Internet Scofflaw

I’m quite surprised by this, but credit where credit is due:

The New York Times learned of the operation [that captured Mullah Baradar] on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

The Times is publishing the news now because White House officials acknowledged that the capture of Mullah Baradar was becoming widely known in the region.

I wonder why the NYT set aside its usual policy of exposing every secret operation it can. Maybe this is a benefit of having a Democratic president; the NYT may be more inclined to cooperate with the White House on national security when a Democrat is in office.

The darker question is who leaked the capture to the NYT. Did someone at CIA want this operation blown?

(Via the Corner.)

The AP reports:

Western forces in Afghanistan are operating under rules of engagement, or ROE, that restrict them from acting against people unless they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent. American troops say the Taliban can fire on them, then set aside their weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location.

“The inability to stop people who don’t have weapons is the main hindrance right now,” McMahon said after the firefight. “They know how to use our ROE against us.”

If this is true, it’s idiotic, and it’s going to get good people killed.

(Via Patterico.)

The Washington Post reports that the government is no longer trying to capture high-value terrorists for interrogation, preferring simply to kill them instead. This is understandable, when you have no interrogators and are trying to get rid of the prison as well. For years the left has been trying to argue that we never get any useful intelligence from interrogating terrorists, but it’s alarming that they actually seem to believe it.

Fortunately for the political fortunes of the Obama administration, we will never know what information we might have gained from interrogating terrorists, so it’s unlikely that anyone will ever be able to say specifically what this policy cost us.

(Via the Corner.)

UPDATE: The capture of Mullah Baradar (the Taliban’s #2) is great news; I’m glad we didn’t just blow him up. Also, it shows how we are coping with our new lack of interrogation and detention capabilities: we’re outsourcing it to Pakistan. In the interest of shutting down the (supposedly) inhumane facilities at Guantanamo, we’re leaving prisoners in Pakistani custody. I’m sure Pakistani intelligence will treat them much better. Good thinking.

Good-ish news from General McChrystal:

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan said Thursday that security there is no longer deteriorating, a view that represents his most optimistic assessment yet.

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal . . . pointed to signs of stability that, though difficult to quantify, indicate that Afghans also see improvements in many areas of commerce and daily life.

“I still will tell you the situation in Afghanistan is serious,” he said. “I do not say now it is deteriorating.”

During the summer, McChrystal described the security picture as deteriorating as Taliban influence expanded, especially in Pashtun tribal areas of southern Afghanistan.

“I feel differently now,” McChrystal said. “I am not prepared to say we have turned the corner. The situation is serious, but we [made] significant progress in setting conditions in 2009 and we will make real progress in 2010.”

(Via Hot Air.)

Bloomberg reports:

As many as one in five former Guantanamo Bay detainees are suspected of or are confirmed to have engaged in terrorist activity after their release, U.S. officials said, citing the latest government statistics.

The 20 percent rate is an increase over the 14 percent of former inmates an April Pentagon report said were thought to have joined terrorist efforts, said the officials, who requested anonymity.

(Via the Corner.)

Good news and an important milestone. (Via the Corner.)

The Obama administration is protesting vociferously that it is taking the war on terror seriously. It might help their case if they hadn’t released a high-ranking terrorist today:

The US has released the leader of an Iranian-backed Shia terror group behind the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in January 2007.

Qais Qazali, the leader of the Asaib al Haq or the League of the Righteous, was set free by the US military and transferred to Iraqi custody in exchange for the release of British hostage Peter Moore, US military officers and intelligence officials told The Long War Journal. The US military directly implicated Qais in the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in January 2007.

(Via the Corner.)

The White House is making a point of the fact that it is rebranding the war on terror:

Unlike the last Administration . . . we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

It seems like a simple point; the “war on terror” was always a rather odd phrase.  But it turns out that the phrase was the result of careful consideration. As Douglas Feith explained in his book (p. 8-9):

The U.S. government could not simply define the enemy as a set of terrorist organizations together with states that helped them in one war or another. If we did, we could find ourselves declaring war against all countries that gave safe haven, funds, or ideological and other types of support to terrorists — a list that would include Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. This was clearly an unrealistic idea. It further complicated matters that the United States considered some of these states important friends. Moreover, a formal list of terrorist enemy organizations would require continual revision, reflecting the mergers, acquisitions, splits, and name changes that were common among them. We needed a better way to define the enemy, one that would cover all the relevant bases but preserve our flexibility regarding how, when, and against whom we should act.

