Middle East

Less than two weeks after Pervez Musharraf resigned as the president of Pakistan, there’s a rift within the Parliament. The Pakistan Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif withdrew its support from the coalition government led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), formerly led by the murdered Benazir Bhutto. Sharif broke with the PPP after the ruling party refused to reinstate the judges dismissed by Musharraf after imposing martial law last year. It seems the PPP’s new leader and presidential hopeful, Asif Ali Zardari, is afraid the judges might overturn an amnesty granted by Musharraf that cleared him of corruption charges.

(The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Negotiators for the U.S. and Iraq have finally come to an agreement on the disposition of American forces in Iraq. The new security deal will require U.S. forces to leave Iraq cities and towns by next summer as a prelude to a complete withdrawal by 2011. In the meantime, the U.S. troops will reside in bases outside the populated areas it vacated. President Bush is expected to accept the agreement, but it still needs to pass through several layers of Iraqi bureaucracy , so who knows?

Although, I don’t think Bush is really too happy with the concessions he’s had to make, I’m looking forward to a U.S. drawdown. However, I would have liked to see a SOFA agreement and the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq, a goal I think the President was shooting for, too. Still, Iraq is a a sovereign state and can (and should) manage its own affairs. If they want us to leave, we should. I’m interested to see what happens in the areas we vacate. As we exit and larger areas are left to Iraqi control, will we see the terrorists move back in? Will we see Iran attempt to achieve control by fueling a new insurgency?

If things get tough for Iraq after America leaves, who are they gonna call for help?

An interesting group decision support system is currently evolving to help fight the global war on terror (GWOT). A National Virtual Translation Center connects linguists embedded with troops on the front line with networked translation assistance technologies. Currently this is accomplished with thousands of linguists pouring over the actual documents and audio clips brought from the front in an effort to extrapolate useful information. The new technology will digitize, parse and digest raw intelligence material, to facilitate the analyzing of material, instead of simply translating it.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Arab’s in the Middle East prefer Barack Obama become the next president. Commenting on the senator’s recent visit to Amman, Jordan-based political analyst, Radna Habib, said,

“The Arab Street definitely prefers the Democrat to become the next American president.”

Why?

Because they see Obama as more sympathetic to their causes, the primary being the elimination of Israel. After his visit, Obama commented that with him as the next president…

“people were more optimistic about our ability to solve [the Arab-Israeli] problem and how important it is to addressing broader problems in the region.”

That’s because the Arabs see Obama pressing Israel to make concessions to force peace. Concessions that if beneficial to the Arab nations, certainly won’t be in the Jews best interest.

And I think that’s exactly what Obama would do!

(Remember that)

It can be said that the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. So, once again, let’s review the short-list of Obama endorsers:

• Middle East Arabs
• Kim Jong-Il
• Castro
• Hamas
• Hugo Chavez
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• The New Black Panthers
• Louis Farrakhan

If Barack Obama is the right candidate for our enemies, he can’t be the right candidate for America!

Despite an American diplomatic presence for the first time in 30 years, Iran would not yield any ground in its uranium enrichment program.

(this is a surprise?)

So, what does the EU (+1 American) delegation do? Why, give the Iranians more time to reconsider, of course. This was not an ultimatum, mind you, because the delegation did not threaten more sanctions or military action should Iran fail to capitulate.

The U.S. response to Iran’s lack of cooperation hinted at more sanctions. Per State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack:

“We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation [i.e. more sanctions].”

It appears the only ultimatum presented at the meeting came from the man who we thought was only there to listen. When it was his turn to speak, Undersecretary of State, William Burns, delivered a simple message to his Iranian counterpart:

“Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States.”

Of course, by participating in this meeting the U.S. is negotiating with Iran and Burns statement would be considered a direct one-on-one negotiation. An action the U.S. said it would not undertake.

The Iranian response was definitive (and predictable). According to Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation,

“Suspension–there is no chance for that.”

This should come a surprise to no one. This is the first face-to-face meeting between Iran and the U.S. government since the Shah was in power. Had Iran given in to the demands of the delegation it would appear to be due to the American presence and they would lose tremendous face. The result of their rebuff?

Advantage: Iran.

The U.S. is sending Undersecretary of State, William Burns, a senior diplomat, as part of a European Union delegation meeting with Iran’s top nuclear official, Saeed Jalili. The topic of discussion? An incentive package for Iran to persuade them to stop their uranium enrichment program.

State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack, says Burns will listen to what Iran has to say, but will not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. He will also ensure that Iran understands that the U.S. will not engage in direct talks with Iran until it suspends its enrichment program.

(really?)

How do you suppose he’s going to hammer home this message while not engaging in a one-on-one discussion? Maybe he’s going to pass a note through one of the other delegation members?

I don’t care what you do or don’t say Undersecretary, what you’re telling Iran is that if you hold out long enough, the U.S. will give in.

Nice work Mr. President.

