Garbage In, Garbage Out

An al Qaeda suspect at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. military prison said he was tortured until he confessed to involvement in the USS Cole attack and other plans, according to a hearing transcript released on Friday.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 attack on the U.S. warship, also said he told interrogators Osama bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. He said he made up that and other statements because he was being tortured, according to a transcript of a March 14 hearing held at Guantanamo Bay.

"From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me," Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian national of Yemeni descent, said through a translator.

"I just said those things to make the people happy," he said. "They were very happy when I told them those things."

U.S. intelligence officials say that in addition to masterminding the Cole attack, Nashiri led the plot to smuggle missiles into Saudi Arabia for use against a U.S. target.

The U.S. military, during the unclassified portion of the hearing, made more narrow accusations against Nashiri.

The military accused him of financing the 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 U.S. sailors and wounded 29. Citing statements from another suspected al Qaeda operative, the military said Nashiri bought the boat and explosives used in the attack.

The United States also said Nashiri helped obtain a passport for a man involved in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. The military said he was holding several forged passports from several countries when he was arrested in the United Arab Emirates in October 2002.

According to the redacted transcript released by the Pentagon, Nashiri denied involvement in the embassy bombing and the Cole attack.

How's The "Surge" Going?

By focusing on Baghdad -- a necessarily limited and thus supposedly manageable area of operations -- the "surge" is making good progress according to some American politicians.

Folks on the ground may disagree.

A devastating series of bombings in a crowded market in a Shi'ite Muslim neighborhood of Baghdad and in a predominantly Shi'ite town north of the capital killed more than 130 Iraqis yesterday, the same day a new US envoy asserted at his swearing-in that the American mission in Iraq was not an impossible one.

The bombings, part of a pattern of attacks in predominantly Shi'ite areas, threatened to inflame sectarian tensions that are at boiling point across much of Iraq. American officials believe the attacks are part of a systematic effort by Al Qaeda militants to foment violence by Shi'ite militias and scuttle the latest US security effort. ...

The fresh round of bloodletting underscored the enormous difficulty of the task being taken up by Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, a career diplomat who had once warned that the US invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein could set off spiraling strife between Iraq's Sunnis and majority Shi'ites.

Crocker, 57, told an audience, mainly workers at the embassy where the ceremony was held, that security is the central issue in Iraq.

"Terrorists, insurgents, and militias continue to threaten security in Baghdad and around the country," said the diplomat. Fulfilling US goals in Iraq would be hard, he said, but: "If I thought it was impossible, I would not be standing here today.

Saudi King Abdullah Tries To Rally Arabs

The Guardian of the Two Holy Places tells it like it is:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region's politics.

The king's speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging.

The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

They brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month, but one that Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday King Abdullah called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.

In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah. ...

In his speech, the king said, “In the beloved Iraq, the bloodshed is continuing under an illegal foreign occupation and detestable sectarianism.”

He added: “The blame should fall on us, the leaders of the Arab nation, with our ongoing differences, our refusal to walk the path of unity. All that has made the nation lose its confidence in us.”

King Abdullah has not publicly spoken so harshly about the American-led military intervention in Iraq before, and his remarks suggest that his alliance with Washington may be less harmonious than administration officials have been hoping.

Saudi King Sends A Message

Guess who's not coming to dinner?

Saudi King Abdullah has pulled out of a scheduled state dinner at the White House.

Now the White House ponders what Abdullah's sudden and sparsely explained cancellation of the dinner signifies. Nothing good -- especially for Condoleezza Rice's most important Middle East initiatives -- is the clearest available answer.

Abdullah's bowing out of the April 17 event is, in fact, one more warning sign that the Bush administration's downward spiral at home is undermining its ability to achieve its policy objectives abroad. Friends as well as foes see the need, or the chance, to distance themselves from the politically besieged Bush.

Official versions discount that possibility, of course. Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, flew to Washington last week to explain to Bush that April 17 posed a scheduling problem. " 'It is not convenient' was the way it was put," says one official.

But administration sources report that Bush and his senior advisers were not convinced by Bandar's vagueness -- especially since it followed Saudi decisions to seek common ground with Iran and the radicals of Hezbollah and Hamas instead of confronting them as part of Rice's proposed "realignment" of the Middle East into moderates and extremists. ...

But Rice will get no relief when she returns to Washington. She will have to deal with more depressing society news: Jordan's King Abdullah, who has spent more time in George W. Bush's Washington than any other foreign leader, has let the White House know that he can't make that state visit discussed for September. Can you do 2008? the king asks instead.

U.S. Sent Diplomatic Protest To Iran Over EFPs

More than 20 months ago, the United States secretly sent Iran a diplomatic protest charging that Tehran was supplying lethal roadside explosive devices to Shiite extremists in Iraq, according to American officials familiar with the message.

The July 19, 2005, protest -- blandly titled "Message from the United States to the Government of Iran" -- informed the Iranians that a British soldier had been killed by one of the devices in Maysan Province in eastern Iraq.

The complaint said that the Shiite militants who planted the device had longstanding ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, and that the Revolutionary Guards and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia had been training Iraqi Shiite insurgents in Iran and supplying them with bomb-making equipment.

"We will continue to judge Iran by its actions in Iraq," the protest added.

Iran flatly denied the charges in a diplomatic reply it sent the following month, and it continues to deny any role in the supply of the lethal weapons. But the confidential exchange foreshadowed the more public confrontation between the Bush administration and Iran that has been unfolding since December.

In the past four months, the administration has sought to put new pressure on Tehran, through military raids against Iranian operatives in Iraq, the dispatch of an American aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, as well as the increasingly public complaints about Iran’s role in arming Shiite militias. The American actions prompted criticism that the White House is trying to find a scapegoat for military setbacks in Iraq, or even to prepare for a new war with Iran.

U.S. Talks With Iraqi Insurgents Confirmed

Regular readers here are familiar with this story (see inter alia Details of High-Level US Talks With Iraqi Insurgent Groups Revealed).

The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Iraq is now confirming it.

The senior American envoy in Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks last year with men he believed represented major insurgent groups in a drive to bring militant Sunni Arabs into politics.

"There were discussions with the representatives of various groups in the aftermath of the elections, and during the formation of the government before the Samarra incident, and some discussions afterwards as well," Mr. Khalilzad said in a farewell interview on Friday at his home inside the fortified Green Zone. He is the first American official to publicly acknowledge holding such talks.

The meetings began in early 2006 and were quite possibly the first attempts at sustained contact between senior American officials here and the Sunni Arab insurgency. Mr. Khalilzad flew to Jordan for some of the talks, which included self-identified representatives of the Islamic Army of Iraq and the 1920 Revolution Brigades, two leading nationalist factions, American and Iraqi officials said. Mr. Khalilzad declined to give details on the meetings, but other officials said the efforts had foundered by the summer, after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra set off waves of sectarian violence.