We did not solve this puzzle on the aircraft. The President eventually dealt with it by coining the term “war on terror,” declaring, in effect, that the enemy was not a list of organizations and states but certain inherently evil activities that included both terrorism and state support for terrorism. Though the term was imperfect — many commentators have noted the peculiarity of declaring war against a method of attack — I considered it an intelligent and useful stopgap that acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the challenge represented by 9/11. It avoided the problem of lists, gave the President flexibility, and called attention to the differences between us and our enemies on the issue of respect for human life.

In contrast to the considerations that went into “war on terror”, the Obama administration’s decision to discard the term is revealed to be shallow, not thoughtful. It’s not at all clear whether the current administration even wrestled with those issues, but they made a decision (possibly without realizing it) all the same. In essence, President Obama is dealing with the problem of lists by putting exactly one name on the list: al Qaeda.

This important, because — without any announcement — Obama has significantly narrowed the target of our efforts from all practitioners of terrorism down to just one. He has made the war retrospective (targeted at those who hurt us in the past) rather than prospective (targeted at those who would hurt us in the future).

This narrowing is essential, because the left’s opposition to the war in Iraq (which is really the centerpiece of their foreign policy) depends on it. The White House points out that Iraq “had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion.” This may be true (although there are some indications to the contrary), and the left certainly believes it, but what of it? It is undisputed that Saddam’s Iraq offered haven and support to international terrorism, including Ansar al Islam, the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade, and Abu Nidal. In order to oppose the liberation of Iraq, the left must narrow the war to exclude all the terrorists that found support in Iraq.

We have already seen pernicious consequences of the war’s rebrand. In a development that would have been unbelievable in the fall of 2001, the administration now finds itself confused whether we even must oppose the Taliban. Last October, while the administration debated sending additional troops to Afghanistan, the White House floated a trial balloon suggesting that the Taliban could be left in power in Afghanistan. It has fortunately backed away from that suggestion, but the very thought that it was contemplated is unnerving.

The bottom line is that our new, retrospective war is not about protecting the United States. To protect the United States requires vigilance — and yes, preemption — against new terrorist threats, and not a simple-minded focus on the one organization that attacked us on 9/11. Instead of protection, our new war, prosecuted by the left, is about retribution.

Al Gore made the goal of vengeance explicit in a speech in 2002 attacking President Bush’s Iraq policy. (I guess it’s not always so horrible for a former VP to criticize the sitting administration’s foreign policy.) He said:

I don’t think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling that network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. The fact that we don’t know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.

He states clearly here the view that the Obama administration has come to adopt. Our goal is solely to “avenge” 9/11, and not to deal with any other enemies that might threaten us.

Now, I’m not entirely against retribution. It’s important for us to make clear that no regime can attack us and survive. But such retribution serves a greater purpose, to deter any future attack. Ultimately, the aim must be (or ought to be, at least) to protect our nation.

By narrowing the war on terror, the Obama administration has lost sight of that ultimate aim. I wish that al Qaeda posed the only threat to our nation, but it does not. And our enemies are paying attention.

ABC reports:

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. . . American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Alas, we haven’t yet learned the folly of releasing these terrorists.

(Via Hot Air.)

The White House responds to Iran’s missile test:

“At a time when the international community has offered Iran opportunities to begin to build trust and confidence, Iran’s missile tests only undermine Iran’s claims of peaceful intentions,” White House spokesman Mike Hammer said.

They undermine Iran’s claims of peaceful intentions?! Seriously?!

The missile test does not undermine Iran’s claims, because Iran’s claims were already not the tiniest bit believable.

Oh, but it gets worse:

“Such actions will increase the seriousness and resolve of the international community to hold Iran accountable for its continued defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program,” he said.

Aha, the action will increase our seriousness and resolve. Not enough to do anything about it, mind you, but we might consider using some really strong words. If we can get the Chinese and Russians to go along with them, that is.

So President Obama has announced that we will send 34,000 troops to reinforce Afghanistan. Together with the hoped-for 5,000 troops from allies, that would make 39,000 of the 40,000 that General McChrystal requested. (I suppose 39,999 would have been too obvious.) That’s good news.

