tries to establish a new reality that under the NPT, every nation should have the right to perpetually be one step away from possessing nuclear weapons,

That is not a new reality. As a citizen of a non nuke country i couldn't see how my country could have signed it if it wasn't.

Wes Clark's advice? Reassure Iran and Syria or we'll never win in Iraq. Mine: do the opposite of everything Wesley Clark says.

I don't think you have to reassure the Iranians and Syrians that you can't win in Iraq. That is quite obvious by now.

I don't think you have to reassure the Iranians and Syrians that you can't win in Iraq. That is quite obvious by now.

That's interesting, but it certainly doesn't square with the formation of the new government, the fracturing of the insurgency, the increasing strength of the Iraqi military, the willingness of the Iraqi people to turn in terrorists, etc. Keep in your cocoon and stay warm!

Re: The Department of Homeland Security's network is highly holey.

Yes, this is true, but I would caution there is a delicate balance here. Anal retentive IT security polices are appropriate when undercover operatives may be exposed if information is leaked.

But in most other situations the cost benefit ratio may go negative if information is not shared with those who can act and another 9/11 attack is not prevented, mitigated, detered, and or delayed.

Anything that causes the enemy to blink, change operational plans, and or puts off balance is a win in the GWOT.

The goal is not to protect the information or the network; the goal is to use the information," said U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Dale Meyerrose, director of architectures and integration for the U.S. Northern Command and for command and control systems at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

For further see:

Mission Focused Communications Strategic Communications at :

Link Here

I don't think the analysis of Chavez's gambit is too outrageous. Chavez's timing isn't good, but his success has been so stunning, I'm sure he is over-confident.

The big problem with his vision is that his Bolivarian state doesn't work without buy in from Colombia. Which explains his support of FARC and ELN...

You could add in your Middle East briefing that Hizbullah are trying to heat up the northern Israeli border too (though that's nothing new unfortunately).

Hizbullah flies drone over Israel

Al-Manar TV: spy plane enters Israeli air space, second time since November; Mofaz: Hizbullah trying to ignite West Bank

From Ynet news

Bill, Jaafari has been elected prime minister. It is not like he had anything to do with blowing up a US ambassy so your so right that the US is winning the war.
The day the Sunni's have lost is the day the US will be kicked out of Iraq so winning the war is impossible.

"That is not a new reality. As a citizen of a non nuke country i couldn't see how my country could have signed it if it wasn't"

Probably true. Its actually surprising that the NPT has held up outside of the Cold War as well as it has. There was a major incentive to not go nuclear during the CW. It might seem at first blush that nukes would give a nation a measure of independence, but in fact the opposite was the case. Because the US and Soviets made a joke of everyone elses arsenal, every minor nuclear power has little choice but to play the lackey as neither power was going to let an ally go their own way and start WW3. That logic has disapeared, there is little reason other than tradition to keep a Japan, SK, or Australia from developing nukes.

"The day the Sunni's have lost is the day the US will be kicked out of Iraq so winning the war is impossible."

Since when was the goal of the war to keep US troops in Iraq perpetually? Except in the moon bats minds of course.

I have never understood why the US invaded Iraq. WMD was a crock even under the most negative scenario. Even if had 10 nukes or so he wouldn't be a treat and you would deal differently with it(you would just steal it).
Democracy meant having Shiite fundi ruling Iraq which imnsho is worse than having Saddam.
So that leaves the having a friendly, so called "democratic" ruler and bases to controle the Gulf as the explanation that made most sense. Sadly anybody with any sense could predict total failure.

Wow.

Um, anyways, is there any kind of consensus about the Cairo bomber? It sounds pretty low-brow. An Egyptian cop says it was 'gasoline in a glass bottle with nails'.

If the Muslim Brotherhood were about to launch a war, it'd be a little more sophisticated than that.

The mass detentions seem to indicate that something sinister is afoot.

Think we'll get a straight answer on this one, Colt?

In response to a

I have never understood why the US invaded Iraq.

In short, as the President pointed out on many occassions, it was to bring an end to the ongoing Gulf War and manifest the official U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq.

After the spectacular failure of the status quo policy on 9/11, Saddam was either going to end hostilities one way or another. Saddam deliberately chose provocation on numerous occasions and ways, and thus sealed his fate.

He told us to take his word for it, which we did after half-hearted bombing campaigns in 98-99 (Clinton, Operation Desert Fox) over the very issue of WMDs and inspectors. That policy died on 9/11, a fact Saddam did not understand, but Khadaffi did.

As for the desired "stability" of Saddam, well Mussolini made the trains run on time too, but dictators are notoriously unstable. On 9/11 the policy of preferring the stable Dictator was also shown to be a bad bargain. Guys like Saddam are no picnic, they stay bought only as long as they're counting the money and a gun is pointed at their head. Oligarchies that are in some way consensual (China, perhaps what Iraq will be) are more conservative and less risk taking. Too many people who have a say have interests upset by wars and foreign adventures (Iran-Iraq War, Kuwait, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2) which is Saddam's legacy.