With insurgent violence increasing in Afghanistan, the Bush administration’s top military official made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed Pakistani leaders to crack down on the Islamic militants moving freely about the country’s tribal areas. These militants are crossing unimpeded into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist attacks and destabilizing both countries. Mullen said,

“That border is more porous than it was a year ago.” [and] “It’s very important that action be taken to respond to that.”

Admiral Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials are placing the blame for these attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistani government.

(and rightfully so!)

Of course Pakistani officials rebuffed these assertions. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claims that,

“We are pursuing a policy of political engagement, but that does not mean that we will capitulate in front of terrorists.” [and that it was an] “exaggeration to just pass the buck to Pakistan.”

Mr. Foreign Minister, a “policy of political engagement” is just another way of saying you’re trying to solve this problem through diplomacy. Considering your efforts have resulted in increasing terrorist activity, the militants aren’t listening. Obviously, the terrorists aren’t concerned about the consequences of continued activity because your words don’t carry any bite. I’m afraid that your “policy of political engagement” has failed and is tantamount to capitulation in front of these terrorists.

(are you listening Obama?)

As Obama spins a new tale of troop support and safe withdrawal (or not) from Iraq, the senator’s own words are coming back to haunt him (h/t: Hot Air)

MORE: Redstate

Iraq’s National Security Advisor, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, says that any security deal with the U.S. must contain a specific timetable for troop withdrawal.

Fine.

I don’t have a problem with leaving Iraq after the job is done. But to post a departure schedule is beyond ridiculous. The Iraqi’s position calls for all U.S. led forces to leave once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility for all 18 of the country’s provinces. So far, Iraq has assumed primary responsibility for security in 9 of the 18 provinces.

So, essentially Iraq is asking us to say,

“Hey, al-Qaida! We’ll be out of Iraq just as soon as we turn over this last province. Just lay low for a while and things will soon be back to normal. In fact, if you’re quiet, we’ll probably finish the job faster!”

You know, Japan has the second largest GDP, China is #4 and South Korea is #12. A large portion of the world’s economic exchange takes place within this relatively small portion of the world. And in the middle of it all is North Korea, a failed economy. North Korea, whose stated objective is the reunification of the Korean peninsula. Imagine what this would do to the region and the world’s economy. What’s preventing North Korea from moving on its southern neighbor? The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, who have maintained stability in the region for almost 60 years.

Perhaps that’s just what the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern governments are afraid of.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. According to the courts decision, the detainees could not be denied the constitutional right of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating,

“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”

The court’s dissenting opinion was provided by Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote that

“America is at war with radical Islamists” and that “the nation will live to regret what the court has done today”.

Although both John McCain and Barack Obama have vowed to close Gitmo, McCain indicated that he was not happy about the court’s decision. Agreeing with the dissenting judges, McCain considers the detainees to be unlawful combatants and not American citizens.

He’s right.

We’re engaged in a war that is unprecedented in the history of our nation. We’re not fighting a tangible enemy, but rather an idea: terrorism. I wrote about this on the day Saddam Hussein was hanged. This is the result of a prolonged war with limited objectives. Clausewitz said,

“Never engage the same enemy for too long, or he will adapt to your tactics.”

We see that here. We’ve given the enemy the opportunity to use our own legal system against us. They’ve seen that this is one area that we’re vulnerable and are slowly taking the high ground. Soon we will lose this war, unless we can orchestrate a decisive victory. Our problem lies in just exactly what is our definition of “victory”

MORE: Hot Air

The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is withholding information relating to its nuclear program. The report actually accuses the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation based on, among other things, their refusal to answer allegations that their nuclear program may be intended for military use, rather than the generation of energy.

According to Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians have “ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design.” Not the normal activities one would associate with a peaceful energy program. The IAEA has presented this evidence to the Iranians and asked for an explanation.

The Iranians, always the honest brokers, dismissed the evidence as “forged” or “fabricated,” claiming their experiments were peaceful in nature and have nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program. Of course, Iran refused to provide any documented proof to support their claims and denied the agency access to its scientists.

This is the stance for a government with nothing to hide?

In a comical response to President Bush’s (Barack-attack) comment “…some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists…” Barack Obama in pure Kerry “I was for the war before I was against it” flip-flopping style said, “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.” Referring to the President’s comment as a “false political attack,” Obama did what comes naturally…he lied!

(say it isn’t so!)

In a piece entitled, “Renewing American Leadership”, Mr. Obama wrote,

“Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy…could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria…we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.” (emphasis mine)

So, Mr. Obama, how exactly does one “not hesitate to talk directly with Iran” without negotiating with terrorists?

Conrressman Allen Boyd (D-FL) recently introduced legislation that would require Iraq to use its ($60 billion) budget surplus and oil revenue stream to help pay its security and reconstruction costs. The Iraq Shared Investment Act would consider the U.S. funding of Iraq’s reconstruction and security a loan to be repaid to the American taxpayer; currently this funding is considered a grant (to the tune of over $500 billion).