He also announced that we will begin withdrawing in 2011. Recall that in 2008 President Bush rejected a troop withdrawal deadline (favored by Democrats), because a withdrawal schedule without victory would show a lack of resolve and notify the enemy exactly how to win. Well, now we have the opportunity to find out: can we achieve victory despite having a troop withdrawal deadline in place?

I hope we can.

The White House has announced that President Obama will announce his decision on troops for Afghanistan in another week. That will be 93 days after Gen. McChrystal delivered his report on August 30.

Interestingly, the entire initial Afghan campaign took 97 days (from 9/11 until the last cave in Tora Bora was cleared on December 17), just four days longer than it will have taken Obama to make a decision.

UPDATE: Has Obama made up his mind? Many think he has, and rumored decision is getting positive reviews. But the rumors have been wrong before. If he has made up his mind, why would he delay announcing it? It’s hard to see any political benefit he gets by delaying further.

The Guardian reports:

The UN’s nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

The very existence of the technology, known as a “two-point implosion” device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as “breathtaking” and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. . .

The agency has in the past treated such reports with scepticism, particularly after the Iraq war. But its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the evidence of Iranian weaponisation “appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran”. . .

James Acton, a British nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: “It’s remarkable that, before perfecting step one, they are going straight to step four or five … To start with more sophisticated designs speaks of level of technical ambition that is surprising.”

Asking Iran to explain this is a waste of time. They are developing nukes and everyone knows it. You can add this to the lengthening file of ever-more-preposterous Iranian denials:

Iran has rejected most of the IAEA material on weaponisation as forgeries, but has admitted carrying out tests on multiple high-explosive detonations synchronised to within a microsecond. Tehran has told the agency that there is a civilian application for such tests, but has so far not provided any evidence for them.

Western weapons experts say there are no such civilian applications, but the use of co-ordinated detonations in nuclear warheads is well known. They compress the fissile core, or pit, of the warhead until it reaches critical mass.

Fox News reports:

Israeli defense officials say a ship the navy confiscated on Wednesday in waters off Cyprus was carrying more than 60 tons of weapons.

They say the cargo included missiles, antitank weapons and mortars. The officials said the weapons were coming from Iran and were bound for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

UPDATE: This video gives a sense of the size of this shipment.

In the Nawa district of Afghanistan, Gen. McKiernan’s plan is working. Whether it can be made to work throughout Afghanistan with 40,000 additional troops remains to be seen, but it’s a good first indication.

(Via Power Line.)

Fox News reports:

The Obama administration is moving toward a hybrid strategy in Afghanistan that would combine elements of both the troop-heavy approach sought by its top military commander and a narrower option backed by Vice President Joe Biden, a decision that could pave the way for thousands of new U.S. forces.

The emerging strategy would largely rebuff proposals to maintain current troop levels and rely on unmanned drone attacks and elite special-operations troops to hunt individual militants, an idea championed by Biden. It is opposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Kabul, and other military officials.

One scenario under consideration, according to an official familiar with the deliberations, calls for deploying 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. reinforcements primarily to ramp up the training of the Afghan security forces. But Gen. McChrystal’s request for 40,000 troops also remains on the table.

This “hybrid plan” sounds like the worst of both worlds, adopting McChrystal’s strategy but without the troop levels to carry it out. There’s no sense in escalating the conflict but not escalating enough to win. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Charles Krauthammer comments on the ridiculous notion that we can’t decide Afghanistan troop levels until after their election:

After all, look, there are three things that we can say with confidence about what the government of Afghanistan will look like after this election. It’s going to be weak, it is going to be pro-American, and it’s going to be corrupt. That’s how it was yesterday, and that’s how it will be tomorrow.

More or less corrupt and more or less weak, but that’s how it will be, and that’s how it was a year ago. So it’s not going to depend on the outcome of the election. That’s the card that we’re dealt in Afghanistan, and that’s going to be.

Now, the best outcome would be if you had a coalition so you wouldn’t have to have a runoff with all of the complications that are talked about. But even so…why would you hold off and delay a critical decision on the strength of our troops? Because you don’t know the exact composition of the cabinet?

It’s nonsense, and I think Gates shot it down pretty strongly today.

Michael Yon writes about the situation Afghanistan faces, and what it will take for us to win there.

FARC is laying landmines throughout rural Colombia.

The White House’s latest idea for an alternative to winning in Afghanistan: turn the Taliban into Hezbollah.

Er, sounds great. . .