Mr. Khalilzad's willingness even to approach rebel groups seemed at odds with the public position of some Bush administration officials that the United States does not negotiate with insurgents. It was not clear whether he had to seek permission from Washington before engaging in these talks.

It may not be clear to the New York Times, but rest assured, it is clear to everybody else that the discussions had been approved at the highest level of the U.S. government.

No question.

Mr. Khalilzad said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq at the time, was also engaged in talks at some point, but the ambassador gave no details. Other officials said they knew of no such engagement by General Casey.

The "other officials" must not have seen the March 19, 2006 episode of Meet The Press or read about Gen. Casey's anguished and palpitant verbosity that day on this blog (see comment section):

Speaking of slip-up, Gen. Casey on Meet The Press today inadvertently let slip the CIA/Iraqi Insurgent negotiations.

MR. RUSSERT: You're having negotiations with the insurgents?

GEN. CASEY: No, I said we are, we are seeing people coming forward and being more willing to talk. I'm, I'm not negotiating with any insurgents.

MR. RUSSERT: You're having conversations with the insurgents?

GEN. CASEY: I'm, I'm not having any conversations with insurgents, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Then who are they talking to?

GEN. CASEY: They're talking to political folks, people who, who talk to us, and passing messages.

TIDE Gets The Stains That Others Leave Behind

Another massive "anti-terror" database has been collating information on people who may (or may not) pose a threat to U.S. security.

The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) has expanded -- as these things tend to do -- "from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000" today.

TIDE has also created concerns about secrecy, errors and privacy. The list marks the first time foreigners and U.S. citizens are combined in an intelligence database. The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information. ...

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said last year that his wife had been delayed repeatedly while airlines queried whether Catherine Stevens was the watch-listed Cat Stevens. The listing referred to the Britain-based pop singer who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. The reason Islam is not allowed to fly to the United States is secret. ...

Every night at 10, TIDE dumps an unclassified version of that day's harvest -- names, dates of birth, countries of origin and passport information -- into a database belonging to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. TIDE's most sensitive information is not included. The FBI adds data about U.S. suspects with no international ties for a combined daily total of 1,000 to 1,500 new names.

Between 5 and 6 a.m., a shift of 24 analysts drawn from the agencies that use watch lists begins a new winnowing process at the center's Crystal City office. The analysts have access to case files at TIDE and the original intelligence sources, said the center's acting director, Rick Kopel.

Decisions on what to add to the Terrorist Screening Center master list are made by midafternoon. The bar is higher than TIDE's; total listings were about 235,000 names as of last fall, according to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. The bar is then raised again as agencies decide which names to put on their own watch lists: the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" and "selectee" lists for airlines; Consular Lookout and Support System at the State Department; the Interagency Border and Inspection System at the Department of Homeland Security; and the Justice Department's National Crime Information Center. The criteria each agency use are classified, Kopel said. ...

All of the more than 30,000 individuals on the TSA's no-fly list are prohibited from entering an aircraft in the United States. People whose names appear on the longer selectee list -- those the government believes merit watching but does not bar from travel -- are supposed to be subjected to more intense scrutiny.

With little to go on beyond names, airlines find frequent matches. The screening center agent on call will check the file for markers such as sex, age and prior "encounters" with the list. The agent might ask the airlines about the passenger's eye color, height or defining marks, Kopel said. "We'll say, 'Does he have any rings on his left hand?' and they'll say, 'Uh, he doesn't have a left hand.' Okay. We know that [the listed person] lost his left hand making a bomb."

If the answers indicate a match, that "encounter" is fed back into the FBI screening center's files and ultimately to TIDE. Kopel said the agent never tells the airline whether the person trying to board is the suspect. The airlines decide whether to allow the customer to fly.

That'll stop the terrorists every time.

Right?

Zbiggy Nails This One

Tomorrow's Washington Post features an excellent article by Zbigniew Brzezinski on the willful debasement of the United States by the Bush administration in the name of the "war on terror."

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war." ...

The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.

That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

The whole piece is worth a read.

A Panicked Population is Hard To Control

Former Gov. Fife Symington trotted out an aide dressed as an alien 10 years ago to spoof the frenzy surrounding mysterious lights in the Phoenix sky.

Now, he says he saw the lights, too, and believes they were extraterrestrial. He said he did not acknowledge his encounter at first because he did not want to cause a panic.

He discussed the sighting with a documentary filmmaker and in interviews this week. He told CNN that the craft he saw March 13, 1997, "just felt otherworldly." The Phoenix lights, which appeared in a V shape as they moved across the sky, were widely explained as flares dumped by a military training flight.

Doctors Fleeing Iraq Chaos

The ordeal continues for victims of Iraq's violence when they are taken to hospital.

Most of the best medical staff have left after being targeted by insurgents. Many have fled the country just in the last few months.

Drugs and equipment are almost non-existent. The notorious militias target patients inside hospitals, and doctors inside the health ministry.

All this in a country that used to pride itself on the best medical services in the Middle East. ...

(A) doctor described what happens to Iraqis who go to hospital for treatment after a bomb attack.

"You can reach a hospital easily, but there is no one to deal with you. And if they do deal with you they [militias] might come and kill you afterwards," he said. "Patients will leave because they are threatened. ...

Doctor after doctor described how armed gangs have now infiltrated not just the hospitals, but the health ministry itself.

Another of this group of doctors, a top cardiologist, described how they met the Iraqi health minister in Amman recently.

"He told us that he can't do anything, because he is sitting on one floor. The floor above him belongs to one of the militias, the floor below belongs to another militia. He can see people fighting inside his ministry."

"None of the doctors can go inside the ministry of health because he will be kidnapped," chipped in another of the doctors.

"If they go in, they will not go out."

Ah-So, Aso

Blond, blue-eyed Westerners probably can't be as successful at Middle East diplomacy as Japanese with their "yellow faces," Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso was quoted by media as saying on Wednesday.

"Japan is doing what Americans can't do," the Nikkei business daily quoted the gaffe-prone Aso as saying in a speech.

"Japanese are trusted. If (you have) blue eyes and blond hair, it's probably no good," he said.

"Luckily, we Japanese have yellow faces."

Foreign Ministry officials were unable to comment on the report, which said Aso elaborated by saying Japan had never exploited the Middle East, started a war there or fired a shot.

Aso, seen in some circles as a contender to succeed Prime Minister Shinzo Abe if the Japanese leader runs into trouble in a July election for parliament's upper house, is known for verbal gaffes.

He offended South Korea with remarks in 2003 that were interpreted in Seoul as trying to justify some of Japan's actions during its 1910-1945 colonization of the Korean peninsula.

He also drew criticism in 2001 when, as economics minister, he said he hoped to make Japan the kind of country where "rich Jews" would want to live.