The bill also provides for a change to the Commander’s Emergency Response Program used for mutually agreed upon reconstruction projects. This change would essentially establish a trust fund, a pool of money to be used for these reconstruction projects and the Iraqis would be required to contribute 20 percent of a project’s cost. If the Iraqis fail to contribute the cash, the money the U.S. contributed would then be used to pay down the national debt. The U.S. currently puts $1 billion to $2 billion into the fund annually. With the change: No Iraqi contribution, no project!

According to Congressman Boyd,

“This legislation is not about punishment; it’s about responsibility. It is time for the Iraqi government to invest in its own future and have a greater financial role in their country’s security and reconstruction efforts,” … “With an expected budget surplus this year of $12 billion and an estimated $56 billion from oil revenues alone, the Iraqi government has the means to step up and pay for some of its security and reconstruction costs, and now, Iraq must show that it also has the will to take control of its own country by shouldering more of these costs.”

I could not agree more! Congressman Boyd is using his position on the Defense Subcommittee to insert his legislation into the $102 billion emergency supplemental funding bill currently under development in the House.

It’s about time someone in Congress (and a democrat no less!) takes a responsible approach to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. This legislation will allow the Iraqi government to assume a joint responsibility for the cost of reconstruction and security without taking anything away from our troops. It also allows the Iraqi government to become more self-reliant by making them less financially dependent on Uncle Sam!

Mealy-mouthed ex-president Jimmy Carter claims that no one in the U.S. government told him not to travel to the Middle East. However, he did acknowledge that Assistant Secretary of State, David Welch, told him the trip was not advisable. That sounds to me like the U.S. government urging him not to go, doncha think? After all, how does one “tell” a former POTUS not to do something? I would think the ex-president would respect and heed the advice of the current administration.

(not so…obviously!)

Anyway, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, left no doubt as to the administration’s actions and intent in this matter:

“I just don’t want there to be any confusion”…”The United States is not going to deal with Hamas, and we certainly told President Carter that meeting with Hamas was not going to help.”

In fact, WaPo reports that Secretary Rice went out of her way to issue an on-the-record statement saying,

“we counseled President Carter against” the trip. “We wanted to make sure there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that he was somehow a party to peace negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinian government.

So, nobody told you not to go, Mr. ex-president? Gimmieabreak!

Why should anyone have to tell you? Hasn’t it always been U.S. policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and hasn’t the U.S. made it quite clear that until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and calls an end to violence, there will be no negotiations? How hard is that for an ex-president to understand?

Maybe you’re just trying to relive those old glory days of Begin-Sadat. Maybe you’re trying to legitimize the politicized peace prize you won in 2002.

Maybe you’re just a meddler!

Former President Jimmy Carter on a one-man crusade to achieve peace in the Middle East has brokered a one-sided, one-piece agreement. Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem, Carter explained,

“Hamas leaders said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 border and the right of Israel to live as a neighbor, provided the agreement was submitted to the Palestinian people for overall approval.”

Of course, Hamas later said it might not accept the results of a peace referendum.

(Big surprise!)

Still, it probably wasn’t necessary for Hamas to hedge their bet since the number of Palestinian people who support attacks against the Israelis is on the rise. In fact, more than half of them support suicide bombings and consider them a form of “resistance”!

So, nice work, Mr. ex-president! Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and regularly fires rockets into the country, killing and maiming innocents. Thanks for giving these terrorists a seat at the bargaining table. Thanks for giving their unrecognized terrorist government an undeserved legitimacy. Finally, thanks for alienating our ally in the region, Israel.

In other words, Mr. ex-president, thanks for nothing!

MORE:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air explains how Carter was twice punked by Hamas on his dream trip of peace in the Middle East!

In an unsurprising move, President Bush decided to suspend troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer. Based on the assessment presented to Congress by Gen Petraeus that the current progress was “fragile and reversible.” Therefore, between now and the end of July, we’ll draw-down from 20 to 15 brigades before taking a 45-day pause to reassess the situation before making anymore changes. This will likely mean the next president will assume office with over 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally, President Bush will announce a reduction in Army combat tours from 15 to 12 months, with 12 months between deployments. This new tour length will be applied to units deployed to the region in August. Hopefully, this will reduce the number of “in lieu of” taskings the other services perform in order to ease the deployment burden of their Army counterparts.

So, what about financing the war? Last year, the President asked Congress for $108 billion, to which Congress added $17 billion in domestic spending. Of course, this earned a veto from the President. This year, Congress is eyeing the war-funding bill as a catalyst to stimulate the economy, meaning more ear-marks.

{ sigh }

Supposedly, Congress is concerned with the cost of the war, but rather than trying to control those costs, they’re adding to it. Prudent? Evidently, they didn’t learn anything last year.