(Via Hot Air.)

The White House’s report on U.S. policy Afghanistan and Pakistan concludes:

There are no quick fixes to achieve U.S. national security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The danger of failure is real and the implications are grave. In 2009-2010 the Taliban’s momentum must be reversed in Afghanistan and the international community must work with Pakistan to disrupt the threats to security along Pakistan’s western border.

This new strategy of focusing on our core goal – to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually destroy extremists and their safe havens within both nations, although with different tactics – will require immediate action, sustained commitment, and substantial resources. The United States is committed to working with our partners in the region and the international community to address this challenging but essential security goal.

“Immediate action, sustained commitment, and substantial resources.” Unless it’s just too hard:

“It was easy to say, ‘Hey, I support COIN,’ because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes,” said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.

The failure to reach a shared understanding of the resources required to execute the strategy has complicated the White House’s response to the grim assessment of the war by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, forcing the president to decide, in effect, what his administration really meant when it endorsed a counterinsurgency plan. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s follow-up request for more forces, which presents a range of options but makes clear that the best chance of achieving the administration’s goals requires an additional 40,000 U.S. troops on top of the 68,000 who are already there, has given senior members of Obama’s national security team “a case of sticker shock,” the administration official said.

Geez. There was a request for 30,000 more troops already on the table, so how could requesting 40,000 give them “sticker shock”? These guys are deeply, deeply unserious.

(Via Hot Air.)

For the second time this year, Somali pirates accidentally attack a French navy ship. I suppose if they were smart, they’d be in a different line of work.

Fox News reports:

According to a new FOX News poll released Thursday, a sizable 69 percent majority of Americans thinks President Obama has not been tough enough on Iran. That includes over half of Democrats (55 percent), two-thirds of independents (67 percent) and almost all Republicans (88 percent).

Some 16 percent of Americans think the president’s actions have been “about right” and hardly any — 6 percent — say he has been “too tough” on Iran.

By a two-to-one margin the public thinks the U.S. will eventually need to use military force to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons — 59 percent think so, while 29 percent think Iran can be stopped without the use of force.

Furthermore, 61 percent of Americans support the U.S. taking military action to stop Iran, including majorities of Democrats (53 percent), Republicans (73 percent) and independents (55 percent). Some 28 percent of Americans oppose military action against Iran.

I’m honestly surprised by this. One gets the impression from the media that realism is in short supply, but apparently that’s just in our government.

UPDATE: A new Pew poll finds a nearly identical result: 61% support military action against Iran, including 51% of Democrats. Just 22% say Iran can be stopped by diplomacy alone, 64% say it cannot. (Via Hot Air.)

AP reports.

AP reports:

Iran tested its most advanced missiles Monday to cap two days of war games, raising more international concern and stronger pressure to quickly come clean on the newly revealed nuclear site Tehran was secretly constructing.

State television said the powerful Revolutionary Guard, which controls Iran’s missile program, successfully tested upgraded versions of the medium-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles. Both can carry warheads and reach up to 1,200 miles, putting Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe within striking distance.

The president’s decision to scrap missile defense in Europe, ostensibly because Iran isn’t working on long-range missiles, looks even more idiotic now.

This could prove convenient:

Iran’s sole Simorgh AWACS aircraft was lost during a military parade Sept. 22, one of two Iranian military aircraft that crashed in Tehran while participating in a display to mark the anniversary of the start of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

But I think Israel Matzav and Instapundit are misreading the article when they call it Iran’s only AWACS. I read it to say the crashed plane was Iran’s only AWACS of that type.

The AP reports:

Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press. . . It appears to be the so-called “secret annex” on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA’s chief.

(Via the Corner.)

What an excellent time to abandon missile defense.

Fox News reports:

Navy Seals from US Special Operations Forces conducted a raid in southern Somalia on Monday that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, one of 4 co-conspirators wanted in the 2002 bombing of an Israel owned hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, two senior U.S. military officials told Fox News.

Ten days ago President Obama signed the Execute Order for Nabhan, who since 2006 was on the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists. He was also wanted for the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Kenya in 1998.

(Via Instapundit.)

The Telegraph reports:

For the past six months Britain’s elite troops have been schooling soldiers working for Col Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, which for years provided Republican terrorists with the Semtex explosive, machine-guns and anti-aircraft missiles used against British troops during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Sources within the SAS have expressed distaste at the agreement, which they believe could be connected to the release of the Lockerbie bomber. . .

