Thursday, November 30, 2006

Another Russian Poisoning? - Putin calls Gaidar after mystery illness--FT

This article will undoubtably not be as well reported in the US, but it looks like we may be seeing the beginning of an epidemic of poisonings of anti-Putin critics. Could this be a step in advance of Putin's drive to maintain power after its constitutional end? What Cold War tacit rules should be reinstated about murders of adversaries on non-neutral territory? Will the line be drawn before Putin miscalculates and starts killing Western (i.e., non-Russian) opponents of his autocratic rule in the U.K. or U.S.?

FT.com / World / Europe - Putin calls Gaidar after mystery illness

Stratfor on the Litvinenko Assassination in London

Following is a fascinating article by Stratfor describing the historical roots and motives of Putin's resurgent Russia, and what it has to do with the Litvinenko assassination. Russian cooperation would be invaluable in the resolution of several of the biggest issues we confront today, and that cooperation can best be obtained if we better understand the right carrots and sticks to use with the New Soviets, which in course requires that we know what drives them.

Russia's Interest in Litvinenko

By George Friedman

The recent death of a former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, apparently after being poisoned with polonium-210, raises three interesting questions. First: Was he poisoned by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB? Second: If so, what were they trying to achieve? Third: Why were they using polonium-210, instead of other poisons the KGB used in the past? In short, the question is, what in the world is going on?

Litvinenko would seem to have cut a traditional figure in Russian and Soviet history, at least on the surface. The first part of his life was spent as a functionary of the state. Then, for reasons that are not altogether clear, he became an exile and a strident critic of the state he had served. He published two books that made explosive allegations about the FSB and President Vladimir Putin, and he recently had been investigating the shooting death of a Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who also was a critic of the Putin government. Clearly, he was intent on stirring up trouble for Moscow.

Russian and Soviet tradition on this is clear: Turncoats like Litvinenko must be dealt with, for two reasons. First, they represent an ongoing embarrassment to the state. And second, if they are permitted to continue with their criticisms, they will encourage other dissidents -- making it appear that, having once worked for the FSB, you can settle safely in a city like London and hurl thunderbolts at the motherland with impunity. The state must demonstrate that this will not be permitted -- that turncoats will be dealt with no matter what the circumstances.

The death of Litvinenko, then, certainly makes sense from a political perspective. But it is the perspective of the old Soviet Union -- not of the new Russia that many believed was being born, slowly and painfully, with economic opening some 15 years ago. This does not mean, however, that the killing would not serve a purpose for the Russian administration, in the current geopolitical context.

For years, we have been forecasting and following the transformation of Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin became president of Russia to reverse the catastrophe of the Yeltsin years. Under communism, Russia led an empire that was relatively poor but enormously powerful in the international system. After the fall of communism, Russia lost its empire, stopped being enormously powerful, and became even poorer than before. Though Westerners celebrated the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, these turned out to be, for most Russians, a catastrophe with few mitigating tradeoffs.

Obviously, the new Russia was of enormous benefit to a small class of entrepreneurs, led by what became known as the oligarchs. These men appeared to be the cutting edge of capitalism in Russia. They were nothing of the sort. They were simply people who knew how to game the chaos of the fall of communism, figuring out how to reverse Soviet expropriation with private expropriation. The ability to turn state property into their own property represented free enterprise only to the most superficial or cynical viewers.

The West was filled with both in the 1990s. Many academics and journalists saw the process going on in Russia as the painful birth of a new liberal democracy. Western financial interests saw it as a tremendous opportunity to tap into the enormous value of a collapsing empire. The critical thing is that the creation of value, the justification of capitalism, was not what was going on. Rather, the expropriation of existing value was the name of the game. Bankers loved it, analysts misunderstood it and the Russians were crushed by it.

It was this kind of chaos into which Putin stepped when he became president, and which he has slowly, inexorably, been bringing to heel for several years. This is the context in which Litvinenko's death -- which, admittedly, raises many questions -- must be understood.

The Andropov Doctrine

Let's go back to Yuri Andropov, who was the legendary head of the KGB in the 1970s and early 1980s, and the man who first realized that the Soviet Union was in massive trouble. Of all the institutions in the world, the KGB alone had the clearest idea of the condition of the Soviet Union. Andropov realized in the early 1980s that the Soviet economy was failing and that, with economic failure, it would collapse. Andropov knew that the exploitation of Western innovation had always been vital to the Soviet economy. The KGB had been tasked with economic and technical espionage in the West. Rather than developing their own technology, in many instances, the Soviets innovated by stealing Western technology via the KGB, essentially using the KGB as an research and development system. Andropov understood just how badly the Soviet Union needed this innovation and how inefficient the Soviet kleptocracy was.

