Joe:

Some of the links don't appear to be working, for example with regard to the Chechnya/Dagestan stories. Any idea as to why?

Yes. SMART QUOTES.

I "scrubbed" the post quickly before I left this morning, but must have missed a few. Any post using smart quotes for the hyperlinks will cause those hyperlinks to fail... so if you're using Word, this is an option you need to turn off.

Fixed this post.

As an aside, Hassan Ghul... is that a perfect phonetic last name for an al-Qaeda scumbag, or what?

I would say so, which is one of the reasons why I don't believe it's his real name - in Arabic Gol or Gul means demon. Then again, they're still sorting out whether he's Pakistani or Yemeni at this point, so I look forward to hearing whether or not he was traveling incognito or not. Seeing how he was picked up near the Iranian border, he should have plenty of interesting stories to tell.

I've been lurking for a while, but I have a question for the posters/readers here.
I almost posted with my "3 signs War on Terrorism" is 'advancing/lagging', but I started how I thought WoT and Iraq were two different things and that required two lists....so I abandoned the post.
But most of my thinking and predictions had to do with Pakistan, both as a physical area and body politic. I take the DoD thinking of renewed offensive as positive sign on WoT and Pak concession for US forces in NWFP as better sign.
My question:
Is there a direct or semi-direct line between invasion of Iraq and the US/Brit intel twisting of Libya's arms/legs/hair and subsequent 180 degree turn on Pak govt 'mea culpa/new accountability' (knowing how AQ Khan is dealt with is still left unanswered today)? Speculate away...

No 1 on my War on Terrorism list was for us to get friendly hands (IAEA, US, anybody's) on Pak weapons and weapons program. This too is for me a good sign.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3459617.stm
Analysis: Pakistan's nuclear shame

By Ahmed Rashid
In Lahore
Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's best-known nuclear scientist, shocked the nation on Wednesday, when he went on television and confessed to leaking nuclear secrets.

He said he took full responsibility for proliferating nuclear weapons to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The nuclear National Command Authority, made up of the country's top military and civilian leaders, met after his confession and requested a pardon for Mr Khan from the cabinet.

His admission of guilt and plea for mercy is an attempt by the army to put the biggest global scandal on nuclear weapons proliferation behind them as swiftly as possible.

A trial, even held in camera, may implicate political and military leaders, which may destabilise President Pervez Musharraf's government.

Opposition parties have threatened to mount street protests if Mr Khan goes on trial. Islamic fundamentalist and secular parties denounced General Musharraf for trying to make him a scapegoat whilst absolving the army of any responsibility.

However, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, leader of the Islamic fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami, again insisted that Mr Khan had told him he had never signed a confession during their meeting on Tuesday.

"I don't think people like Khan should be tried. He is a national hero. He has developed the nuclear programme," Mr Ahmed said.

Choreography?

The meeting between General Musharraf and Mr Khan - and the scientist's appearance on television - appeared to be carefully choreographed by the government.

Mr Musharraf, dressed in his camouflage military uniform, looked grim throughout the meeting and spoke through pursed lips. Mr Khan, dressed in a tan Kashmir wool jacket, appeared to be bending towards him in supplication.

Pakistani nuclear experts said that in exchange for not embarrassing Mr Musharraf, the US is now likely to insist that Pakistan allow some degree of international safeguards on its nuclear programme
Wednesday's events also seem to have been closely co-ordinated with Washington, which is deeply anxious not to destabilise Mr Musharraf, who has sided with the US in the war against terrorism.

"President Musharraf has assured us that Pakistan was not involved in any kind of proliferation and I am talking about the government of Pakistan," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The international community still needs Pakistan's close co-operation in curbing the resurgent Taleban in Afghanistan and catching Osama Bin Laden and the remnants of al-Qaeda who are hiding out in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

Kashmir pressure

The US and Britain have also expended much diplomatic capital in persuading India and Pakistan to begin peace talks on Kashmir.

The first formal meeting between the two countries is due to start on 16 February.

Undue international pressure on Mr Musharraf or domestic agitation could jeopardise that meeting.

However Pakistani nuclear experts said that in exchange for not embarrassing Mr Musharraf, the US is now likely to insist that Pakistan allow some degree of international safeguards on its nuclear programme.

The US is also likely to ask for greater controls on Pakistan's stockpile of nuclear weapons and vetting of the 6,000 scientists who work for the nuclear programme.

Many of Pakistan's nuclear scientists are committed Islamic fundamentalists.

Such negotiations are likely to be carried in secret.

However, the fall-out of Pakistan's proliferation is likely to continue, with even greater international scrutiny on the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran, and the arrest of those middlemen in Europe, Africa and Dubai whom Khan has named. They allegedly helped him ship nuclear technology to these countries.