The U.S. has now spent over $500 billion on the war in Iraq, a total that could amount to trillions of dollars after factoring in the costs of veteran healthcare and the refurbishment of the military’s depleted equipment and materials.

What does this mean, really?

Current defense spending is roughly 4% of our GDP, compared to 9% in 1968, during the Viet Nam War. Though substantial, it’s hardly budget-busting.

Still, it’s time for the Iraqi government to pony-up! Iraq is pumping about 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day, the highest output since the 2003 invasion. Ambassador Crocker said that “the era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure projects is over” and Iraq will be spending its own money to pay for rebuilding.

Well, that’s a start…I think the Iraqis also need to re-pay the U.S. for the tremendous cost of their liberation. After all, we’ve essentially financed this war with debt and those bills are coming due.

Pakistan held their parliamentary elections and the people have spoken–they’re not happy the Musharraf government. With the vote-counting nearly complete, the two main opposition parties have secured 154 of the 268 contested seats with Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party leading with 86; the pro-Musharraf party trails with only 39 seats. It’ll be interesting to see if Musharraf resigns as he said would if he lost the support of the Pakistani people.

(doubtful)

Since no one party attained the two-thirds majority necessary to take action against the sitting president, the opposition groups led by the PPP will likely form a partnership force Musharraf to step down or face impeachment.

The election also dealt a serious blow to the pro-Taliban Jamiat-e-Ulema party who won only three seats. Also, a coalition of Islamist religious parties, the United Action Forum, are projected to lose control of the North West Frontier Province, winning only 9 of 96 contested seats.

MORE: Hot Air

Finally, the United States will seek justice for the 9/11 attacks! The Pentagon has charged six Guantanamo detainees with murder and war crimes in connection with the 9/11 terror attacks. Among the six is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the attacks.

The military is recommending the six be tried together before a military tribunal recommend that the six men be tried together before a military tribunal. This would afford the detainees with the same rights given U.S. service members tries under the military justice system. However, there’s concern that the case may be clouded due to recent revelations that Mr. Mohammed was waterboarded. Of course, this will be something the military judge will have to consider. It will be up to him to determine what evidence is allowed.

Previously, the Bush administration shied away from public trials of suspected terrorists; instead, interrogating them in secret in the hope of staving-off future attacks. However, only resulted in fear and distrust of the U.S., both domestically and abroad. And if that wasn’t enough, the trial procedures first issued by the Bush administration significantly deviated from current military law, such as excluding the defendant from his own trial, allowing the introduction of any “probative” evidence, including statements made under torture, and forbidding the defendant to appeal to an independent court. Naturally, this didn’t bode well for the President and the Supreme Court shut him down.

Now, the tribunal will unfold in a specially designed courtroom at Guantanamo, within a tent city called “Camp Justice”. The camp will house the prosecution, defense lawyers, journalists and others. Survivors and relatives of 9/11 victims will be invited to watch the trial through closed-circuit broadcasts in the U.S. However, according to officials, wider public access is unlikely.

This is no time for secrets! Censor the testimony if you must, but air the trial on CSPAN!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said twice yesterday that Iraq “is a failure,” and the President’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.” Pelosi argued that

“[t]he purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq”… “They have not done that.”

and yet Pelosi concedes,

The troops have succeeded, God bless them.

(sounds like someone is trying to have her cake and eat it, too!)

These words from Pelosi after a letter from Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector, an al-Qaeda leader in Anbar province, reports that Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Abu-Tariq says last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight” and al-Qaeda’s security structure suffered “total collapse”. He goes on to describe that his force, once 600-strong, has shrunk to 20.

Abu-Tariq also blames the local community:

We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers…Those people were nothing but hypocrites, liars and traitors and were waiting for the right moment to switch sides with whoever pays them most.

as well as al-Qaeda itself, referencing their brutal tactics:

“We helped them to unite against us…The Americans and the apostates launched their campaigns against us and we found ourselves in a circle not being able to move, organize or conduct our operations.”

Seems to me when your enemies are making statements like these, you just may be winning!

What Pelosi and the dhimmi-crats are trying to do is separate themselves from the new direction Bush has taken in Iraq, but they don’t want to sound like defeatists in light of the Iraq’s improved stability. This is the only way they’re going to win on National Security in November.

Pelosi is playing political games and although she doesn’t want to sound like a “naysayer”, she is certainly coming off as one. Ms Pelosi has joined her Senate brother, Harry Reid, with some “This War is Lost” comments of her own.

In mid-January, Scotland Yard, who was called in by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to investigate the murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, concluded that Ms Bhutto was not shot, but died from head trauma. They also reported that the supposed government cover-up was nothing more than shoddy police work. So, it should come as no big surprise that Bhutto’s supporters are rejecting the Yard’s findings.

(and with good reason!)

According to Scotland Yard’s report:

“The only tenable cause of her rapidly fatal head injury in this case is that it occurred as the result of impact due to the effect of the bomb blast.”