Andropov engineered a new concept. If the Soviet Union was to survive, it had to forge a new relationship with the West. The regime needed not only Western technology, but also Western-style management systems and, above all, Western capital. Andropov realized that so long as the Soviet Union was perceived as a geopolitical threat to the West and, particularly, to the United States, this transfer was not going to take place. Therefore, the Soviet Union had to shift its global strategy and stop threatening Western geopolitical interests.

The Andropov doctrine argued that the Soviet Union could not survive if it did not end, or at least mitigate, the Cold War. Furthermore, if it was to entice Western investment and utilize that investment efficiently, it needed to do two things. First, there had to be a restructuring of the Soviet economy (perestroika). Second, the Soviet system had to be opened to accept innovation (glasnost). Andropov's dream for the Soviet Union never really took hold during his lifetime, as he died several months after becoming the Soviet leader. He was replaced by a nonentity, Konstantin Chernenko, who also died after a short time in office. And then there was Mikhail Gorbachev, who came to embody the KGB's strategy.

Gorbachev was clearly perceived by the West as a reformer, which he certainly was. But less clear to the West were his motives for reform. He was in favor of glasnost and perestroika, but not because he rejected the Soviet system. Rather, Gorbachev embraced these because, like the KGB, he was desperately trying to save the system. Gorbachev pursued the core vision of Yuri Andropov -- and by the time he took over, he was the last hope for that vision. His task was to end the Cold War and trade geopolitical concessions for economic relations with the West.

It was a well-thought-out policy, but it was ultimately a desperate one -- and it failed. In conceding Central Europe, allowing it to break away without Soviet resistance, Gorbachev lost control of the entire empire, and it collapsed. At that point, the economic restructuring went out of control, and openness became the cover for chaos -- with the rising oligarchs and others looting the state for personal gain. But one thing remained: The KGB, both as an institution and as a group of individuals, continued to operate.

Saving the System: A Motive for Murder?

As a young KGB operative, Vladimir Putin was a follower of Andropov. Like Andropov, Putin was committed to the restructuring of the Soviet Union in order to save it. He was a foot soldier in that process.

Putin and his FSB faction realized in the late 1990s that, however lucrative the economic opening process might have been for some, the net effect on Russia was catastrophic. Unlike the oligarchs, many of whom were indifferent to the fate of Russia, Putin understood that the path they were on would only lead to another revolution -- one even more catastrophic than the first. Outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was hunger and desperation. The conditions for disaster were all there.

Putin also realized that Russia had not reaped the sought-after payoff with its loss of prestige and power in the world. Russia had traded geopolitics but had not gotten sufficient benefits in return. This was driven home during the Kosovo crisis, when the United States treated fundamental Russian interests in the Balkans with indifference and contempt. It was clear to Putin by then that Boris Yeltsin had to go. And go he did, with Putin taking over.

Putin is a creation of Andropov. In his bones, he believes in the need for a close economic relationship with the West. But his motives are not those of the oligarchs, and certainly not those of the West. His goal, like that of the KGB, is the preservation and reconstruction of the Russian state. For Putin, perestroika and glasnost were tactical necessities that caused a strategic disaster. He came into office with the intention of reversing that disaster. He continued to believe in the need for openness and restructuring, but only as a means toward the end of Russian power, not as an end in itself.

For Putin, the only solution to Russian chaos was the reassertion of Russian value. The state was the center of Russian society, and the intelligence apparatus was the center of the Russian state. Thus, Putin embarked on a new, slowly implemented policy. First, bring the oligarchs under control; don't necessarily destroy them, but compel them to work in parallel with the state. Second, increase Moscow's control over the outlying regions. Third, recreate a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. Fourth, use the intelligence services internally to achieve these ends and externally to reassert Russian global authority.

None of these goals could be accomplished if a former intelligence officer could betray the organs of the state and sit in London hurling insults at Putin, the FSB and Russia. For a KGB man trained by Andropov, this would show how far Russia had fallen. Something would have to be done about it. Litvinenko's death, seen from this standpoint, was a necessary and inevitable step if Putin's new strategy to save the Russian state is to have meaning.