Aso said then he had not intended to be discriminatory.

Japan has long felt it has a special role to play in the Middle East because it lacks much of the political baggage of the United States, allowing for warmer ties with Arab nations.

Last week Tokyo hosted four-way talks aimed at working toward peace in the Middle East, involving Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories as well as Japan.

Abe's government has been battered by a series of problematic remarks by cabinet ministers this year, including the health minister's reference to women as "birth-giving machines" and Aso's own description of Washington's occupation strategy in Iraq as "immature."

Rice Implicated in Omar Kidnapping

Not only Condi.

Title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter III, § 413b. of the United States Code requires that the president personally authorize all covert actions.

Not that this administration has always been good about following the law. But it is highly likely that all the proper procedures were followed in this case (or else the CIA wouldn't have conducted the operation.)

Robert Lady, the former CIA chief in Milan, has gone into hiding. He is the subject of an extradition order from Italian authorities for the role he played in the kidnapping of radical Muslim cleric Abu Omar in Milan. Washington is seeking to derail the trial -- perhaps because Condoleezza Rice may have given the operation the green light. ...

(A)ccording to recent findings brought to light by American journalist Matthew Cole, writing in the March issue of GQ, it's not just the agents involved in the abduction who need to be protected. Those truly responsible are to be found in the higher echelons of the US administration, according to Cole, who claims that current US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice personally approved the operation when she served as President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor. She apparently OKed Abu Omar's abduction and then, according to Cole's report, "fretted" during her meeting with the CIA over how she would inform Bush about the operation.

No official denial has been issued over Cole's allegations -- perhaps in part because there is much to suggest they are true: All truly sensitive CIA operations conducted in the context of the "war on terror" had to be approved by the White House. ...

Lady has a lot at stake in this case. If the Italian constitutional court doesn't put a halt on the trial, the state prosecutor could confiscate Lady's beloved farm. "I'll probably be convicted. But I won't go to trial, and I'll never see Italy again," he lamented to journalist Cole. But other plausible scenarios remain, too: Perhaps the former CIA agent will testify after all. He is said to be bitter about the lack of support he has received from the CIA. The only ones protected by Washington these days are the ones who give orders, and not people like him, who do the dirty work, he is said to have complained.

Indeed, Robert Lady's comments to Cole seem as threatening as they do disillusioned, and they were likely meant to sound that way. "No one's called me for support," he said. "No one has helped. I keep thinking, Fuck it, I've got nothing to lose."

Joint Security Stations in Baghdad

Neighborhood security facilities to solicit intelligence from residents that we are forced -- for security reasons -- to keep secret from those same residents.

Nice.

Rarely do U.S. military officials talk about the month-old security crackdown in Iraq without mentioning three words: "joint security stations." The stations are considered crucial to the plan's success because of their emphasis on giving Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods a 24/7 troop presence.

Four years ago today, U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. The fears and distrust resulting from the subsequent warfare make it difficult, if not impossible, to persuade Iraqis to use the stations as they were intended: as friendly neighborhood cop shops where anyone can drop by with a tip on a suspected terrorist next door.

This is a country where working for foreigners can get a citizen killed for being a suspected collaborator. It is a country where people have little faith in the U.S. military's commitment to providing them the electricity, jobs and improved lives they were promised as part of the American-led attack that began March 20, 2003.

Under the best circumstances, analysts say, classic counterinsurgency tactics can take years to work. Combine that with the limited U.S. troop levels in Iraq, and with security concerns that prevent the military even from telling people where the stations are located, and it becomes clear that in the context of Iraq in 2007, the simple idea of security stations is laden with complications. ...

Among Iraqis who say they would use the stations, several interviewed in various neighborhoods expressed doubts as to their effectiveness, a reflection of the hopelessness driving so many here to leave the country.

"For me, it is just one of the numerous promises we have heard about but that have yielded no results," said shop owner Abu Qusai. "People are sick of new promises."

If such opinions concern the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, he didn't show it during a visit March 13 to a joint security station in Ramadi, the capital of Al Anbar province, a longtime center of the anti-American insurgency led by Sunni Arabs. Petraeus touted the decrepit former school in a bleak, rocket-scarred neighborhood as an example of counterinsurgency at its best. ...

The Army counterinsurgency manual that Petraeus himself drafted emphasizes the importance of stationing military troops in neighborhoods they have secured. The thinking is that if they stay on and provide security and basic services to help people recover from conflict, streetwise residents will warm to them.

But the manual also calls for a ratio of roughly one service person for every 50 civilians, something impossible to achieve with the U.S. forces at Petraeus' disposal. Petraeus said the ratio was reachable if one counted Iraqi troops and private security workers contracted to do jobs that might otherwise fall to troops, such as protecting the U.S. Embassy.

Report: Chirac Urged Israeli Strike on Syria

French President Jacques Chirac told Israel at the start of the war in Lebanon that France would support an Israeli assault on Syria, it was reported on Sunday.

Army Radio reported that in the message, which was delivered by Chirac to Israel via a secret channel, the French president suggested that Israel invade Damascus and topple the regime of Bashar Assad. In exchange, Chirac assured Israel full French support for the war.

According to the message delivered from Paris, Syria was responsible for the flare up in the North and encouraged Hizbullah to attack.

"Former prime minister Ariel Sharon had explained to the French in the past that Iran is the main one responsible for Hizbullah's armament in Lebanon, while Chirac saw Syria as the primary one responsible for the matter," former Israeli ambassador to France Nissim Zvilli told Army Radio in an interview.

"President Chirac saw Syria as directly responsible for the attempt to undermine the Lebanese regime," he said. "He saw them as directly responsible for the murder of [former Lebanese prime minister] Rafik Hariri and directly responsible for arming Hizbullah. Likewise, he saw Syria as the one giving Hizbullah orders on how to operate."

In March of last year, some four months before the war began, Chirac warned Syria that the international community would respond harshly to any attempt to destabilize Lebanon.

"Syria must understand that any act that encroaches upon the stability of Lebanon, be it through the shipment of weapons or assassinations, is an act that contradicts with its standing in the international community and will trigger a response from the international community," Chirac said at the time.

During the war, France was one of the foremost proponents of sending a multinational UNIFIL force to police the Israel-Lebanon border, and even offered to lead it.

Towards the end of the war, however, diplomatic officials said France had changed its mind out of concern that its badly strained relations with Syria would lead Hizbullah to target French soldiers.

A Clarification by Moqtada al-Sadr

The U.S. government spin has been that Mookie's recent quiescence indicated that he -- at least implicitly -- was supporting the "surge."

I guess this may have been a fanciful interpretation of the evidence.

Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday called upon followers inside his stronghold of Sadr City to resist U.S. forces who are trying to stabilize the capital. Officials in his organization said the cleric was advocating a peaceful uprising.