While Scotland Yard contends their “primary focus…was to assist the Pakistani authorities in establishing the cause and circumstances of Ms Bhutto’s death.” They readily admit that,

“The task of establishing exactly what happened was complicated by the lack of an extended and detailed search of the crime scene, the absence of an autopsy, and the absence of recognised [sic] body recovery and victim identification processes.”

Yah think? So, how did they arrive at their conclusion? According to the report
“Considerable reliance [was] placed upon the X-rays taken at Rawalpindi General Hospital following Ms Bhutto’s death.” Accordingly, the examination revealed,

“Ms Bhutto’s only apparent injury was a major trauma to the right side of the head. The UK experts all exclude this injury being an entry or exit wound as a result of gunshot. The only X-ray records, taken after her death, were of Ms Bhutto’s head. However, the possibility of a bullet wound to her mid or lower trunk can reasonably be excluded. This is based upon the protection afforded by the armoured [sic] vehicle in which she was travelling [sic] at the time of the attack, and the accounts of her family and hospital staff who examined her.

However, the Yard’s pathologist admits that he is

“unable categorically to exclude the possibility of there being a gunshot wound to the upper trunk or neck” [but] “the available evidence suggests that there was no gunshot injury.”

So, without actually seeing the body and with only x-rays of Bhutto’s head, Scotland Yard has determined that she was killed by a bump to her head; the result of a bomb blast perpetrated by a suicide bomber.

This simply doesn’t jive with eyewitness accounts and video footage. This information, gathered independently from Pakistan, left few doubts that Ms. Bhutto was shot by one or more assailants. According to a U.S. administration official working in Pakistan, “There is a consensus emerging that she must have been shot.”

It appears this investigation solved nothing; the country is still divided.

As for Scotland Yard’s investigative skill: I suppose if I was asked to determine the cause of a car crash, and all I was given to examine was a flat tire, I’d determine the cause of the crash was a blow-out.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharaf on the first leg of his “European Tour” and speaking to an international assembly in Brussels decried the West’s “obsession” with democracy and pleaded for more time to allow his country to achieve higher standards of human rights and civil liberties. Musharaf said,

“While we believe in democracy and human rights and civil liberties please allow us time to reach what you have reached. And you have taken centuries to reach it.”

(what have you achieved in the last eight years, Mr. President?)

Musharraf explained that the “feudal, tribal environment [i.e. culture] in some…provinces” is a significant obstacle to democracy. This requires Pakistan to take a different approach to achieving it. Musharraf explains,

“Therefore in accordance with our environment we have to adapt democracy, human rights and civil liberties.”

Okay. Although there are various forms of democracy, the basic premise is that citizens participate in the governing of the nation; human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled; and civil liberties impose limits on government control over personal lives.

I’ll be interested to see how Pakistan “adapts” democracy, human rights and civil liberties to their feudal, tribal culture. Personally, I don’t think Musharraf’s heart is in it, and I wonder how long the West is willing to put up with his fence-straddling approach to leadership?

Scotland Yard has completed their investigation of the Bhutto murder and have come to the conclusion that al-Qaeda was responsible for her death. They also concluded there was no government cover-up, simply poor police work.

Still, they can’t say exactly who is responsible for the killing. Scotland Yard disputes the Pakistani government claim that Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader from the Afghan border area of southern Waziristan, was the master-planner. It appears Musharraf pointed the finger at Mehsud out of political expediency due to the militant’s link to al-Qaeda.

Scotland Yard has insisted their job wasn’t to determine who killed Bhutto, but just exactly how she died. How can they do that when they can’t examine the body, and the crime scene and Bhutto’s vehicle were sanitized within hours of her death? If “evidence” points toward al-Qaeda, where was this evidence obtained?

(the Pakistani government, of course.)

(h/t Snooper at Wake up America). President Bush, in the middle of a six-nation tour of Middle East states and riding the wave of the troop surge success, is poised to deal a damaging blow to the cut-and-runners in Washington. In a Newsweek article entitled, Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq, Michael Hirsh reports that “Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries.” Specifically,

“the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements.”

This is huge! A SOFA is is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. We have SOFA agreements with the U.K., Germany, Korea, Japan and others. Currently, we have no SOFA agreement with Iraq, which means, technically, we (coalition forces) fall under Iraqi jurisdiction. In theory, Iraqi Courts have the right to try Coalition forces for any alleged offenses, though this right has never been exercised. It also means we’re in this for the long haul with the establishment of a permanent U.S military presence in Iraq. I believe this is an important achievement for the U.S. and is a necessary step to ensure the security of our homeland. As things stand right now, stability in the Middle East will only be achieved with active U.S. involvement in the region.

Of course, this move doesn’t play into the political strategies of Hillary Clinton and, especially, Barack Obama, who promises to remove a brigade a month until every U.S. service member is home (a plan that I believe demonstrates a very naive view of the situation in the Middle East).