Gordon Brown has faced claims that his Government helped engineer Megrahi’s release to promote Britain’s commercial interests, particularly energy, in Libya.

Downing Street has denied the allegations, but Jack Straw, the Justice Minister, has admitted that trade was a factor in deciding to include Megrahi in an earlier prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

What could go wrong?

(Previous post.)

Fox News reports:

The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in the war-torn country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops, U.S. officials tell FOX News.

Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug. 29 in Herat. It included a small number of Iranian-made “explosively formed penetrators,” hyper-powerful roadside bombs similar to the weapons used to kill U.S. forces in Iraq, a senior U.S. Defense Official told FOX News. Also seized during the raid were 107 Iranian-made BM-1 rockets and dozens of blocks of Iranian C4 plastic explosives.

There are questions about when these weapons entered Afghanistan, but a top U.S. military official tells FOX News that an Iranian rocket was recently fired at a base in Herat. Additional intelligence suggests that Iranians have been providing support directly to the Taliban.

The AP reports:

Somali pirates holding a hijacked ship off the coast of Somalia fired at a U.S. Navy helicopter as it made a surveillance flight over the vessel, the first such attack by pirates on an American military aircraft, the Navy said Thursday.

The helicopter, which is based on the USS Chancellorsville, was not hit and there were no injuries, the Navy said.

Why on earth aren’t these cretins facing the business end of a JDAM? It ought to be a fundamental principle in our national policy that you cannot fire on the US Navy and live.

The New York Times has the very puzzling and disquieting story of a Russian ship that may or may not have been hijacked, and may or may not have been carrying controlled weapons.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Curiouser and curiouser: was the Mossad involved? Doubtful; the Mossad is a standard bogeyman and gets blamed for everything. But it’s just barely imaginable; Israel has a history of intervening in arms shipments to its enemies.

The WSJ reports:

The Obama administration’s counterterrorism chief appeared to provide the first indication the administration may not make its January deadline for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay in remarks Thursday that aimed to outline a new path for combating terrorism. . .

Answering questions after his speech at the Washington think tank, Mr. Brennan said, “I don’t have a crystal ball that I can say with certainty” that the prison at Guantanamo Bay will be closed on time.

A White House spokesman said the administration remains committed to shutting the prison on schedule and noted Mr. Brennan’s additional comments in response to another question, in which he said, “It is our full intention to close down Guantanamo Bay, per the president’s direction, and we are doing everything possible to ensure that we are able to meet that directive and meet that deadline.”

The London Times reports:

Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.

The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader.

A US National Intelligence Estimate two years ago concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear arms research programme in 2003 because of the threat from the American invasion of Iraq. But intelligence sources have told The Times that Tehran had halted the research because it had achieved its aim — to find a way of detonating a warhead that could be launched on its long-range Shehab-3 missiles.

They said that, should Ayatollah Khamenei approve the building of a nuclear device, it would take six months to enrich enough uranium and another six months to assemble the warhead. The Iranian Defence Ministry has been running a covert nuclear research department for years, employing hundreds of scientists, researchers and metallurgists in a multibillion-dollar programme to develop nuclear technology alongside the civilian nuclear programme.

“The main thing (in 2003) was the lack of fissile material, so it was best to slow it down,” the sources said. “We think that the leader himself decided back then (to halt the programme), after the good results.”

AP reports:

Police in Australia foiled terrorist plans for commando-style suicide attacks on at least one army base, arresting four men Tuesday with suspected links to a Somali Islamist group, senior officers said.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the plot was a “sober reminder” that Australia is still under threat from extremist groups enraged that the country sent troops to join the U.S.-led military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some 400 officers from state and national security services took part in 19 pre-dawn raids on properties in Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city, and arrested four men, all Australian citizens ranging in age from 22 to 26, police said.

Several others were being questioned Tuesday, police said.

Australian Federal Police Acting Commissioner Tony Negus said the raids followed a seven-month surveillance operation of a group of people allegedly linked to al-Shabaab, an Al Qaeda-linked Somali extremist organization that has been fighting to overthrow Somalia’s transitional government.

The cell’s plans included sending members armed with automatic weapons into military bases in Australia, including Holsworthy Barracks on the outskirts of Sydney, Negus said.