Anomaly

That, at least, is the logic. It makes sense that Litvinenko would have been killed by the FSB. But there is an oddity: The KGB/FSB have tended to use poison mostly in cases where they wanted someone dead, but wanted to leave it unclear how he died and who killed him. Poison traditionally has been used when someone wants to leave a corpse in a way that would not incur an autopsy or, if a normal autopsy is conducted, the real cause of death would not be discovered (as the poisons used would rapidly degrade or leave the body). When the KGB/FSB wanted someone dead, and wanted the world to know why he had been killed -- or by whom -- they would use two bullets to the brain. A professional hit leaves no ambiguity.

The use of polonium-210 in this case, then, is very odd. First, it took a long time to kill Litvinenko -- giving him plenty of time to give interviews to the press and level charges against the Kremlin. Second, there was no way to rationalize his death as a heart attack or brain aneurysm. Radiation poisoning doesn't look like anything but what it is. Third, polonium-210 is not widely available. It is not something you pick up at your local pharmacy. The average homicidal maniac would not be able to get hold of it or use it.

So, we have a poisoning that was unmistakably deliberate. Litvinenko was killed slowly, leaving him plenty of time to confirm that he thought Putin did it. And the poison would be very difficult to obtain by anyone other than a state agency. Whether it was delivered from Russia -- something the Russians have denied -- or stolen and deployed in the United Kingdom, this is not something to be tried at home, kids. So, there was a killing, designed to look like what it was -- a sophisticated hit.

This certainly raises questions among conspiracy theorists and others. The linkage back to the Russian state appears so direct that some might argue it points to other actors or factions out to stir up trouble for Putin, rather than to Putin himself. Others might say that Litvinenko was killed slowly, yet with an obvious poisoning signature, so that he in effect could help broadcast the Kremlin's message -- and cause other dissidents to think seriously about their actions.

We know only what everyone else knows about this case, and we are working deductively. For all we know, Litvinenko had a very angry former girlfriend who worked in a nuclear lab. But while that's possible, one cannot dismiss the fact that his death -- in so public a manner -- fits in directly with the logic of today's Russia and the interests of Vladimir Putin and his group. It is not that we know or necessarily believe Putin personally ordered a killing, but we do know that, in the vast apparatus of the FSB, giving such an order would not have been contrary to the current inclinations of the leadership.

And whatever the public's impression of the case might be, the KGB/FSB has not suddenly returned to the scene. In fact, it never left. Putin has been getting the system back under control for years. The free-for-all over economic matters has ended, and Putin has been restructuring the Russian economy for several years to increase state control, without totally reversing openness. This process, however, requires the existence of a highly disciplined FSB -- and that is not compatible with someone like a Litvinenko publicly criticizing the Kremlin from London. Litvinenko's death would certainly make that point very clear.

Waiting to Be Wooed - New York Times

Brooks on the dilemma the Republicans face --their own ideological rigidity, coupled with an inability to put together appealing concrete positive and creative policies, are leading to a concession of the middle and the moderate right to the Democrats, where most of us really don't want to go because we still trust the Democrats less than the Republicans.

Waiting to Be Wooed - New York Times

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Wall Street Journal Editorial on Iraq and the Source of the Accelerating Problems There


REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Click to email this article Click to email this article Click to format this article for printing Click to format this article for printing View a list of most popular articles on our site
Get RSS Feeds Mobile friendly articles

advertisement

Ten Months or Ten Years - Thomas Friedman in New York Times

Further to my missive last nite over the views of the Baker Iraq Study commission that we should engage Iran and syria over Iraq (but with no perceptible Plan B), see Thomas Friedman's article below, where he maintains, that we either stay for another 10 months and phase down, hand over control and make the Iraqis understand that we are serious about it, or we reinvade the country, and stay 10 years. As always, whether you agree with him or not, this is a well written, thought provoking article, where he adds a new way to describe the problem with the Arab Muslim world, calling it a "progress-resistant" civilization -- for the past 500-1000 years, in most estimations -- rather than a "progress-prone" civilization, like those of the socially capital-rich (if materially poor) Japan and Germany after WWII.

Ten Months or Ten Years - New York Times

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Mideast: On Target - Dismembering Iraq

The central thesis of this article (Mideast: On Target - Dismembering Iraq): who in his right mind would go asking for help in Iraq from the very parties who have the most to gain from instability and the breakup of Iraq? If we don't have a better plan for solving the Iraq mess than going to the Iranians and Syrians for help, then we had better pack up our soldiers right now and get the hell out of Bagdad -- and for that matter turn over the keys to the little Gulf States and then to Riyadh as well, because they will be next in the sites of Iran...