Unlike his political rivals, President Bush doesn’t appear to be playing games. I admire his ability to stand up for what he believes in the midst of significant resistance from Congress and the MSM. I believe he is truly doing what he thinks is “right” for America, and is leaving his legacy to history. It’d be nice to see our other elected officials get behind our President and start acting in America’s best interest instead of pursuing personal political agendas.

(h/t Spree at Wake up America) Army Major Andrew Olmsted was killed in Iraq on January 3rd and leaves to a friend the task of putting up his FINAL POST

I didn’t know Major Olmsted before I read Spree’s blog post this morning, and feel that I have missed a great opportunity. I wish I had found his blog sooner. In reading through it, Major Olmsted appeared to be a very practical, centered and honorable human being with a wonderful sense of humor. It appears he quit posting to his personal blog in February 2007 because

“…it turns out that I have been blogging in violation of a Department of Defense directive that restricts how much political activity soldiers may be involved with.”

Still, Olmsted kept blogging, publishing his experiences in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain News.

Major Olmsted’s final post is very emotional, extremely honest and funny!

What I don’t want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I’m dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren’t going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.)”

and being a military man myself, I respect and admire his singular sense of duty:

“As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you’ll pardon the pun) live with that.”

To Major Olmsted’s wife, Amanda, and his family: You’re in my thoughts and prayers. God bless you.

Bowing to international pressure and attempting to quell domestic unrest, President Musharraf requested assistance with the Bhutto killing from Britain’s Scotland Yard. In a nationally televised address, Musharraf explained,

“We have decided to request a team from Scotland Yard,” … “This team will work on the case and solve all the issues.”

Smart move? If this is a sincere pursuit of the truth, certainly, but I don’t think Musharraf is really interested in the truth. Musharraf said Scotland Yard would “assist” local investigators. I have a feeling this means limited access to information and witnesses for the British Team. Of course, Musharraf doesn’t need Scotland Yard returning home and announcing a lack of cooperation from the Pakistani administration.

It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

MORE: Captain’s Quarters

As expected, Pakistan’s President Musharraf is postponing national parliamentary elections for six weeks. Formerly scheduled for January 8th, the election of a new Prime Minister will not take place before February 18. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party and Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N) have denounced the decision and are calling for elections to take place as previously scheduled. Mr. Sharif, who recently reversed a decision for his party to “boycott” the election, warned of serious repercussions if the elections are delayed and accused Musharraf of “trying to wriggle out of elections sensing defeat of his allies.”

Political analysts also agree that pushing-back the election date could renew the civil unrest that has subsided in recent days. So why the delay? The government’s says the reason for the postponement is due, at least in part, to the destruction of electoral facilities. Per Kanwar Dilshad of the Election Commission:

“Our offices in 10 districts of Sindh have been burned, the electoral rolls have been burned, the polling schemes, the nomination papers have been burned.”

Perhaps this is true, but elections should only be delayed if all parties agree. There are 124 districts in Pakistan and damage to offices in 10 of those districts shouldn’t be a show-stopper. I believe the government has a responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure elections take place on schedule.

MORE: In a related article, Spree at Wake up America discusses Hillary Clinton and her ignorance of the situation in Pakistan.

The principle professor of surgery at Rawalpindi General Hospital, Dr. Muhammad Mussadiq Khan, said on the night of her death that Bhutto had died of a bullet wound. This, according to hospital board member Athar Minallah, who released the medical report written by Khan and six other doctors together with an open letter supporting the doctors in their call for an autopsy.

Minallah’s open letter was distributed to the Pakistani news media and to The New York Times. In the letter he suggested the doctors felt they were being pressured by the government to back the theory that Ms Bhutto had died by hitting her head on the car’s sunroof lever. The doctors argued that “without an autopsy it is not at all possible to determine as to what had caused the injury.” Still, Aziz Saud, Rawalpini Chief of Police, “did not agree” to the doctor’s autopsy request.

The absence of a gunshot wound was crucial for the government’s vindication, because had there been one, it meant the security they provided Ms Bhutto was grossly inadequate. Bruce Riedel, an expert on Pakistan at the Brookings Institution in Washington, explained, “If there is a gunshot wound the security was abysmal,” and the government didn’t want to be exposed to this level of carelessness.

Makes sense, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Analysts are suggesting the use of a handgun in addition to explosives is a departure for militant groups in Pakistan. Security analyst Nasim Zehra explains, “This is not by any means a signature killing by Al Qaeda” … “A targeted shooting, even in combination with a familiar suicide bombing, makes it look more like a political killing than one by some militant group.”