"Raise your voices, all of you loving your brothers and united against your enemy saying as your leader taught you, 'No America, no Israel, no, no Satan,' by standing and demonstrating that way," Sadr said in a message distributed at the Kufa mosque in southern Iraq. ...

On Friday, thousands of Sadr's followers demonstrated in several parts of Iraq, including Sadr City, to protest the U.S. role. They denounced the neighborhood security outposts and garrisons being set up under the plan and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Sadr's statement came one day after gunmen attacked a convoy carrying the mayor of Sadr City, Rahim al-Darraji, leaving him seriously wounded and killing at least two of his bodyguards. Darraji, a Sadr appointee, took part in negotiations with U.S. officials to allow American troops to conduct security sweeps and build a garrison in Sadr City.

It was unclear whether Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia has often attacked U.S. and Iraqi forces, was issuing a call to arms. ...

As U.S. troops have carried out raids in Sadr City as part of the security plan, the Mahdi Army has lain low. Friday's statement appeared to address recent public comments by U.S. military officials suggesting that the militia's low profile represented tacit cooperation with the security plan.

"And here you are standing up for the support of your beloved city; this city which the occupier wanted to harm, and tarnish its reputation by spreading false propaganda and rumors and claiming that there are negotiation and collaboration between you and them," the statement continued. "But I am sure that you consider them as your enemies."

Two Senators Were At Guantanamo For KSM Hearing

Two key congressional leaders secretly flew to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Saturday to observe the closed military hearing for al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed, according to Capitol Hill staff members and Pentagon officials.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a committee member, watched the proceedings over closed-circuit television from an adjacent room, said Tara Andringa, a spokeswoman for Levin. They were joined by a representative from the CIA, according to one U.S. government official. Lawyers from the Justice Department did not attend the hearing, a spokesman for the department said.

The official transcript of Mohammed's hearing, called to establish whether he qualifies as an "enemy combatant," acknowledged the presence of five unnamed military officers, a translator and an official tribunal reporter. It is unclear why the presence of two senators who helped write the law codifying the tribunals was not announced. ...

Though there have been hundreds of status hearings for Guantanamo detainees, last week's hearings for Mohammed and two other al-Qaeda suspects marked the first time that Combatant Status Review Tribunals were closed to the media and the public. Pentagon officials argued that hearings for Mohammed and 13 others who were held inside the CIA's secret detention program, some for years, have to be secret for unspecified national security reasons.

Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq -- March 2007

The Pentagon has released it's congressionally mandated quarterly report on the progress of security operations in Iraq.

Titled Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq -- March 2007 (47-page pdf), the report details the shortcomings of the U.S.-created Iraqi armed forces as well as the failure of the Iraqi government to transcend the formidable sectarian rivalries that are tearing the country apart.

Some excerpts:

Since the last report, a series of high-casualty and high-profile attacks primarily against Shi'a civilians—likely perpetrated by AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq)— have hampered efforts to demobilize militia groups and have set back the reconciliation process. Likewise, some Shi'a extremist groups have used "death squads" to kill and intimidate Sunni civilians. This type of sectarian violence in Baghdad and the failure to reliably apprehend and punish criminals and terrorists has hampered progress toward reconciliation. ...

The conflict in Iraq has changed from a predominantly Sunni-led insurgency against foreign occupation to a struggle for the division of political and economic influence among sectarian groups and organized criminal activity. As described in the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shi'a-on-Shi'a violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a "civil war," including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements. Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, and indirect fire to intimidate people and stoke sectarian conflict. Much of the present violence is focused on local issues, such as sectarian, political, and economic control of Baghdad; Kurdish, Arab, and Turkomen aspirations for Kirkuk; and the political and economic control of Shi'a regions in the south. Although most attacks continue to be directed against Coalition forces, Iraqi civilians suffer the vast majority of casualties. Given the concentration of political power and population in Baghdad and the city's ethnic and sectarian diversity, Baghdad security remains the key to stability in Iraq. ...

The level of violence in Iraq continued to rise during this reporting period as ethnic, tribal, sectarian, and political factions seek power over political and economic resources. Consistent with previous reports, more than 80% of the violence in Iraq is limited to four provinces centered around Baghdad, although it also exists in other population centers, such as Kirkuk, Mosul, and Basrah. Sectarian violence and insurgent attacks still involve a very small portion of the population, but public perception of violence is a significant factor in preventing reconciliation on key issues. The conflict in Iraq remains a mosaic and requires maximum flexibility on the part of the Coalition and the GOI to uproot the main drivers of violence in different areas of the country.

Aside from the analysis of the overall political and military picture, the report goes into great detail (not Order of Battle specific, but good) about the Iraqi security forces -- down to the training and materiel that various services and units within those services have received.

The report portrays a scenario in which U.S. forces will be needed for the foreseeable future.

Pelosi Booed At AIPAC

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby's most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.

The cool response Tuesday from about 6,000 members of the non-partisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee gathered in Washington for their annual policy conference came after she characterized the war that many of them support as a failure.

Just minutes before, the House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, had received a standing ovation from the same crowd when he defended the war as a key part of the global war on terrorism vital to the survival of the United States and Israel. ...

Pelosi first stressed the U.S.-Israel partnership. "When Israel is threatened, America's interests in the region are threatened. America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakable,'' she said to an ovation.

But when she talked about Iraq, the reaction was different. "Any U.S. military engagement must be judged on three counts -- whether it makes our country safer, our military stronger, or the region more stable. The war in Iraq fails on all three scores," she said to some boos amid some applause.

Boehner, on the other hand, was cheered when he said, "Who does not believe that failure in Iraq is not a direct threat to the state of Israel? The consequences of failure in Iraq are so ominous for the United States and Israel you can't even begin to think about it."

Among the speakers at the three-day event was Vice President Dick Cheney, who on Monday used his appearance to attack Pelosi's proposed Iraq spending legislation, which seeks a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by late 2008.

"Surge" Working Against Shiite Civilians

The Mahdi Army, Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia, has been hiding out during the early weeks of the Baghdad "surge."

The absence of the militiamen is causing Shiite residents and pilgrims to holy sites to be sitting ducks for Sunni insurgents.

Hundreds of Shiite Muslims, beating their chests in mourning, accompanied 17 coffins through Baghdad's main Shiite district Monday, demanding that militiamen be allowed to protect them after a wave of attacks on pilgrims.

"Despite the heavy security presence in Baghdad, we are seeing the terror and bombings escalate and more innocents being killed," said a man who identified himself by a traditional nickname, Abu Fatima Sadi. "When the Al Mahdi army was providing protection, there were no violations."