Don't get me wrong: I am totally in favor of having dialog with our enemies, but am disturbed that we don't seem to have a "Plan B" to keep Iran somewhat honest in this endeavor. Are the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians asleep? Where are the Arab league (read: Egyptian) "peacekeeping" troops for Iraq? Throwing yourself at the mercy of your adversaries with no alternate pressure or plan is called surrender, a surrender which is being staged worse than that of South Vietnam, and for stakes that are a lot more important (i.e., control of the greatest global supply of oil). If we are going to go down in flames and humiliation in Iraq, then I would be more in favor of letting Saddam escape from prison and reform his regime -- anything for a counterweight to Iran.

Can you short sell shares in President Bush's legacy?

Israel to purchase anti-Kassam Missile system | Jerusalem Post

As Kassam rockets continue to fall on Israel from the Gaza Strip (today several were fired at Sderot, not by Hamas "militants", but purportedly by members of Abbas' own Fatah movement), Israel seems to be finally moving ahead to seek to defend its citizens with the new system, outlined in the attached article. Israel to purchase anti-Kassam system | Jerusalem Post

Unfortunately, no antimissile system will ever be 100% effective, and so long as the civilians of the Negev must send their children to school or sleep in their beds afraid of missiles landing on their heads, the Israeli Government has no moral basis to hide behind false chimeras of missile shields, just as it has learned that its security fence around the West Bank is no total solution to suicide bombers. Only a strong and willing partner in peace on the other side of the border -- or alternatively an active Israeli forward defense -- can effectively contain purposeful killers of civilians. The best solution for the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians remains Jordanian confederation of the Palestinian territories, which is capable of providing the former.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

The Clock on Iran Ticks Faster with the Russian Anti-Aircraft Missile Deployment in Iran

The Associated Press has now confirmed the Russian arms sale of its Tor M-1 sophisticated anti-aircraft/anti-missile missiles to Iran, expecting the first batteries to become combat operational in approximately six months. This will increase the cost/reduce the odds of success of any US, Israeli or joint western air attack meant to disrupt and delay production of Iranian nuclear weapons. This thereby further shortens the amount of time that diplomats will have in order to find some sort of peaceful, face-saving solution to the Iranian nuclear mess -- where we may have had a year or two (if we were lucky) for sanctions and carrots to work, now the timing comes down to 6-9 months before an effective military option may have to be deployed, at least if the Israelis convince us that they are willing to "go it alone" on Iran (because their capabilities to hit Iran with missiles and planes is nowhere near as robust as our own, the Israelis would feel compelled to attack sooner rather than later -- the US could afford to wait longer to attack even at the risk of making the mission tougher due to further deployment of these Russian missiles).

What does all this mean? If you are the Iranians, you want to keep Israel and the West back on our heels with other concerns, as much as possible in 2007, as follows:

--the further breakup of Lebanon into Civil War,
--Hezbullah-Israel War 2 with a greater contribution from Gaza of a "second front" effort (the nascent cease fire in Gaza, just announced but not implemented yet by the Palestinians, could be an attempt to gain a resupply "breather" for Hamas to prepare for this war), and
--more civil war trouble in Iraq (while Iran engages us with Syria in talks on this subject, just to better confuse things).

I also would not exclude the possibility of an assassination or major terrorist threat to King Abdullah in Jordan (in fact, he warned in an interview this weekend of the threat of the "three civil wars" referenced above). To combat these threats, the moderate Sunnis (principally Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan) together with the US foreign policy "braintrust" better get off the shnide quickly to get ahead of these matters. For the past three years, through a complete failing of leadership and imagination by our leaders, we have found ourselves in reaction mode, rather than setting the agenda. We don't have much more time left to fix this. My prescription:

--A Saudi ($$$) and Egyptian (manpower)-led Arab League conference to look to "throwing the US" out of Iraq as quickly as possible (not quickly enough for us), deploy Arab League peacekeepers in Iraq to oversee the tacit separation of Shiites and Sunnis, most likely involving population swaps (which are already occurring) and protection of oil resources. This gives the West another alternative to letting Iran run the table in Iraq (which is where we are now headed), and is in the Saudi's (and other status quo conservative regimes') best interests.

--In light of the Gemayel assassination and the total resupply of Hezbullah in Lebanon under the UN's watchful eyes (As bragged about by Hezbullah), weneed to talk seriously to the French and other European participants about ways to reformulate the UN peacekeeping forces to save Lebanon from spiralling into civil war and retard Hezbullah's ability to make trouble. The French have a keen former colonial interest in this endeavor (that we, a non-colonialist country, will never understand).