The line between Iraq and Libya is pretty direct. Italy's Prime Minister had Qadaffi confess as much to him before the invasion, when it was clear the USA was serious. It wasn't the only factor in that decision, but it looks like the tipping point.

Pakistan is much more complex... a 3-cornered game involving the USA, Pakistan & India. I would say that Iraq's influence on those developments was much lower.

I would also say that the outcomes in Pakistan are far chancier. There are very hopeful signs, but things could also get ugly very quickly. Indeed, the prospect of a solution in Kashmir will INCREASE the odds of assassination and civil strife there.

Joe,

Mentioning Pakistan's nuclear proliferation problems without mentioning China is like talking about world wide terrorism with out mentioning 9/11/2001.

Valid point, Trent. I said 3-cornered because direct pressure is being applied within that framework by the 3 committed players. China is involved, but not committed. (Difference? For your bacon & eggs this AM, the chicken was involved; the pig was committed)

A 3-cornered game with an important 4th player in the shadows, then. Fair?

"Is there a direct or semi-direct line between invasion of Iraq and the US/Brit intel twisting of Libya's arms/legs/hair and subsequent 180 degree turn on Pak govt 'mea culpa/new accountability' (knowing how AQ Khan is dealt with is still left unanswered today)? Speculate away..."

The invasion of Iraq, according to Qadaffi's own words, served as a factor for the Libyan decision to enter into exploratory talks with the US as far as getting Qadaffi off our shit list. Several of these talks have been held ever since Libya handed over the individuals responsible for the Lockerbie bombing for trial, but none seem to have materialized into anything concrete. I tend to be of the opinion that Qadaffi was still trying to play something of a double game in the initial talks but that the Anglo-American seizure of various illicit items that Tripoli was attempting to smuggle into its country ultimately made that position untenable. Qadaffi, recognizing that he had gambled and lost, then decided to save whatever shreds of dignity he had remaining and folded altogether.

These efforts enabled the US to learn the ultimate source of Qadaffi's nuclear program (which was far beyond anything the IAEA had ever imagined, something that the punditocracy might want to keep in mind with regard to Iran) in the Pakistani black market run by Abdul Qadeer Khan and to compare it with what was known about the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. My own suspicion is that the Pakistani military or at least elements within it had some idea of what Qadeer Khan was up to but that public disclosure of these activities forced them to move against him and his associates. Qadeer Khan is likely to be pardoned (and I've seen some reports stating that he already has been), he's a national hero who gave the nation the only advantage they have in a war against India, but the good news is that his cabal is no longer operating and that the nuclear black market has been more or less dealt a severe blow by these efforts.

"Pakistan is much more complex... a 3-cornered game involving the USA, Pakistan & India. I would say that Iraq's influence on those developments was much lower."

The situation Pakistan has 3 degrees of separation from what happened in Iraq, but it's important to remember that there is a definite causal chain here. The US moves against Iraq, which led to Qadaffi folding and giving us details on the nuclear black market, which led to Pakistani action against Qadeer Khan and Co.

"There are very hopeful signs, but things could also get ugly very quickly. Indeed, the prospect of a solution in Kashmir will INCREASE the odds of assassination and civil strife there."

Musharraf seems to be figuring out (and they say that the approach to death focuses the mind) that al-Qaeda and its Pakistani subsidiaries as well as the byzantine nature of the nation's military-intelligence establishment are having a nasty way of morphing into a very lethal threat against him. The problem is, it's an uphill battle and one that he seems to have mixed feelings about undertaking, hence his efforts to disband the Kashmiri jihad orgs through cash incentives and the like. Sooner or later something is going to force the issue one way or another, and I just hope it isn't a bullet through the man's head. He's definitely shifty and byzantine, but he's far preferable to the MMA.

As far as Chinese involvement in these proliferation efforts, I think the most likely solution is that Qadeer Khan was acting on his own accord here for cash in an amoral anti-American sort of way, as his Wahhabi sensibilities didn't seem to prevent him from giving nuke tech to either Shi'ite heretics (from his POV) in Iran or atheistic communists in North Korea. I think that senior members of the Pakistani military establishment were involved in a lot of these deals (particularly with regard to Pyongyang, for which Pakistan allegedly received missiles) but that Qadeer Khan was still more or less still operating on his own accord. It's also one of the reasons why a pardon is likely - he's got too much dirt on the ruling junta for that nobody wants to see come to light in the event of a trial.

Also, keep in mind that China helped Pakistan with its nuclear program to begin with, as well as that the Chinese were almost certainly aware of Pakistani flights to North Korea and back. So it more as though Bejing is keeping its hands clean here and letting folks like Qadeer Khan do the actual proliferating than anything else.

as his Wahhabi sensibilities didn't seem to prevent him from giving nuke tech to either Shi'ite heretics (from his POV) in Iran or atheistic communists in North Korea.

A.L.