This year, the Al Mahdi militia, led by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr, held back from protecting millions of Shiite pilgrims making their way to the holy city of Karbala for weekend religious rites. The move came after intense pressure by the Shiite-led government to give a U.S.-Iraqi security plan a chance to succeed.

Attacks against Iraq's Shiite majority, however, have persisted despite the month-old crackdown, intended to clear the capital of sectarian fighters and anti-U.S. insurgents.

More than 220 people were killed in the last week as Sunni Arab militants unleashed suicide bombers and gunfire on the Shiite pilgrims who converged in Karbala to mark the death of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad.

Iraqi officials have reported a modest drop in recent weeks in the number of execution-style killings, which are considered to be a signature of the Al Mahdi militia.

Gates To Roll Back DOD HUMINT Effort

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering a plan to curtail the Pentagon's clandestine spying activities, which were expanded by his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, after the 9/11 attacks.

The undercover work allowed military personnel to collect intelligence about terrorists and to recruit spies in foreign countries independently of the CIA and without much congressional oversight.

Former military and intelligence officials, including those involved in an ongoing and largely informal debate about the military's forays into espionage, said that Gates, a former CIA director, is likely to "roll back" several of Rumsfeld's controversial initiatives.

This could include changing the mission of the Pentagon's Strategic Support Branch, an intelligence-gathering unit comprising Special Forces, military linguists, and interrogators that Rumsfeld set up to report directly to him. ...

The former official added that the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has also expanded its human spying efforts, could be returned to a more analytical role. The official noted that Gates doesn't intend to eliminate the Strategic Support Branch but said that its mandate will change. The unit arose from a written order by Rumsfeld to end the "near total dependence on CIA" for intelligence-gathering, and agency officials viewed it as a competitor. ...

Those tracking the debate said they don't foresee any formal action by Gates until retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper is confirmed as Defense undersecretary for intelligence. Gates selected Clapper, who was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the early 1990s, in January, but a date for his conformation hearing hasn't been set.

A former intelligence official who knows Clapper well said he's also concerned that the Pentagon has overstepped its bounds. "I think Jim is as uncomfortable with it as anyone is in the intelligence community," the former official said. "The feeling on this one is that this was a Rumsfeld-created exercise ... by people who really didn't understand intelligence." ...

The Defense Department has had its own human intelligence service since 1993. But it was never as expansive as the CIA's operations directorate, which has since been renamed the National Clandestine Service and is legally designated as the lead human intelligence agency.

Edward W. Gnehm, who served as ambassador to Jordan from 2001 to 2004, said that in late 2003 the defense attaché in Amman showed him a message from the Pentagon describing a Pentagon intelligence team that was being sent to Amman to gather information about the stability of the Jordanian government.

Mr. Gnehm said that the note had gone directly to the defense attaché, and stated explicitly that the ambassador and C.I.A. station in Jordan was not to be notified of the Pentagon team's presence.

"The message made it clear that these guys were going to be acting under the authority of the secretary of defense," he said.

"Our station chief in Amman hit the roof," he added.

Mr. Gnehm said he called two other ambassadors in the Middle East and found out that the Pentagon had plans to quietly insert intelligence teams in those countries as well. ...

Pentagon officials have praised the work of the intelligence teams, known as Military Liaison Elements (M.L.E.'s), but a report last December by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that the military presence in embassies had often blurred chains of command and created missions that overlapped with other intelligence services, developments that could hinder efforts to combat terrorism.

With more American spies in the field, (Maj. Gen. Michael E. Ennis, who holds a position at the CIA responsible for all human spying across the intelligence community) said, intelligence officials were developing a slate of new training programs to establish clear roles and help ensure that different agencies were not trying to recruit the same sources.

"An M.L.E. would probably not try to recruit a nuclear scientist somewhere, because they don't have that skill set," he said. ...

Mr. Gates has also scaled back the Pentagon’s information campaign, a priority of Mr. Rumsfeld's. A team of public affairs officers working behind closed doors to churn out e-mail messages, press releases, opinion pieces and corrections to perceived inaccuracies or biased reporting worldwide was disbanded shortly after Mr. Gates was sworn in.

The work of the "rapid response cell" had been criticized by some Congressional Democrats as focusing more on protecting the reputation of one person, Mr. Rumsfeld, than on defending the interests of the broader military.

The "El Salvador Option"

For a couple of months, military strategists have been pushing a plan that -- they boast -- is reminiscent of the U.S. strategy in El Salvador in the 1980's.

Those who favor such a plan surely realize how the rest of the world views the human rights abuses that marked that Reagan-era policy, and should at least have the common sense to call it something else.

American military planners have begun plotting a fallback strategy for Iraq that includes a gradual withdrawal of forces and a renewed emphasis on training Iraqi fighters in case the current troop buildup fails or is derailed by Congress.

Such a strategy, based in part on the U.S. experience in El Salvador in the 1980s, is still in the early planning stages and would be adjusted to fit the outcome of the current surge in troop levels, according to military officials and Pentagon consultants who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing future plans.

But a drawdown of forces would be in line with comments to Congress by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last month that if the "surge" fails, the backup plan would include moving troops "out of harm's way." Such a plan also would be close to recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, of which Gates was a member before his appointment as Defense Department chief.

A strategy following the El Salvador model would be a dramatic break from President Bush's current policy of committing large numbers of U.S. troops to aggressive counterinsurgency tactics, but it has influential backers within the Pentagon. ...

The El Salvador case study contrasts with the soldier-heavy example of Vietnam and the current buildup in Iraq. In El Salvador, the U.S. sent 55 Green Berets to aid the Salvadoran military in its fight against rebels from 1981 to 1992, when peace accords were signed.

Years after, the U.S. role in El Salvador remains controversial. Some academics have argued that the U.S. military turned a blind eye to government-backed death squads, or even aided them. But former advisors and military historians argue that the U.S. gradually professionalized the Salvadoran army and curbed the government's abuses.

El Salvador veterans and experts have been pushing for the model it provides of a smaller, less visible U.S. advisory presence.

In recent congressional hearings and in private Pentagon meetings, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made several references to the El Salvador campaign. The senior Pentagon official said Pace's repeated references were a signal that in the chairman's view, success in Iraq may not depend on more combat troops.

Although Pentagon officials said the effort in Iraq would have to be much larger than the 55 advisors used in El Salvador, that model has influenced planning. Officials note that they are thinking about using thousands of advisors — although not tens of thousands — in the next phase of Iraq strategy.

Bush to Push U.S. Compassion in Guatemala

Undeterred by protests that have dogged Bush at every stop on his five-nation Latin American trip, Bush, who arrived here Sunday night, will work to convince Guatemalans that the United States is a compassionate nation. It's the same message he delivered earlier at stops in Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia.

"It's very important for the people of South America and Central America to know that the United States cares deeply about the human condition, and that much of our aid is aimed at helping people realize their God-given potential," Bush said Sunday in Bogota, Colombia. ...