Fox News reports:

The fate of three of nine foreigners abducted in Yemen last week is known — their bodies were found, shot execution style. The whereabouts of the other six — including three children under the age of 6 — remain a mystery.

But terrorism experts say . . . the crimes bear the mark of Al Qaeda, and they fear they are the handiwork of the international terror organization’s No. 2 man in the Arabian Peninsula: Said Ali al-Shihri, an Islamic extremist who once was in American custody — but who was released from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. . .

The nine foreigners — four German adults, three small German children, a British man and a South Korean woman — were abducted on June 12 after they ventured outside the city of Saada without their required police escorts. . .

No one has claimed responsibility for the abductions and murders, but experts say killing women and children is considered off-limits among many jihadist groups — though not to al-Shihri, a Saudi national who was released from Guantanamo in November 2007 and sent to a Saudi Arabian “rehabilitation” program for jihadists. It wasn’t long before a “cured” al-Shihri was released from the program, crossed into Yemen and rejoined Al Qaeda, with whom he quickly rose to deputy commander.

By all means, let’s release all these guys.

AP reports:

The Taliban have fled the Pakistani army’s advance on the main town in the Swat Valley, delivering the military a strategic prize in its offensive against militants in the country’s northwest, commanders said Saturday.

AP reports:

Two defense officials said there have been four incidents in the past month in which Chinese-flagged fishing vessels maneuvered too close to two unarmed ships staffed by civilians and used by the Pentagon to do underwater surveillance and submarine hunting missions. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss some of the incidents and details that the Pentagon has not yet released.

The Pentagon did release a brief statement on the latest incident in which two Chinese fishing vessels came to within 30 yards of the USNS Victorius Friday as it was operating in the Yellow Sea.

Also, this is a little odd:

After incidents in March that included similar though less aggressive Chinese maneuvers, the Pentagon protested to Beijing officials and issued a strong public statement calling the Chinese actions harassment.

But on Tuesday, Whitman declined to characterize what the Chinese vessels were trying to do, saying only that their actions were “unsafe and dangerous.”

Asked why the tone of the U.S. statement was muted this time, he said: “We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically.”

Chinese harassment has worsened, and we respond by ratcheting down our protests.  Let’s think about the incentive structure this creates.

(Previous post.)

AFP reports: 

Iraq’s Kurdish regional government on Sunday condemned an Iranian air raid against alleged separatists inside Iraq but also called on Kurdish militants to cease cross-border attacks. . .

Iranian helicopters attacked three Iraqi Kurdish villages in a cross-border raid on Saturday — the first time Iran has used aircraft against Kurdish rebels. There were no reports of casualties.

The bombardments appeared to have targeted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group which has launched attacks on Iran from rear-supply bases in the mountains of northern Iraq.

(Via Danger Room, via Hot Air.)

I can’t condemn Iran for crossing the border to fight insurgents, but seeing as Iran itself is training and equipping insurgents to fight in Iraq, this might not be a wise precedent for them to set.

Somali pirates accidentally attack a French navy frigate.

Two days ago was the anniversary of the Belgrano incident in the 1982 Falklands War.  In it, a British submarine sank the ARA General Belgrano, an Argentine cruiser.  Bizarrely, the sinking generated a controversy over whether it was appropriate, because the Belgrano was outside the British exclusion zone at the time.  The Argentine junta predictably declared it a war crime, but the charge was also taken up by British anti-war types.

To suppose that an Argentine military target anywhere in the world should have been immune from attack is incomprehensible to me.  Any policy to limit the conflict in hopes of preventing its escalation was the choice of the British government, not a right that could be called upon by the enemy.  In fact, this was made clear by a British communique:

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

At is turns out, the British navy had very good reason to sink the Belgrano beyond the (already sufficient) aim of destroying the enemy’s military assets.  The day before the Belgrano was sunk, it was given the order to attack British ships, and that order was intercepted by British intelligence.

The following year, Prime Minister Thatcher was questioned about the incident on BBC television.  The persistent and hostile questioning led Thatcher to proclaim:

I think it could only be in Britain that a Prime Minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our Navy.

Perhaps in 1983 it could only be in Britain, but times change.  Today, that kind of idiocy exists throughout America, from the media to the government.  People seem to see war as some sort of elaborate game, and fighting to win is tantamount to cheating.