Khadaffi was trying to get the US of his back when Clinton was still president and Bush was so stupid to make a deal. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Besides Khadaffi is known to do dumbest thing at the worst possible time. I wouldn't use it as proof that Bush policy was smart.

I don't desire the "stability" of Saddam. Not only do i believe that the Jaafari regime will be much more stable than Saddam's. I just find Saddam's political outlook (outside of him wanting to rule the world) much more in tune with my outlook than what i can expect of a religious fundi like Jaafari. I also believe that it is much easier to stop Saddam doing something as long as you have a bigger stick than he has. Jaafari on the other hand will fight battles that are not in his best interest.

VD,

It was the ground on which the US attacked Iraq but it was not the reason just as Franz Ferdinand wasn't the reason of WWI

In response to a

It was the ground on which the US attacked Iraq but it was not the reason

I believe it was the reason. The failure to end the Gulf War sooner eventually led to the deaths of Americans in Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, Kenya, Yemen, and finally at the World Trade Center in 2001. Also, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made it official U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

So, if we were ever going to lance the festering boil of the Gulf War cease-fire, perpetuated by the United Nations Oil-For-Food laundering operation, then invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein was the only way to do that. Ending the Gulf War has made America safer in the long run if for no other reason than giving the millions of Muslims who perform the Hajj each year something else to do besides bitching about US occupation of the Holy Land of Islam and birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed.

It wasn't in the best interests of the US of A to end the Saddam's rule. Without it the US would have been "asked" to leave Saudi Arabia & the other gulf nations much sooner

Wow, that was quite a round up.

And indeed, there is no rule more reliable than "do the opposite of Wesley Clark's advice." Its the perfect strategy. Clark is very reliably wrong.

"I have never understood why the US invaded Iraq."

Then a wise man might refrain from judging whether those results were achieved or not.

Secondly, a mountain of evidence points to the fact that a large coalition of Iraqis, including many Shiia, quite possibly including Sistani, want nothing to do with an Iranian style theocracy. I know it gives certain people a hard-on to hope so, but the facts just dont bear it out.

Finally, what, a, in your measured opinion should be the US stance towards the remaining 'stable' situations that happen to be the stability gained by standing on the throats of the innocent? If, as you say, Saddam's well being was in our interest, how far should we go to prop up actual 'friends' such as the Sauds, Musharraf, or Mubarik? And how accomidating should we be towards the stable Syrian and Iranian regime? Send aid? Allow the Mullahs the nukes they want? Blow up the Kurds before they start causing trouble. How far are you willing to take this Realpolitic panache? Is there anything the US shouldnt do to prop up regimes to our liking? Because the bottom line is when you dont destroy something evil when you can, you are enabling it morally. There are no such thing as clean hands in this world, and there is no standing aside. You are an opponent or an accomplice.

In response to a

It wasn't in the best interests of the US of A to end the Saddam's rule. Without it the US would have been "asked" to leave Saudi Arabia & the other gulf nations much sooner.

Leaving Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is exactly what the US wanted. We never had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia until the Gulf War, and we didn't even have a mutual defense agreement with Kuwait until Saddam Hussein invaded. Of course, we left Saudi Arabia within days of the end of Gulf War hostilities in 2003, having fulfilled our mutual defense obligations.

a -- Saddam's very lack of ideology and history of personal risk taking made him someone the US could not deal with successfully. He would always be the thorn in the US's side, recall Richard Clarke had worried that Saddam would offer bin Laden sanctuary and Saddam did run a terrorist camp, sheltered the 1993 WTC mastermind, Abu Nidal, and various lower level Al Qaeda folk. Saddam when faced with a choice took the road of political provocation, figuring he'd won the Gulf War (since he defined winning as being in power) over and over again. He was not interested in changing.

Saddam made his career start as a political assassin against the Kassam regime, and moved up the political ladder by killing his rivals, often personally. He idolized Josef Stalin and dressed like him and wore his mustache. His personal and political history shows him to be extremely erratic, often irrational, and unpredictable. An Arab Napoleon/Stalin with bad political and military judgement.

Moreover the political situation would not allow the US to continue to "contain" Saddam for much longer. Sanctions were observed only in the breach, and France, Russia, and China all wanted them to end so they could buy oil and sell Saddam weapons openly with higher profits. Keeping Saddam outside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia cost considerable military effort, periodic bombing campaigns, and a lot of negative publicity (Saddam and his PR people charged a million Iraqi children starved to death due to sanctions, and of course his grotesque palaces).

Unlike Kim Jong-Il, Saddam did not have a nervous and militarily superior superpower on his border who'd constrain him from idiot moves. Saddam launching a war to control the world price of oil by conquering the Saudi peninsula depended soley on Saddam's whims absent a permanent US expeditionary force that in itself was politically impossible.

Contrast with the current situation. A Kurd who above all else desires stability, to preserve Kurdish autonomy and prosperity (much of it familial as well as ethnic) in the Kurdish North, and who has limited authority, sharing power with the Sunni center and Shia majority in the south. No political arrangement that excludes the vast majority (Shia) from ANY meaningful political position (Saddam's regime and the prior ones) can be considered stable, without a totally brutal and erratic tyrant like Saddam.