On Sunday, in Tecpan, more than 100 Mayan Indians protested Bush's visit, holding signs that read: "No more blood for oil." The group is angry that Bush will be visiting the sacred Iximche archaeological site, founded as the capital of the Kaqchiqueles kingdom before the Spanish conquest in 1524.

Mayan priests say they will purify the sacred archaeological site at Iximche to rid it of any "bad spirits" after Bush is there.

"That a person like (Bush) with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked is going to walk in our sacred lands is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," said Juan Tiney, director of a Mayan non-governmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders.

Controlling The Message

The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.

The comments came Friday in response to an Associated Press protest that a U.S. soldier had forced two freelance journalists working for the AP to delete photos and video at the scene of violence March 4 in Barikaw, eastern Afghanistan. At least eight Afghans were killed and 34 wounded.

"Investigative integrity is one circumstance when civil and military authorities will reluctantly exercise the right to control what a journalist is permitted to document," Col. Victor Petrenko, chief of staff to the top U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, said in a letter Friday. ...

"When untrained people take photographs or video, there is a very real risk that the images or videography will capture visual details that are not as they originally were," he said. "If such visual media are subsequently used as part of the public record to document an event like this, then public conclusions about such a serious event can be falsely made."

The AP also raised concerns about the military's efforts to restrict its coverage of the Feb. 15 crash of a U.S. helicopter in southern Zabul province in which eight soldiers were killed and 14 wounded. Two AP journalists and their vehicle were searched extensively in an effort to prevent footage of the wreckage getting out.

Petrenko justified that action on the grounds of "operational security" exercised when "equipment, aircraft or component parts are classified."

He maintained that the U.S. military had no intention of curbing freedom of the press in Afghanistan.

A Short History of Covert U.S./Iranian Contacts

On the eve of tomorrow's Baghdad meeting between representatives of Iraq, the surrounding countries (primus inter pares, Iran), and key U.N. members (including the U.S.), today's L.A. Times has a piece on the mostly secret relationship between the United States and Iran.

The White House insists that the United States won't talk directly with Iran until Tehran suspends its nuclear program. But U.S. officials have been discreetly meeting their Iranian counterparts one-on-one for more than a decade, often under the auspices of the United Nations.

The little-known history of these contacts between the two nations, which have not had formal diplomatic relations since the Iranian hostage crisis ended in 1980, is one of misunderstandings and missed opportunities. ...

But whispered dealings between the foes have had a way of going wrong. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration decided to sell weapons to Iran to win its help in securing the release of U.S. hostages in Lebanon and diverted the proceeds of the arms sales to Nicaraguan rebels, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal.

In 1994, President Clinton covertly condoned Iran's arms shipments to Bosnian Muslims, at a time when the U.S. had pledged to uphold a U.N. weapons embargo. The policy was revealed in 1996 and met widespread criticism, keeping Iran, headed then by reformist President Mohammad Khatami, and the U.S. from broadening ties.

In 1999, Clinton offered an "authoritative and unconditional" dialogue with Iran, but Tehran insisted that the U.S. lift its sanctions first.

In the end, it was the U.N. that provided a discreet diplomatic safe house in which the two countries could talk.

In 1998, U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian, created a group called the "6+2" that met in New York to address the conflict in Afghanistan. It consisted of the country's six neighbors: China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, as well as Russia and the United States. ...

In 2001, the U.N. created another forum to facilitate contacts between the U.S. and Iran, called the Geneva Initiative, which included Italy and Germany.

"It was really just a cover to allow the Iranians and the U.S. to meet," Brahimi said. "After a while, I told them, 'We don't have to drag the Italians and Germans in every time you want to talk.' Then when it was just us sitting at the table, I would get up and tell them, 'I will leave you alone.' "

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the two nations had a common enemy in the Taliban: the Sunni rulers of Afghanistan, whom Shiite-majority Iran regarded as a threat and the U.S. considered protectors of Osama bin Laden.

In the days before the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, American and Iranian officials held extensive talks to coordinate cooperation between Iranian-backed anti-Taliban warlords and U.S. troops.

The cooperation continued politically as well. Iranian diplomats were particularly helpful during a conference in December 2001 in Bonn that established Afghanistan's interim government.

James Dobbins, who represented the State Department at the time, said the Iranian envoys were "essential" in shaping Afghanistan's government. At one point, the Northern Alliance's Younis Qanooni insisted on controlling 18 of 24 ministries, a demand that would have prevented an agreement.

Dobbins said that after diplomats from several countries "worked him over" through the night, Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, took Qanooni aside and whispered into his ear, "This is the best deal you're going to get. You better take it." Qanooni conceded two ministries and the deal was sealed. "It was decisive," Dobbins said.

Iran made it clear it was interested in a broader strategic dialogue with the United States. But the U.S., thinking it had the upper hand, brushed off the overtures, Dobbins said, and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell wrote to thank every foreign minister who had attended the conference — except Iran.

Six weeks later, in President Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, he named Iran part of an "axis of evil." Iranians had been expecting some sort of diplomatic reward in exchange for their help in Afghanistan, and took it as a slap in the face.

Still, for about a year, Iranian diplomats continued to meet in Kabul with the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, usually in Brahimi's U.N. villa, known as Palace No. 7. Khalilzad, an Afghan native who speaks Persian, was at the Bonn conference and would become a key player in the cautious diplomatic connection. Now the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, he will be at the table Saturday in Baghdad.

Later came the 2003 outreach from Iran that was rejected by the United States.

Then Ahmadinejad came to power, giving the U.S. a tangible excuse for refusing to deal (even covertly) with the Islamic Republic.

Justice IG Finds Abuse of National Security Letters

A Justice Department investigation has found pervasive errors in the FBI's use of its power to secretly demand telephone, e-mail and financial records in national security cases, officials with access to the report said yesterday.

The inspector general's audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations -- some of which were potential violations of law -- in a sampling of 293 "national security letters." The letters were used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors between 2003 and 2005. The FBI identified 26 potential violations in other cases. ...

The letters enable an FBI field office to compel the release of private information without the authority of a grand jury or judge. The USA Patriot Act, enacted after the 2001 attacks, eliminated the requirement that the FBI show "specific and articulable" reasons to believe that the records it demands belong to a foreign intelligence agent or terrorist.

That law, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed national security letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

Now the bureau needs only to certify that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." ...

(Inspector General Glenn A. Fine's) audit, which was limited to 77 case files in four FBI field offices, found that those offices did not even generate accurate counts of the national security letters they issued, omitting about one in five letters from the reports they sent to headquarters in Washington. Those inaccurate numbers, in turn, were used as the basis for required reports to Congress.

Officials said they believe that the 48 known problems may be the tip of the iceberg in an internal oversight system that one of them described as "shoddy."