POSTSCRIPT: Thatcher’s remarks on the incident are featured in a BBC audio slideshow, commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of her coming into office.  (Via the Corner.)  It really makes you lament the quality of conservative leadership today.

Here’s a shocker; the Taliban isn’t honoring its end of the bargain with Pakistan:

Pakistan’s military on Sunday accused the Taliban of “gross violation” of a peace accord covering a large segment of its northwest after several acts of violence over the weekend.

The allegations came as the northwest province’s government said it was fulfilling its end of the deal by establishing an Islamic appellate court for the area, though a cleric mediating the pact rejected the panel. . .

Under the peace deal struck in February, the government agreed to impose Islamic law in the Swat Valley and surrounding areas that make up the Malakand Division. The pact appeared to embolden the Taliban in Swat, who soon entered the adjacent Buner district.

This should serve as a lesson to those who think we can make ourselves inoffensive to our enemies.  Even a Muslim country like Pakistan that cedes a swath of its territory to sharia law can’t make itself inoffensive to its enemies.

Should serve as a lesson, but won’t.

Portugese special forces thwarted a Somali pirate attack, capturing 19 pirates.  Then, after consulting with Portugese authorities, they released them.

Argh.

Here’s (hopefully) the scariest story you’ll see in a long time:

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, has told U.S. officials the next two weeks are critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive, FOX News has learned.

“The Pakistanis have run out of excuses” and are “finally getting serious” about combating the threat from Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists operating out of Northwest Pakistan, the general added.

But Petraeus also said wearily that “we’ve heard it all before” from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States’ next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counterinsurgency training and foreign aid.

Petraeus made these assessment in talks with lawmakers and Obama administration officials this week, according to individuals familiar with the discussions.

They said Petraeus and senior administration officials believe the Pakistani army, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is “superior” to the civilian government, led by President Ali Zardari, and could conceivably survive even if Zardari’s government falls to the Taliban.

(Via ThreatsWatch, via Instapundit.)

There’s an email making the rounds alleging that President Obama’s orders regarding the pirate hostage crisis earlier this month extended the crisis and endangered the captain’s life.  I first saw it here.  (Via Chaos Manor, via Instapundit.)  I’m not going to repeat the whole thing, but it (one version, anyway) opens this way:

From some friends with ties to special ops who would like to remain under the radar: Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following . . .

This is an urban legend.  There’s no way to know whether the underlying allegations are true, as the people who know aren’t saying. But the email is certainly bogus.  First of all, these sorts of things nearly always are.  Second, we can actually track the evolution of the email over time.  If it ever started as a private email from someone with inside contacts (unlikely), it’s definitely not the same email now. Trying to use this to indict President Obama’s handling of the crisis isn’t just wrong, it’s embarrassing.

ASIDE: Incidentally, note that the email isn’t just an attack on the president.  It’s also an insult to the SEALs, because it alleges that someone broke operational security.

President Obama didn’t handle the crisis the way I would have preferred.  I think it would have been much better to use force as soon as we had a good likelihood of success.  (From what we know now, that probably would have been days sooner.)  But we cannot be surprised by what happened.  Barack Obama is the president, and of course he ordered them to try to find a peaceful resolution first.  That’s who he is.  But he also gave them the latitude to use force if necessary.  In the end, we have to judge the incident by its outcome, and the outcome was good.

Some bloggers on the left are trying to make Obama into some sort of David Palmer over this.  That’s silly.  Obama isn’t David Palmer; he isn’t even Bill Clinton. But it’s even sillier to try to make this success into a failure.  On this occasion, Obama’s approach worked.  Let’s not forget that this is a good thing.  If we start begrudging the president even his successes, we start to look like the left has looked over the past eight years.

UPDATE: It’s on Snopes now.

UPDATE: James Jones (the National Security Advisor) is now on record with a detailed account refuting this.  (Via LGF.)

Putting down Somalian piracy is going to take more than rescuing one captain and killing three pirates:

Somali pirates fired grenades and automatic weapons at an American freighter loaded with food aid but the ship managed to escape the attack and was heading Wednesday to Kenya under U.S. Navy escort, officials said.

In defiance of President Barack Obama’s vow to halt their banditry, pirates have seized four vessels and over 75 hostages off the Horn of Africa since Sunday’s dramatic rescue of an American freighter captain.

One pirate declared Wednesday they are grabbing more ships and hostages to prove they are not intimidated by Obama’s pledge.

