worthwhile to post as a feature this comment by Robert Willman.  pl

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"There is a high stakes game of "chicken" going on.

The Congressional Quarterly (CQ) article that kicked this off and the resulting activity on the wonderful Internet has caused the establishment media to respond.

The Washington Post article now dated April 22, 2009 is obviously by its content designed to help Congresswoman Jane Harman and AIPAC. Yet, it contains some curious assertions--

"Harman came to the attention of the FBI when she was heard conversing with someone whom the FBI was wiretapping under a law permitting domestic surveillance of suspected foreign intelligence agents, according to the sources with knowledge of the wiretaps. In that conversation, her supporter, who was the target of the wiretap, allegedly discussed speaking to Pelosi about additional contributions to Democrats if Harman were appointed committee chairman, the sources said."

The Washington Post says it was an FBI wiretap in 2006 targeting a "supporter" of Harman, and that the "supporter" discussed speaking to [Nancy] Pelosi about "additional contributions" to Democrats if Harman were appointed. Without saying so, the article seems to refer to an FBI wiretap pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The New York Times article referenced in the initial posting above says it was a National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap, and that she was "inadvertently" swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations "during an investigation ...."

If it was a court-ordered wiretap, it could have been obtained by the FBI and the technical collection was done by the NSA. But were both Harman and the person she was talking to in the U.S.? Was it a domestic phone call?

The original CQ article of April 19, 2009 claims it was a "court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington" that revealed the conversation with Harman, and her phone mate was a "suspected Israeli agent" whose identity "could not be determined with certainty". The Justice Department was going to open a case on Harman, and then-CIA director Porter Goss signed off on a FISA application to do electronic surveillance of her.

CQ does not say when the Harman intercept was done, but seems to say it was in 2005, as the article claims that Harman in December 2005 defended the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program as desired by former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, who CQ asserts intervened to block the proposed investigation of Harman. Remember that the Washington Post puts the Harman wiretap in 2006.

The NY Times story says that it is "not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred". And refers to the other person on the phone only as "someone", and not a "suspected Israeli agent" (CQ) or "supporter" of Harman (Wash. Post).

The tough thing for Harman is that all three articles agree that she appeared to agree to help Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC in exchange for help getting the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

The NY Times and Washington Post attempt to help Harman's image with the public by trying to create the impression that she did not actually intervene in the prosecution on behalf of Rosen, Weissman, and AIPAC.

What those two newspapers do not tell you is that in federal conspiracy law, the agreement to commit an offense is the crime, and it does not matter if the offense that is the object of the conspiracy ever happens.

Another intriguing thing: as we talk about one phone call, Congresswoman Harman appears to be in more than one recording. NY Times: "... was overheard on telephone calls ..." (plural). Washington Post: "... in wiretapping her conversations ..." (plural), and "Transcripts of the FBI wiretaps ..." (plural).

Were all these conversations with the same "someone", the same "supporter", and/or the same "suspected Israeli agent"?"  Robert Willman

Harman/AIPAC Part 2

"The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, (AIPAC) a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post."  NY Times

----------------------------------------------------------

Well, god bless the NY Times.  I guess they remember the era of Judy Miller and Michael Gordon after all.

"someone?"  This NY Times story makes it clear that the NY Times believes that Haim Saban was not the caller with whom Representative Harman discussed a scheme to threaten the House Minority Leader with a withholding of campaign donations if Pelosi did not appoint Harman to the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  The Times states that Saban was merely the chosen instrument that the caller (someone) would launch at Pelosi to insure the desired appointment to this extremely sensitive US national security position.

Saban, himself is interesting as a person thought by (someone) to be available for such an errand.  An Israeli/American, he is prominent in Hollywood film production circles and has lots of money.  If I am not mistaken he is the benefactor of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.  The Saban Center employs, if memory serves me, both Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack as scholars.

The question remains - Who was "someone?"  It sounds to me as thought there is a good chance that "someone" was an official at the Israeli embassy in Washington.  Could he have been one of the officials at the embassy who left the United States when faced with FBI investigative pressure over the case of the AIPAC men and Larry Franklin?  One of those Israelis is now back in government as Natanyahu's national security adviser.  Alternatively, was "someone" connected with AIPAC?

If "someone" was a foreign diplomat, then the notion of a conversation like the one discussed is significant.  pl