The report identified several instances in which the FBI used a tool known as "exigent letters" to obtain information urgently, promising that the requests would be covered later by grand jury subpoenas or national security letters. In several of those cases, the subpoenas were never sent, the review found.

The review also found several instances in which agents claimed there were exigent circumstances when none existed. The FBI recently ended the practice of using exigent letters in national security cases, officials said last night.

The report, mandated by Congress over the Bush administration's objections, is to be presented to several House and Senate committees today.

Nice One, Padre

Pope Benedict was opposed to Bob Dylan appearing at a youth event with the late Pope John Paul in 1997 because he considered the pop star the wrong kind of "prophet," Benedict writes in a new book issued on Thursday. ...

"There was reason to be skeptical, -- I was, and in a certain sense I still am, -- to doubt if it was really right to let these types of prophets intervene," Benedict writes, only mentioning Dylan among the stars who appeared.

At the 1997 concert, Dylan, the anti-conformist troubadour of the 1960s and one of the 20th century's greatest influences on popular music, sang three songs before the Pope as part of a concert that included a number of other, mostly Italian artists.

Dylan sang "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," his 1960s anti-war classic "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall," and "Forever Young," a song of hope and courage.

In his new book, Pope Benedict does not explain why he does not like Bob Dylan or why he considers him a false "prophet."

Hekmatyar Breaks With Taliban

This dude has switched sides so many times it is hard to keep track.

The warlord has been Prime Minister of Afghanistan (twice), then a Taliban enemy, later a Taliban ally.

He cooperated in the covert CIA war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Much later he was the (unsuccessful) target of a CIA Predator drone attack after 9/11. IIRC, there is still a price on his head (payable in U.S. dollars).

Now he is shifting alliances again.

Fugitive Afghan rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar told The Associated Press his forces have ended cooperation with the Taliban and suggested that he was open to talks with embattled President Hamid Karzai.

In a video response to questions submitted by AP, Hekmatyar also recounted how U.S. forces nearly caught him on two occasions but he got away.

Hekmatyar, speaking in front of a plain white wall at an undisclosed location, indicated that his group contacted Taliban leaders some time in 2003 and agreed to wage a joint jihad, or holy war, against American troops.

"The jihad went into high gear but later it gradually went down as certain elements among the Taliban rejected the idea of a joint struggle against the aggressor," Hekmatyar said. He said his forces were now mounting only restricted operations, partly because of a lack of resources.

It is unlikely in the extreme, however, that he will mend fences with the U.S.

(Unless we make it worth his while.)

Arab Nations Protest IAEA Nuclear Aid To Israel

Arab nations have protested over Israel's first hint of a nuclear arsenal to the U.N. atomic watchdog, saying this flouts international commitments to a nuclear arms-free zone in the Middle East, diplomats said.

An Arab statement to the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors this week faulted the IAEA's provision of aid for nuclear energy in Israel even though the country had never joined a treaty banning development of atom bombs.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised a stir in December when he implied Israel had nuclear arms, seemingly straying from a longtime policy of "strategic ambiguity" meant to deter potential Arab and Islamic foes, including Iran.

Olmert's remark "represents a new confirmation of international and Arab suspicions about Israel's military nuclear capabilities," said the declaration by 15 Arab states and the Palestinian Authority, obtained by Reuters. ...

The Arab statement urged the IAEA to reconsider its nuclear aid projects in the Jewish state as long as it did not join the NPT and subject its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections.

The IAEA's secretariat has frozen many such projects in Iran, an NPT member, to uphold U.N. sanctions slapped on Tehran prompted by suspicions it may be trying to secretly build atom bombs, and its stonewalling of IAEA investigations.

Israel is widely believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal -- around 200 bombs. Some Israeli and U.S. officials have mooted possible military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions fail to curb its nuclear activity.

Iran insists its nuclear fuel program is for civilian electricity only. It has often complained of being punished while Israel, its arch-foe, has faced no pressure over its presumed nuclear arsenal and shunning of the NPT.

Cheney "Very Disappointed" By Libby Verdict

A federal jury today convicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, finding the vice president's former chief of staff guilty of two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice, while acquitting him of a single count of lying to the FBI.

And President Bush is "sad for Libby's family."

'Nuff said.

Working Towards New U.N. Sanctions Against Iran

A staple of a certain brand of foreign policy thought in Washington is the insistence that sanctions never work.

A number of influential adherents of this point of view are ensconced in the Bush administration.

These types are being dragged crying and screaming towards diplomatic solutions. Sanctions are, of course, one of the more punitive tools short of war. We all know too that the administration is partial to coercive techniques.

It once scoffed at the viability of international sanctions as a diplomatic tool. But the Bush administration, convinced that punitive financial measures played a role in moving North Korea to accept a deal designed to shut down its nuclear operations, is now spearheading a multilateral effort to use sanctions to turn the screws on Iran and its nuclear program.

Representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are expected to begin work in New York this week on a second resolution of sanctions against Iran. The idea is to preserve Security Council unity – keeping Tehran's friends China and Russia on board – while ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. ...

The new resolution, which officials say could reach a Security Council vote as early as the middle of the month, is expected to expand on and strengthen steps taken in a first resolution passed against Iran in late December. Senior officials from the six key countries discussed the contents of a second resolution in teleconference calls last Thursday and again Saturday, but they didn't come to agreement on all the points of a final text.

"This is going to be an incremental resolution," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday, referring to the ratcheting up of sanctions already in place.

Among the measures being considered, according to US and European officials, are expansion of the list of Iranian officials whose assets would be frozen, a travel ban on more Iranians who are involved in the country's nuclear research and development, and additions to the list of parts, material, and technology that would be banned from Iranian trade.

The United States also hopes to see further restrictions on export credits, or financial measures that encourage trade. European governments, among others, have provided these credits to companies trading with Iran. Moreover, the US wants to limit access that Iran's largest banks have to international markets.

But a proposal for an embargo on all arms trading with Tehran was dropped last week on Russian objections, officials said. Also scuttled was a ban on student visas for Iranians studying subjects such as nuclear physics. ...

The administration may have adopted a diplomacy-with-threats approach to Iran, but some analysts say the strategy confuses US partners and encourages the Iranians to focus on ways to exploit it.

"The Bush administration thinking seems to be that every successive resolution will be stronger and that combining that with the increased pressure of measures like a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, you can pressure Iran into acquiescing," says Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations here.

"On the surface it's not an unintelligent blueprint," he adds, "but it doesn't seem to include an understanding of its impact on the Iranians. They can't comprehend the contradictions." To back up his point, Mr. Takeyh says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been talking about conditions for opening up trade with Tehran, while Treasury officials have been pressing the international community to cut off trade with Iran.