The civilian and military heads of the Air Force have published an apologia for shutting down the F-22 program.  I have to say, it’s not especially convincing.  Here’s the key bit:

Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

(Via Aviation Week, via Instapundit.)

This makes it clear that a 183-plane force was considered high-risk. What’s changed?  Two things.  First, we’ve been fighting asymmetric wars lately and they expect to be doing so in the future.  This is the classic military fallacy of planning to fight the last war.  Sure, we haven’t had the need for an air superiority fighter in our last few conflicts.  Does that mean that we’ll never fight anyone with an effective air force again?  From your mouth to God’s ear, guys.

Second, they can’t get the money.  That’s no reason at all.  It may be the case that Congress won’t pony up the $13 billion, despite spending an astounding $800 billion on “stimulus”.  But that has no bearing on whether it’s a responsible decision.

However, they do make one point that we should note:

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

Much rides on the F-35’s success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost.

Whatever wisdom there is in shutting down the F-22 program depends on keeping the F-35 on track.  Although the F-35 was not designed as an air superiority fighter, and will be a poor substitute for the F-22 even once it’s in production, we are now depending on it to fill the gap left by the incomplete F-22 program.  But there’s been talk of shutting down the F-35 as well.  Now, more then ever, we can’t risk that.

CNN reports:

U.S. forces killed three pirates and rescued cargo ship Capt. Richard Phillips, held hostage in a lifeboat since Wednesday, after seeing him in “imminent danger,” a senior defense official told CNN.

The official contradicted earlier reports that the captain jumped into the water off Somalia on Sunday.

Three of the pirates on the lifeboat with Phillips were shot and killed, the official said. A fourth pirate was aboard the nearby USS Bainbridge negotiating Phillips’ fate when the shootings occurred, he said.

The latest report makes this sound less like a rescue mission, and more like an improvisation by the SEALs at hand.  Either way, well done.

UPDATE: Tigerhawk remarks:

Great news, and — yes, I’ll say it — tip o’ the hat to President Obama for signing off on the mission.

(Via Instapundit.)

I was set to say much the same thing, but this latest report makes it sound more like an improvisation than a rescue mission ordered at the highest level.  If this was ordered by the President, then bravo to him too.

In any case, I agree with his following remarks wholeheartedly:

Now I have two questions. What will we do with the prisoner? Do we believe that this action is sufficient to restore deterrence against piracy?

I fear that, with this rescue, the President will put a mark in the win column and move on.  Until the next time.  I hope he’ll prove me wrong.

UPDATE: Fox News is reporting that President Obama did authorize the operation.  Well done.

Fox News reports:

American crew members aboard a U.S.-flagged ship hijacked by Somali pirates Wednesday were able to regain control of the vessel, but the ship’s captain is still being held hostage, FOX News confirms.

U.S. officials said American warships are steaming toward the hijack scene. U.S. Navy officials told FOX News Wednesday afternoon that its closest ship was 300 miles away, which would place it 15 hours from the vessel.

This is great, but I still think some strong retaliatory action is required.

POSTSCRIPT: This is weird, though:

“All the crew members are trained in security detail in how to deal with piracy,” Maersk CEO John Reinhart told reporters. “As merchant vessels we do not carry arms. We have ways to push back, but we do not carry arms.”

There’s nobody but pirates for hundreds of miles, and these guys are unarmed?  That doesn’t make any sense.

The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon is looking very closely at the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.  (Via Hot Air.)  At stake is the future shape of the US military.

The Washington Post reports that Hamas’s resistance to Israel during Operation Cast Lead was ineffective:

Interviews with Israeli officers and soldiers who took part in the assault, along with a review of IDF information released during the war, indicate that Hamas fighters did not significantly challenge the assault and that the gunmen who did used tactics and weapons that were largely ineffective. Israeli officials had feared Hamas would deploy Iranian-supplied antitank missiles, for example, but such weapons do not appear to have been used against Israeli forces. . .

Ultimately, Hamas “was less professional than we expected it to be,” [an Israeli] commander said, and was unable to cause significant Israeli losses. . .

The IDF said Hamas did make widespread use of booby traps and roadside bombs, and described homes with petroleum-soaked walls, mannequins dressed like fighters and rigged to explode, and situations in which Hamas gunfire and movement seemed designed to draw IDF forces down streets littered with explosive traps.

But such tactics largely failed.

Good.