--Unite with the French, the Saudis, Jordan and Egypt to "force" the Israelis to meet with the Syrians without preconditions (as the Syrians have finally offered), with the involvement of those other parties (i.e., not just Israel and Syria), becuase the issues are many -- Lebanon, Syria's support of Hamas, Hezbullah and Iran, and peace with Israel. Do I expect a grand bargain leading to Israel's relinquishment of the Golan Heights or in a total cleaving of Syrian relations with Iran? Not in this generation, but we do know that Assad desperately seeks liberalization of his economy, and meetings such as these can yield incremental progress that can help strengthen Assad's hand in Syria against the more reactionary elements that limit his freedom of action.

--Move forward with providing broader Arab support (from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, as well as Arab moderates of North Africa -- Egypt maybe more problematic) for a closer Jordanian involvment in stabilizing the Palestinian mess, first in the West Bank, and then on to Gaza. The concept is to go back to the Jordanian Confederation plan, bringing the Palestinian territories (adjusted for land and population swaps of Southern Galilee Israeli Arab lands for the several major Jewish population blocks in the West Bank) under the trusteeship of the Jordanians, who would maintain security for the Israelis and Palestinians in the territories, and hopefully move them towards eventual full independence from Jordan sometime in the future. This might be approached in steps -- for this to really work, the Arab states would have to get behind abolishing the "right of return" of Palestinians to Israel proper in exchange for the larger number of Jews forced out of Arab lands with Israel's establishment, and some agreement on Jordanian/Palestinian presence in Jerusalem. Little known fact: the Jordanians already control religious jurisdiction over the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock, and that, combined with joint patrols of that area, and Jordanian political control (and joint Israeli-Jordanian military control) of areas of East Jerusalem, may do it.

Anyway, I am not saying any of this would work, but it has to be tried fast, or it is going to be a very tough 2007 for the Middle East, the world and global capital markets, which have begun to get dangerously lazy and ignore the potential impact of major geopolitical events.

"My Thanksgiving mission: Eat Turkey or be court-martialed!" | Jerusalem Post

This somewhat humorous piece illustrates a different way to celebrate Thanksgiving, told by a "lone" emigrant American, serving on a commando mission in the West Bank when he is withdrawn to join a Thanksgiving celebration in Jerusalem with American donors. The other blog entries listed at the end of this article are also worth reading.

As we recover from our Thanksgiving weekends, we owe thanks to the young men and women who give up their Thanksgiving to protect us around the world in the global war on terror.

My Thanksgiving mission: Eat Turkey or be court-martialed! | Jerusalem Post

Friday, November 24, 2006

Russia sends air defense system to Iran | Jerusalem Post

Our friends the Russians/Soviets.

Russia sends air defense system to Iran | Jerusalem Post

To Contain Iran, U.S. Seeks Help From Arab Allies - WSJ.com

Great article, points to some of the things we have been talking about for past several months -- using Sunnis against Shiites, for instance. To Contain Iran, U.S. Seeks Help From Arab Allies - WSJ.com . (For those without a subscription ot the WSJ, see text of article below). The danger is that these "moderate" Sunni Arabs need political cover to help the US help them -- this will involve forcing stupid compromises on Israel vis a vis the Palestinians, where it will only weaken Israel's security for lack of a willing, empowered partner on the other side (Hamas is empowered, not willing).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is where (Sunni) Jordan comes in -- it can help douse the flames of the Palestinian conflict and help provide political cover for Sunni Arabs to get with the US on stabilizing Iraq and containing Iran (which are both in the Sunnis' interests, after all), by occupying Palestinians territories under a trusteeship/confederation plan, guaranteeing Israel's security until a generation or so from today when (hopefully) the Palestinians are prepared to take over (the Israelis trust the Jordanians on the security front -- this trust is fundamental to arriving at a settlement). This is not without risks and pain for Israel, and will involve some compromise on both sides (the King Abdullah plan is not feasible, but is a good place to start negotiations, sprinkled with Lieberman's land and population swap plan involving part of the Galilee and Jewish population clusters on the West Bank). However, the Jordanian confederation plan is still the best option out there today, and we need progress today or we are in for a much more dangerous Middle East, which can be catastrophic to the US position in the world.
***

Religious Divide
To Contain Iran,
U.S. Seeks Help
From Arab Allies

Flurry of Diplomacy to Build
Alliance of Sunni Leaders;
Pressure Concerning Israel
Could the Bloodshed Spread?
By JAY SOLOMON
November 24, 2006; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- As violence escalates in the Middle East, top U.S. officials are reaching out to traditional Sunni Arab allies in a bid to stabilize the region and build a coalition to contain Iran's Shiite regime.