Prisoner Abuse in Iraqi Intelligence Facility

Maliki here shows his true colors.

Iraqi special forces and British troops stormed the offices of an Iraqi government intelligence agency in the southern city of Basra on Sunday, and British officials said they discovered about 30 prisoners, some showing signs of torture.

The raid appeared to catch Iraq's central government by surprise and raised new questions about the rule of law in the Shiite-dominated south, where less than two weeks ago Britain announced plans for a significant reduction in its forces because of improved stability.

News of the Basra raid, with its resonant themes of torture and sectarian-driven conflict, coincided with the next stage of the intensified security plan here in Baghdad, where more than 1,100 American and Iraqi soldiers moved into Sadr City, a stronghold of Iraq's largest Shiite militia. The soldiers met no resistance in what the Americans called the plan's biggest test yet.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a conservative Shiite, condemned the raid in Basra. He publicly said nothing about the evidence of torture.

"The prime minister has ordered an immediate investigation into the incident of breaking into the security compound in Basra and stressed the need to punish those who have carried out this illegal and irresponsible act," said the full text of a statement issued late Sunday by his office.

It remained unclear why he sought to pursue the raiding force aggressively rather than the accusations of prisoner abuse. Efforts to reach officials in his office were unsuccessful.

The Ubiquitous Artifice

From The Progress Report:

On Sunday, it will have been 2,000 days since the 9/11 terror attacks -- 2,000 days that Osama bin Laden has spent on the loose, living in freedom.

Yesterday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Tony Snow about new U.S. intelligence showing that bin Laden is in Pakistan actively re-establishing al Qaeda training camps. At first, Snow claimed that this was "an intelligence matter that I'm not going to be able to go into," despite the fact that the new National Intelligence Director had testified about this topic the day before. He then suggested that bin Laden may now be "marginalized." A reporter responded, "Isn't he the leader of al Qaeda?" Snow answered, "Well, I don't know. It's a real question about who assumes operational command."

But last month, Vice President Cheney referenced the #3 of al Qaeda "underneath Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri." In December, Snow himself referred to al Qaeda as "the bin Laden organization." Moreover, President Bush, Tony Snow, and other White House officials frequently quote bin Laden as proof that al Qaeda considers Iraq "the central battlefield in the war on terror." Only when the Bush administration is asked to face the truth about the threat that bin Laden poses do they pretend he might be a bit player. Otherwise, the White House is happy to use bin Laden's propaganda to justify its failing policies.

The Noose Is Tightening

The recent talk about placing ABM components in Poland and the Czech Republic has merely irritated Russia.

Apparently, more provocative measures are now needed.

The director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Thursday that Washington wants to base an anti-missile radar in the Caucasus, a move that could provoke a further rift with Russia.

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering declined to specify which country the long-range radar could be installed in, but noted that "it would be very useful for the anti-missile system."

Speaking on a stop at NATO headquarters in Brussels, he said "we would like to place a radar in ... the Caucasus."

The United States has said the planned defenses would not be aimed at Russia, and are intended to defend against missile attacks from countries such as Iran.

Moscow has angrily criticized Washington's plan to locate an anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland. It is likely that placing another radar in a U.S.-allied country such as Georgia or Azerbaijan would provoke further protest.

Unlike anti-aircraft systems, anti-missile radars have very narrow beams that cannot be used to monitor large swathes of air space. They have high resolution and very long ranges, allowing them to follow objects the size of a baseball at distances of up to nearly 2,000 miles.

Russia has warned that Poland and the Czech Republic risked being targeted by Russian missiles if they agreed to host the U.S. anti-missile bases.

In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said the missile elements planned by Washington for Poland and the Czech Republic would become a "factor that we will have to take into account while determining our steps in the military-political sphere and military development."

"In the modern world, security is indivisible. You can't ensure your own security if you provoke other nations' concerns about their security," Grushko said in a statement posted on the Foreign Ministry's Web site.

High-level plans for a series of "Your Mama" insults against the Russians are rumored to be in the pipeline. The NSC and DOD are said to be down with the program, but the State Department is allegedly balking at escalating to "The Dozens."

"Baghdad Brains Trust" Gives Mission Six More Months

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.

But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations. ...

But the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:

· Insufficient troops on the ground

· A "disintegrating" international coalition

· An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave

· Morale problems as casualties rise

· A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad.

"The scene is very tense," the former official said. "They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do."

The team is an unusual mix of combat experience and academic achievement. It includes Colonel Peter Mansoor, a former armoured division commander with a PhD in the history of infantry; Colonel HR McMaster, author of a well-known critique of Vietnam and a seasoned counter-insurgency operations chief; Lt-Col David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian officer and expert on Islamism; and Colonel Michael Meese, son of the former US attorney-general Edwin Meese, who was a member of the ill-fated Iraq Study Group.

U.S. Not So Sure About NK Uranium Program

Oddly enough, this may be a good sign.

Lately the intelligence has fallen apart only after we have attacked the nation in question. Analytical rigor could be making a comeback.

The Bush administration is backing away from its long-held assertions that North Korea has an active clandestine program to enrich uranium, leading some experts to believe that the original U.S. intelligence that started the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions may have been flawed.

The chief intelligence officer for North Korea, Joseph R. DeTrani, told Congress on Tuesday that while there is "high confidence" North Korea acquired materials that could be used in a "production-scale" uranium program, there is only "mid-confidence" such a program exists. Meanwhile, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill, the chief negotiator for disarmament talks, told a conference last week in Washington that it is unclear whether North Korea ever mastered the production techniques necessary for such a program. ...

The administration's stance today stands in sharp contrast to the certainty expressed by top officials in 2002, when the administration accused Pyongyang of running a secret uranium program -- and demanded it be dismantled at once. President Bush told a news conference that November: "We discovered that, contrary to an agreement they had with the United States, they're enriching uranium, with a desire of developing a weapon." ...

Plutonium and highly enriched uranium provide different routes to building nuclear weapons. The North Koreans were able to reprocess spent fuel rods -- which had been monitored by U.N. inspectors under the 1994 agreement -- to obtain the weapons-grade plutonium for a nuclear test last year. A uranium-enrichment program would have required Pyongyang to build a facility with thousands of uranium-spinning centrifuges to obtain the highly enriched uranium needed for a weapon. Iran's nuclear program, which the United States alleges is intended for weapons, involves enriched uranium.

It is unclear why the new assessment is being disclosed now. But some officials suggested that the timing could be linked to North Korea's recent agreement to reopen its doors to international arms inspectors. As a result, these officials have said, the intelligence agencies are facing the possibility that their assessments will once again be compared to what is actually found on the ground. "This may be preventative," one American diplomat said.

Not to mention how helpful this development is to the new emphasis by the U.S. towards a negotiated end to NK's nuclear weapons program.