AL:

Al-Qaeda worked with Charles Taylor, a nominally Christian despot who used to rule Liberia, and he provided them with weapons, shelter, and diamonds so that they could evade international efforts to freeze their assets. This was all documented in the fall of 2002 by European (likely French) intelligence and to the best of my knowledge, no one disputes it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A48929-2002Dec28&notFound=true

As a result, I'm prepared to offer bin Laden a great deal of room when it comes to his ecumenism - his fanaticism is alive and well but is tempered by a great deal of pragmatism. I think that Abu Zubaydah likely hit the nail on the head in his own explanation of the organization's rationale in this regard according to the information contained in the Feith memo:
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/399roadd.asp

"During a 3 Sept 2002 interview, senior al Qaeda lieutenant Zubaida said that Bin Laden would ally al Qaeda with any entity willing to kill Americans. Zubaida explained, 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' Bin Laden opposed a 'formal' alliance because it may threaten al Qaeda's independence, but he saw the benefits of cooperation and viewed any entity that hated Americans and was willing to kill them as an 'ally.' Zubaida had suggested that the benefits of an alliance would outweigh the manageable risks to the integrity of al Qaeda. He said the potential benefits included access to WMD materials, such as weaponized chemical or biological weapons material, as well as funding and potential locations for safehaven and training."

My own assessment is that Qadeer Khan was more motivated by greed than any real ideology, though the man is reputed to be quite the Islamist by all accounts. It is also worthy to point out that he along with other members of his black market network may also have sold nuke plans to al-Qaeda, as I noted in the Winds of War.

I've honestly never understood how people can make these kinds of ideological firewall arguments - it seems to be some kind of odd belief that those who believe in an ideologically-driven cause are incapable of any form of pragmatism. Under-estimating an enemy in this regard, especially when there is ample evidence to the contrary, is just naive if not harmful in terms of the current conflict.

Dan:
Your comments about Musharraf and the situation in Pakistan touch on possibilities that worry me. What if Musharraf (and his allies in Pakistan) decide that cleaning out the jihadi/madrassa/al-Qaeda/Saudi money/ISI rats nest is too much of a risk?

Might a some sort of deal between Musharraf and the Islamists be possible? If so, how close could we be to a fundamentalist dominated state with a nuclear arsenal?
And then what?

Could Musharraf hope to save himself by that route; and if so what countervailing incentives and pressures can/will the US use?

Pakistan worries me a lot, to put it mildly.

As skipwalcdc noted, friendly hands on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal would be a v. good thing indeed. Hopefully the US has made, or is making, covert deals with Musharraf for US monitoring.
But for it to be an open and solid agreement, Pakistan would likely require India to do the same. This might be a political necessity for Musharraf and Pakistan.
The best outcome I can see is some kind of India-Pakistan treaty that involved moves toward a negotiated settlement in Kashmir, and some sort of internationally verified monitoring of nuclear assets.

If that is the case, will India agree?
Some analysts have suggested part of the Indian rationale for nukes has been mistrust of China.
If that's the case, there's a big problem, as the chances of China safing its weapons equally are up there with the pigs flying south for the winter.

>As far as Chinese involvement in these
>proliferation efforts, I think the most likely
>solution is that Qadeer Khan was acting on his
>own accord here for cash in an amoral anti-
>American sort of way, as his Wahhabi
>sensibilities didn't seem to prevent him from
>giving nuke tech to either Shi'ite heretics
>(from his POV) in Iran or atheistic communists
>in North Korea.

Dan,

The more accurate description of the relationship between Pakistan and China on issues of nuclear proliferation is two words long:

CUT OUT.

"Your comments about Musharraf and the situation in Pakistan touch on possibilities that worry me. What if Musharraf (and his allies in Pakistan) decide that cleaning out the jihadi/madrassa/al-Qaeda/Saudi money/ISI rats nest is too much of a risk?"

They already reached that conclusion. There was a low-level war fought between the military dictatorship and the jihadi orgs that operate under al-Qaeda's aegis between October 2001 and October 2002. A lot of innocent bystanders, including Americans, Frenchmen, and Pakistani Christians, got killed in the process, but at the end of the day that military tried to placate the jihadis by letting them form the MMA in the parliament, even to the point of undermining the secular parties in the Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan. The understanding between the two was that the jihadis would get their power base and a free mandate to attack India but would otherwise behave themselves.

However, Musharraf has recently been making some tentative moves towards India in regard to resolving the issue of Kashmir, including the elimination of the Hizb ul-Mujahideen. If he succeeds in this regard, then the jihadis become an obselete force. Al-Qaeda knows this, which is why Ayman al-Zawahiri called for Musharraf's death last fall in an audiotape - these two recent assassination attempts are efforts by a coalition of al-Qaeda affiliates that include the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba to act on those orders and that means that the deal is off whether Musharraf realizes it or not. So now he either moves against the al-Qaeda affiliates or sooner or later one of them is going to succeed in knocking him off.