Over the next week, President Bush is scheduled to visit Jordan, where he will meet with King Abdullah II and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Vice President Cheney is flying to Saudi Arabia, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is set to huddle by the Dead Sea with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, among others. Issues on the U.S. agenda are expected to include how to bring order to Iraq and how to check Iran's nuclear program.

The visits highlight the administration's longer-term strategy to build a broad alliance of Sunni Muslim states to offset Tehran's growing regional ambitions. Since the spring, the U.S. has sought to increase cooperation between traditional Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, including developing joint maritime patrols and a regional missile-defense shield for these countries.

In order to build such an alliance, however, the administration could be forced to shift its Middle East strategy in significant ways. Arab diplomats from ally countries are pushing Washington to be much more assertive in promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. They are also expected to advise the White House to scale back efforts to promote democracy in the region, arguing that they could lead to more extremism.

The flurry of diplomacy and Washington's outreach to long-standing Arab allies underscore the Bush administration's growing concern over Iran's influence. Iran announced yesterday it was proceeding with a plan to build nuclear reactors. But in seeking to contain Iran, many Middle East analysts warn, Washington could find itself in the middle of the long and bitter split between Sunnis and Shiites.

"The whole rhetoric of containing Iran could spark competing extremism" between anti-Iranian Sunnis and pro-Iranian Shiites, says Vali Nasr, a Middle East expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. "Washington doesn't want to be seen as actively encouraging this."

In Baghdad yesterday, coordinated suicide car bombings and mortar attacks on the Shiite slum of Sadr City left at least 160 dead and hundreds more injured. Immediate reprisals against Sunni neighborhoods and against a revered Sunni shrine raised fears that the country was slipping further into civil war. (See related article.)

Regional leaders worry that bloodshed could spread to Lebanon, where political tensions have been rising in recent weeks. (See related article). Thousands of Lebanese took to Beirut's streets yesterday to protest Tuesday's assassination of Pierre Gemayel, a Christian cabinet minister who had sought to counter the political influence of Syria and Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia. Many in the crowd blamed Syria for the slaying, a charge Damascus denies, and accused Hezbollah of trying to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government.

Growing Power

The roles played by Iran and Syria in Hezbollah's rise are regarded as evidence of growing Shiite power across the Middle East. While Syria's population is majority Sunni, its ruling Assad family is from a Shiite sect. Many Arab leaders fear a powerful Shiite axis taking shape between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

Many Lebanese leaders have expressed concern recently that their country also could descend into civil war. Some contend that Mr. Gemayel's slaying is part of an effort by pro-Syrian forces to head off a United Nations investigation into the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The initial U.N. investigation implicated senior Syrian officials, an allegation that Syria denies. This week, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution establishing a tribunal to oversee the trial of anyone charged in that case. The Lebanese government has to consent to any trial.

How Mr. Bush responds to pressure on the U.S. to get more involved in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could affect Washington's relations with its Arab allies in the region, as well as relations between Sunnis and Shiites. Arab diplomats say countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates will find it difficult to publicly stand with the U.S. on Iran and on broad regional stability unless Washington pressures Israel on a peace initiative.

"The road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem, and not the other way around," says one senior Arab diplomat in Washington.

There are signs that the White House may be coming around to this view. Philip Zelikow, a top policy adviser to Ms. Rice, said in a September speech that an "active policy on the Arab-Israeli dispute is an essential ingredient to forging a coalition that deals with the most dangerous problems" in the Middle East. A few days later, Mr. Bush told the U.N. General Assembly that he had asked Ms. Rice to lead a diplomatic effort to engage moderate leaders across the region to help Israelis and Palestinians resolve their differences.

Previously, neoconservatives in the Bush administration had argued that peace in Israel could only be achieved through the removal of dictatorial regimes such as Saddam Hussein's, which funded militant groups targeting the Jewish state. Many Arab allies of the U.S. oppose that approach.

Arab officials are expected to push the Israel issue during their upcoming U.S. visits. President Bush and his top lieutenants hope to use the discussions to continue efforts to bring together Sunni Arab states to offset the growing regional clout of Tehran's Shiite theocracy. Sunni leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries worry that Iran's rising influence could stir up their own Shiite minorities or other groups hostile to the U.S. and its allies.