If it looks like a duck…

In a curious turn-of-events, pro al Qaeda militant leader, Baitullah Mehsud, denied involvement in the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. However, Pakistan is still insisting the terrorist organization is responsible for Bhutto’s murder, citing “irrefutable evidence that al-Qaida [sic], its networks, and cohorts are trying to destabilize Pakistan…” But, the government has yet to actually present this evidence and the citizens aren’t buying it:

The government’s “official” report of the incident has a gunman firing three shots at Bhutto and missing, then blowing himself up. Ms Bhutto died when the force of the blast caused her to hit her head against the lever of the sunroof of her car.

But that doesn’t jive with eyewitness accounts…

According to Shery Rehman, Ms. Bhutto’s close aide and secretary of information for her Pakistan People’s Party, the government’s claim is “ridiculous”:

“What the government is saying is completely ridiculous, in fact it’s dangerous nonsense that she knocked her head against the lever of the sunroof or some such thing, as if that would attack her. But frankly, it’s very clear, it’s running on all the Pakistan TV channels, the footage of an assassin who took clear aim at her with his gun and fired the shot that went through the back of her head and came out the other. I have seen the bullet wound myself, I was part of the bathing ritual party and she bled to death from that wound.”

Now, al Qaeda denies any involvement in the crime (after initially taking credit?). Why? The Pakistan government says al Qaeda killed Ms Bhutto to destabilize the country because Pakistan is “in the forefront of the war against terrorism.” Perhaps al Qaeda did have something to do with it and are taking advantage of the tumultuous situation to blacken the eye of Musharraf’s administration.

Still, Musharraf was, at least, an al Qaeda enabler, giving them a sanctuary in the mountains of Pakistan. Perhaps al Qaeda is unhappy with Musharraf and are attempting to set the stage for a new leader, one whose even more sympathetic to their cause…like the new Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

The WSJ is reporting that “The [Pakistan] government blamed al Qaeda and the Taliban for the assassination of the opposition leader, [Benazir Bhutto]…” She was buried alongside her father.

Yesterday, Musharraf blamed unnamed Islamic militants, but according to Pakistan Interior Minister, Hamid Nawaz, they now possess “evidence that al Qaeda and the Taliban were behind the suicide attack…” Interestingly enough, they’ve resolved the “whole mystery” behind the opposition leader’s killing and plan to provide details at a press conference later today.

(wow. I can’t wait to hear this!)

As violence erupts all over Pakistan, Musharraf insists the January elections will take place as planned. With Bhutto’s party in disarray and rival party leader, Nawaz Sharif, planning to boycott the elections, things certainly seem to be falling into place for President Musharraf (who probably isn’t really interested in any “power-sharing” agreement).

UPDATE 12/28/07: Pakistan’s Interior Ministry spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema, cited a communication intercept implicating al Qaeda in the Bhutto murder: “We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination.” Supposedly, according to the communique, Mehsud had congratulated his people for the attack on Ms Bhutto. However, no solid evidence was presented.

It’s no surprise that the government’s “official” explanation was quickly dismissed by Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) who believe President Musharraf’s embattled administration was only trying to cover up its failure to protect her. A spokesman for the PPP said, “The government is nervous,” and “They are trying to cover up their failure” to provide adequate security.

(I agree)

Cheema also claimed that Bhutto had not been shot, as doctors and eyewitnesses had previously reported, but had died from a skull fracture: “No bullets…were found in her body.”

Of course, Bhutto aides balked at the notion.

(cover-up!)

UPDATE 1/1/08: Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz apologized for the report that the sunroof lever killed Bhutto and said it was a “mistake”. Conducting damage control, Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan, asked the media and people to “forgive and ignore” comments previously made by his ministry’s spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.

(Indeed!)

Former Pakistan Prime Minister and opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated today in what appears to be a suicide attack in the town of Rawalpindi, just outside Islamabad. She was killed along with at least 20 others after addressing a campaign rally in the small military garrison town. Her party security adviser said she had been shot before climbing into her vehicle, and then the bomber blew up.

The primary suspects in the assassination are “Islamic militants,” whom Bhutto openly criticized during her election campaign, pledging to “root” them out.

Of course the Islamists are the likely suspects, but there are others who stand to benefit from a Bhutto assassination: President Musharraf and supporters from within the military intelligence service, for one. After all, Rawalpindi, where Bhutto was killed, is the power base of the Pakistani army. Curious that Ms Bhutto was assassinated in the same town that her father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was hanged in 1979 after being deposed by a military coup.

And considering many previous assassinations of Pakistani politicians remain unsolved, it’s a distinct possibility (and I believe highly probable) Bhutto’s killers will never be identified.

Many are concerned Bhutto’s assassination will delay the January 8th elections. I think it will and expect President Musharraf to once again impose a state of emergency. I believe it’s inevitable–he wants this state of emergency and the authority he derives from it. Bhutto’s killing provides a convenient excuse…

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Wake up America; Hot Air; TPMCafe; Red State; LGF; The American Pundit; ComingAnarchy.com; Webloggin; Power Line

The State Department and the Pentagon have differing opinions on Iran and its current role in stabilizing Iraq. Basically, the State Department believes Iran is curbing weapons flow into Iraq; while the DoD believes it’s too early to assume Tehran has changed its behavior.