The Kurds have limited political goals best achieved by keeping the country together in some consensus driven, moderate form. This includes keeping Turkey from invading in the North, autonomy though not independence, recovery of some ethnically cleansed areas by Saddam, and preservation of their economic success. The Shia want their fair share of running things, and doubtless the graft/payoffs. The Sunnis who are the smallest minority may find some graft, less than Saddam's if they play ball. This isn't perfect but beats an unending effort to keep Saddam and Uday or Qusay from overruning the Gulf.

So from a realpolitik perspective alone, I'd argue that removing Saddam was our best course. Removing him certainly made Khadaffi reveal his own nuclear weapons efforts, in an attempt to come in from the cold. As the Col. himself said, he did not want to be like Saddam. Pulling Saddam from his spiderhole had a great benefit, it showed that the strongest Arab country (Iraq) could be overthrown quite easily (occupation being another story however) and there were real risks by a ruler who needlessly antagonized the US. Far more so than weak and non-Arab Afghanistan. Saddam was the living legend, untouchable, and we took him down. If we could do it to him we could do it to anyone, hence a healthy incentive to appreciate military strength and not tolerate Al Qaeda staging attacks against us from Arab nations.

Think we'll get a straight answer on this one, Colt?

LOL!

Heard anything juicy about this Huarte thing?

There have come some new details about Huarte activities. His Islamic association appears to be slight related to Yusuf Galán, a former Batasuna (ETA political wing) representative later converted to Islam, who was arrested on charges of recruiting and sending people to be trained by Al Qaeda in Afganistan. Galán was blamed by other fellow Islamists of being too radical, to defend himself of this accusation he pointed out that Huarte's association had given him some support. Galán sometimes used Almallah's apartment in Madrid. Almallah, a Syrian born and a member of the Spanish Socialist Party (who granted his admission?) was detained last month, thus Huarte closes this first ring.

And also the City council of Gijón granted to Huarte all type of subventions without requesting justification among others, 3000 € to the "Ethnographic Museum of the Suit of the Palestinian People", and 138,080 € to an arab High School in Ramalla, later diverted. To justify the request of public subventions with false invoices or budgets is an extended way of corruption in Spain and, as far as I know, is also used in other European countries.

Hmm. I wonder if Huarte ever sat on any of the Euro-Arab dialogue committees?

Wasn't Yousef (Yusuf) Galan the chief aide to Imad Yarkas, one of the highest-ranking al-Qaeda members in Europe?

Huh - I'd have been asking you that question :-)

According to you, yes :-)

And that's interesting that he was the guy who went to the Iraqi embassy. I thought that name was familiar. ETA, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and the PSOE. Quite a cocktail.

Joe A:

What do you mean by this?

thus Huarte closes this first ring.

_"I have never understood why the US invaded Iraq."

Then a wise man might refrain from judging whether those results were achieved or not._

I didn't get why the US did it but now she is in it there are objectives that i can measure, like how history will speak of it.

including Sistani, want nothing to do with an Iranian style theocracy.

Sistani doesn't want to be boss because the boss will also have to deal with the uninteresting stuff (tax code, road work) but he wants to decide the stuff he finds interesting (divorce rules, abortion etc) In short he wants an Irish model theocracy instead of the Iranian model as the work better in the long run.

_Finally, what, a, in your measured opinion should be the US stance towards the remaining 'stable' situations that happen to be the stability gained by standing on the throats of the innocent? _

You mean like Egypte and Jordan. Support them with a billion dollar a year.

The Kurds have limited political goals best achieved by keeping the country together in some consensus driven, moderate form

Limited in that they only want to take part of Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq and go independant. and that the president of Iraq probably sees America as his best friend outside of Saddam

Colt (#28)

What do you mean by this?

thus Huarte closes this first ring.

Some actions between the many groups and very different people involved in 3/11 happened not by chance, but appear to be coordinated, as if it were somebody above giving orders. Huarte seems the piece that jointed together some of these groups (recruiters and other Islamic radicals related to the Madrid Mosque surroundings) to the plot and Benesmail the one that contacted Toro and Trashorras to supply the explosives and kept ETA informed; but there are more groups whose coordinated behaviour is not explained, thus probably there exists more "rings", although there is no evidence yet.

"Sistani doesn't want to be boss because the boss will also have to deal with the uninteresting stuff (tax code, road work) but he wants to decide the stuff he finds interesting (divorce rules, abortion etc)"

You've had this conversation with him? Where do you get this stuff? You keep making these assertions that come right out of a playbook 3 years old and have no bearing on the present.

Can i use a quote from Juan Cole here or is that a banning offense ;-)

Sistani rejects Khomeini's theory of the guardianship of the jurisprudent (vilayat-i faqih) in governmental affairs. He does not want to see a faqih or supreme jurisprudent in Iraq similar to the position of Ali Khamenei in Iran. But he does speak about wilayat al-faqih fi al-masa'il al-ijtima`iyyah, or the guardianship of the jurisprudent in social affairs. The mechanism for such a guardianship is the issuance of fatwas or considered jurisprudential rulings.