Islam's split into Sunni and Shiite sects dates back to differences over who should succeed the prophet Muhammad after his death in 632. Sunni-based royalty and political parties have held power in most of the Islamic world since then, relegating Shiites to the political and economic minority. Iran's 1979 revolution brought to power a Shiite theocracy that rekindled regional Shiite political activism. Iran's influence increased when a Shiite-led government took over in Iraq after the 2003 ouster of Mr. Hussein, and through Iran's support of militant groups fighting Israel, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Many Arab and U.S. officials were alarmed this summer by Hezbollah's military strength in its fight against Israel. Tehran has supported the group for decades with funds and arms. Hezbollah's main goal has been fighting Israel, which invaded Southern Lebanon in 1982 and occupied it until 2000. But Iran has also viewed the group as a deterrent to the U.S. and Israel. Today, Hezbollah, with its extensive social and political networks and military capability, behaves in many ways like a state within Lebanon.

Leaders of Sunni Arab states warn that wars in Iraq and Lebanon risk upsetting the regional balance between Sunnis and Shiites. They have also voiced concern that their nations could be dragged into the fighting on behalf of militias or terrorist groups that share their religion. Civil war in Iraq could force Saudis to fight "shoulder to shoulder with al Qaeda," said Jamal Kashoggi, an adviser to Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki al-Faisal, at a conference on the Middle East last week in Washington.

U.S. leaders will be traveling into the heart of the Sunni world. Mr. Cheney is set to arrive today in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital, where he will discuss Middle East developments with King Abdullah. In a visit hosted by King Abdullah II of Jordan starting Nov. 29, Mr. Bush is scheduled to hold two days of meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to discuss ways to stabilize Iraq.

On Nov. 30, Ms. Rice will kick off meetings with foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council members, along with Jordan and Egypt. They are expected to discuss how to deter Iran from meddling in the politics of neighbor countries and from developing a nuclear arsenal, say officials involved in setting up the meetings. Arab leaders are likely to bring up the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The visits come amid U.S. efforts to build a Sunni-based regional alliance. U.S. naval fleets have engaged in training exercises with several Persian Gulf countries. Last month, the U.S. conducted war games with Bahrain, Qatar, the U.A.E. and about two dozen other countries about 20 miles outside of Iran's territorial waters. The exercises were part of the Bush administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, which seeks to stanch weapons trafficking.

State Department officials such as John Hillen, assistant secretary for political-military affairs, have in recent months visited the six Arab countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, as well as Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, to work on revamping the region's security framework. Saudi Arabia formed the GCC in 1981 to coordinate economic and security issues among Persian Gulf states. Other members include Oman, Qatar and the U.A.E.

Mr. Hillen is pushing a plan to better integrate the U.S. into the GCC's security architecture. The plan calls for helping GCC member nations to develop regional maritime-security and missile-defense initiatives, to share intelligence, and to improve air defenses. The Bush administration wants to incorporate all GCC countries into its antiproliferation program.

Mr. Hillen maintains that the initiatives shouldn't be viewed as anti-Shiite. "In fact, the vast, vast preponderance of U.S. efforts in the region are oriented on making sure a majority Shiite government led by a Shiite prime minister succeeds" in Iraq, he says.

[Balancing Act]

Many Middle East analysts are skeptical that Washington's containment strategy for Iran can work. Few Arab governments have militaries capable of confronting Iran on their own, and many people in the region are sympathetic to Iran's confrontational stance toward the U.S. and Israel. Ultimately, these analysts say, Washington may be forced to choose between pushing the nuclear issue with Iran and working with it on stabilizing Iraq.

Conflicting Messages

The U.S. itself has offered conflicting messages. A coming report from an advisory group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton is expected to urge the White House to engage both Iran and Syria to help ease violence in Iraq. Iran has allegedly armed and funded Shiite militias that are fighting Sunni insurgents in Iraq. The U.S. has alleged that Syria has allowed al Qaeda and other foreign fighters to cross into Iraq.

Mr. Baker has said he believes Iran and Syria share Washington's interest in preventing violence in Iraq from worsening, and perhaps spilling over its borders. Some counterterrorism officials believe Iran shares the U.S. goal of combating al Qaeda and other militant Sunni organizations, which have a history of targeting Shiite communities.

President Bush and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly cast doubt on the utility of seeking help from either Iran or Syria. Mr. Gemayel's assassination could further diminish Washington's interest in talking with either nation. U.S. officials have implied that Syria was involved in Mr. Gemayel's shooting, citing its alleged targeting in the past of anti-Syrian politicians.