"Might a some sort of deal between Musharraf and the Islamists be possible?"

He went that route before and ended up with a member of his own security detail complicit in an assassination attempt. Right now it looks like he's trying to nuance between the Pakistan jihadis and al-Qaeda, but it ultimately isn't going to work in the long run. So either they reach another accomodation until the next big explosion or he takes direct action against them - the whole sequence of events bears a rather morbid resemblance to the Middle East peace process.

"If so, how close could we be to a fundamentalist dominated state with a nuclear arsenal?
And then what?"

Any accomodation he reaches with the jihadis is likely to be in his perceived favor, I think that Qadeer Khan's black market represents the apex of Islamist infiltration in that regard at least for the moment. Keep in mind that the military-intelligence establishment in Islamabad thinks of the jihadis as being as bunch of dumb hacks that they use to further their own policy objectives. There's far too much Great Gaming in that part of the world ...

"Could Musharraf hope to save himself by that route; and if so what countervailing incentives and pressures can/will the US use?"

Al-Zawahiri's already marked him for death in no uncertain terms (the capture of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Tawfiq Attash Khallad likely factored into this decision), so I don't think that he has any hope for salvation. Even if the jihadis do agree to a deal, they're just going to be stalling while they ready the next crop of suicide bombers to hurl his way. Musharraf, OTOH, has a lot of foreign aid to look forward to through his continued relationship with the US, not to mention historical immortality if he succeeds in resolving the issue of Kashmir. More than sufficient incentives for him to stick with us, IMO. The only problem is that they are unlikely to work with the folks who would likely succeed him if he is assassinated.

"Hopefully the US has made, or is making, covert deals with Musharraf for US monitoring."

We're already providing his security after the latest assassination attempts. If he trusts us to guarantee his own safety, it stands to reason that he would trust us in other areas as well.

"The best outcome I can see is some kind of India-Pakistan treaty that involved moves toward a negotiated settlement in Kashmir, and some sort of internationally verified monitoring of nuclear assets."

I think that the former would be a good idea, but am rather skeptical as to the latter. More to the point, the international agency that would likely oversee such things (the IAEA) has a less than encouraging track record with regard to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.

"Some analysts have suggested part of the Indian rationale for nukes has been mistrust of China."

That's a fairly apt assumption. Pakistan is/was a Chinese client state and serves Bejing wonderfully by keeping India occupied, hence the rationale behind the Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan to begin with.

Hey Joe,

Don't forget someone tried greasing Ayatollah Ali Sistani today. I think that ranks up there with the Irbil bombing as extremely destabilizing with Iraq. It should be noted that the al-Hakim mosque bombing followed up an initial unsuccessful attempt at his offices. We shouldn't assume that this is the last we've heard of these 'mad bombers/hitmen'. If Sistani goes, so goes Iraq...

If Sistani goes out in a violent hit, there are going to be a LOT fewer Sunnis in Iraq 10 years from now.

And the odds on "Saudi Arabia" still existing as a unified state by that time fall considerably.

Sistani's supporters are denying the assassination attempt, for whatever it's worth:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/05/international1535EST0708.DTL

Relevant excerpt:

Reports of an assassination attempt Thursday against Iraq’s most powerful Shiite Muslim clergyman are untrue, a Shiite group close to the top cleric said. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani was described by associates as being in good health. Bodyguards and political allies told The Associated Press there was no attempt on his life, dismissing Arab media reports.

"We have contacted the office of his eminence, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, in Najaf and it transpired that the report is a lie and the whole issue is fabricated and baseless," the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq said. The council works closely with al-Sistani in promoting Shiite political interests.

An AP reporter who visited the cleric’s house in the southern city of Najaf at midday Thursday saw no sign of extra security or unusual activity.

If Sistani was nearly assassinated, the likely culprit is going to be Muqtada Sadr and his Mahdi Army. They tried to run Sistani out of Karbala awhile back and killed some of his followers before they were repelled. It was that event, incidentally, that led to Sistani calling for greater security in Iraq. Sadr likely works for the Iranians, who have a vested interest in killing any sane Shi'ite cleric in the country and is likely responsible for the earlier murder of Ayatollah al-Khoei last year.

information phentermine http://click-here.spb.ru/ph/information-phentermine.html http://click-here.spb.ru/ph/where-to-order-phentermine.html - where to order phentermine http://parmacio.shacknet.nu/phentermine/phentermine-on-sale.html - phentermine on sale http://ffind.msk.ru/pp/cheapest-phentermine.html - cheapest phentermine http://storiespics.ddns.ms/pht/phentermine-ingredients.html - phentermine ingredients http://click-here.spb.ru/ph/phentermine-prices.html - phentermine prices