According to the WSJ:

The differences between the Pentagon and the State Department over Iran have come into clear view in recent days.

On Friday, Mr. Gates told reporters that he had “not yet” seen any persuasive evidence that Iran was trying to reduce the flow of weaponry into Iraq. A new Pentagon report about Iraq similarly concluded that there “was no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shia militias in Iraq.”

State Department officials have taken a very different tack. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told reporters in Baghdad on Sunday that there were “some indicators that the Iranians are using some influence to bring down violence from extremist Shia militias.” That echoed similar comments by David Satterfield, the top State Department official on Iraq.

emphasis mine

The problem the president faces is how much credit to give Iran with respect to diplomatic talks. Previously, Iran’s suspension of its nuclear program was a prerequisite for any diplomatic engagement. However, in light of November’s lukewarm National Security Estimate, many analysts believe this requirement should no longer apply. In fact, signs are pointing to the State Department ultimately agreeing to talks without the nuclear suspension.

I believe this is a serious mistake and sincerely hope our government officials aren’t duped into going forward with any diplomatic discussions with Iran without the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program. Although the NIE appeared to paint a favorable picture of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the truth is there was much that needed to be read between the lines. Specifically, the first sentence of the NIE states, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” However, a footnote to this statement reveals, that the definition of a “nuclear weapons program” does “not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.”

What does this mean?

How does one make a distinction between what is “civilian” and what is “military”? For a country like the United States, civilian and military distinctions are easily made because they’re written into our laws. But how can such a distinction be made within a terrorist state like Iran? I don’t think it can be done because it doesn’t exist. The NIE tells us that Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered on 2003. Furthermore, Iran has 3,000 centrifuges and continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. Since Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from the Russian plant in Bushehr, there is no civilian purpose for such enrichment.

Though buried within its pages, the NIE contains all the information necessary to answer the question of easing diplomatic restrictions with Iran: The answer is unequivocally, NO!

The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was released Dec 3 and it brings to light that Iran probably stopped its covert nuclear weapons work sometime in 2003. More than likely this was due to international pressures and increased scrutiny of their activities. Now everyone is behaving as though Iran is no longer a threat. Most notably the “Dhimmi”-cratic presidential candidates! They’re pointing fingers at the administration (and Hillary Clinton, no less) for their positions on Iran.

Yes, the NIE says Iran likely stopped working toward the development of nuclear weapons. However, they were in the process of developing them. Evidently, they stopped “in response to international pressure;” which begs the question, “why let-up on the pressure now?” It’s obviously working!

The NIE goes on to say that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) to make weapons as early as 2009, although this is unlikely. However,

“We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.”

Furthermore, the NIE expresses with “moderate confidence” that if Iran began producing HEU for a weapon, it would use covert facilities (really??), instead of its declared nuclear sites.

The NIE certainly doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of Iran and its nuclear ambitions. The fact that they stopped (or more appropriately, postponed) production of nuclear weapons, doesn’t mean they’re no longer a threat! Iran remains the biggest Middle Eastern threat to peace and the United States must not relent…no matter how the appeasers spin it!

After several months of haggling, more than 40 nations have finally arrived in Maryland to talk Mideast peace. Judging from the behavior of the players in attendance, I’m afraid that’s all it’s going to be is “talk.”

Saudi Arabia is one of the nations in attendance, but when asked if he would shake hands with Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister gave a curt, “no.” His explanation was

“We are here for the serious business of making peace,” … “It is not a sporting contest where you shake hands and let the best man win.”

Isn’t a handshake symbolic of making peace?

Oh, and the Syrians are there, too, but only to discuss regaining the Golan Heights which Israel has occupied since 1967.

And if that’s not bad enough, the focal point for the talks, the forging of an agreement between Israel and Palestine, appears untenable. Presently the two sides can’t even agree on the content of a negotiating document, a starting point for negotiations. Issues in dispute are the location of final borders, sovereignty over Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees who lost homes in the war that followed Israel’s establishment in 1948. Essentially, the same old song and dance.

Actually, any agreement between Israel and Palestine is moot because Hamas leaders have labeled Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas a traitor for simply attending the meeting. They’ve also vowed to reject any decisions that come from the meeting.

The Israelis see the futility of this effort as several thousand Jews, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, met at the Western Wall to protest the meeting.

So, it’s no big surprise that Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the meeting “has already failed,” and when considering the resistance from the Islamic states, he’s absolutely right. As always, the failure to achieve peace in the Middle East is a foregone conclusion. Not because the Israelis don’t want peace, but because Muslims will never choose to live in peace with the Jews.

Israel has acknowledged that it carried out an air strike against a “military target” deep inside the Syrian border, but has not provided any specifics. Syria has acknowledged the air strike, stating the target was “under construction.”

Now, the Syrians are