The greater fear is that a U.S.-led Arab coalition against Iran could bring the region's tensions to a boil. Lebanon is seen as particularly vulnerable, and Sunni and Christian political parties in Beirut are worried by Hezbollah's moves to gain power. Some fear Lebanon could slip into a sectarian civil war like the one that ravaged the country in the 1980s.

Other countries could also be vulnerable to rising Sunni-Shiite tensions, analysts say. Saudi Arabia's Shiite minority lives in some of the kingdom's most resource-rich areas and has increasingly sought to expand its political influence. Afghanistan and Pakistan have endured sectarian violence in recent decades. And countries like Kuwait, a major oil exporter, and Bahrain, which has close ties to the U.S., are trying to preserve the uneasy balance between their Sunni and Shiite populations.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Needed for Nuclear Power--Waste Disposal or Processing - Barron's Online

Read this article if you are interested in the development of our nuclear resources, as a key component in solving our energy dependence on oil. Basically, this article focusses the debate on our woeful lack of attention to the nuclear waste disposal problem --there are technological answers out there, but we have to get working on them soon if we are to use nuclear energy as a significant part of our energy equasion in the future.

Needed for Nuclear Power - Barron's Online

The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Accepting Hamas' victory might save Olmert's plan

While I don't personally agree with Nimrod Novik's thesis of acceptance of Hamas and a "hudna", he raises several worthwhile debating points, and indicates that Lieberman's land swap ideas might well be acceptable to the other side, in spite of the popular media's reference to it as "ethnic cleansing" (by the way, a "hudna" is a "truce" with your enemy sanctioned by the Koran for the specific purpose of allowing Islam to rejuvinate its strength to permit it to go on to final victory in that specific Jihad -- again, this reinforces the notion that Islam is a religion of absolutes with one final goal, domination, not coexistence).

I found this article by chance as I was looking around researching the Gemayal assasination. As an aside, it points out that Lebanon supports a Western-style dialog in its press that you will not find in many other places in the Arab world (when was the last time an Israeli published a column in Al Ahram in Egypt?), which reinforces the importance of Lebanon to a moeratig Middle East. I also note that the author, Nimrod Novik, was my teaching assistant in "Intro to International Relations" in my freshman year at Penn. He was a think tank and Labour party guy, brilliant and a nice guy.

The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Accepting Hamas' victory might save Olmert's plan

The Daily Star - Politics - Beirut crowds gathering

The Daily Star is Lebanon's leading, reputable English language newspaper, talking in this article about the aftermath of Gemayel's assassination. Where is the UN as Syria/Iran so blatantly try to disrupt democracy there and take it over through assassination (the 6th critic of Syria assasinated in 2 years)? We have what are effectively NATO troops there, who watch as Iran's army in Lebanon, the Hezbullah, re-arms. When will they take action? Instead, the French Army in Lebanon talk about shooting down Israeli recon jets....

The Daily Star - Politics - Beirut crowds gathering

European Media Bias Makes the US Media Seem Absolutely Neutral -- Guardian's Lebanon Cartoon: Simply Wrong

See the attached from HonestReporting UK. The European media makes ours seem absolutely objective...

Guardian's Lebanon Cartoon: Simply Wrong

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

DEBKAfile - Israel Opts for Major War Campaign in 11th Hour of Hamas Build-up

It certainly seems as if Israel is going to war again, declared or not. The world doesn't seem to see the Qassam missiles landing on the heads of the residents of the Negev, but Olmert knows that sooner or later tey are goign to make him lose his government. this is a tough one -- if Israel attacks, it only helps Iran and Israel's other enemies, and could expose, once again, Israel's less than total dominance because of its lack of political will. Israel will certainly come under international pressure to do something stupid, and that could include agreeing to the placement of European forces in Gaza, which would seriously hurt Israel's ability to engage in intelligence operations and counterstrikes there.
Israel Opts for Major War Campaign in 11th Hour of Hamas Build-up

'Israel should embrace, not fear, James Baker' | Jerusalem Post

'Israel should embrace, not fear, James Baker' | Jerusalem PostThis is an interesting article, that many friends of Israel may dispute, but which points out the central "cart and horse" issue facing Israel, if it is to ever achieve coexistence in the Middle East -- is it better (or possible?) for Israel to pursue normalization with the Arab world ahead of solving the Palestinian issue, as Baker pushed in the Madrid Conference (the near civil war in the Palestinian areas and the Saudis view of things today give Israel a real opening to pursue that agenda), or is it better to focus on a resolution of the Palestinian issue, and have that drive Israel's relations with the rest of the Arab world (the Oslo approach).

Since the Palestinians have become a non-partner in a near state of civil war, and the Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians and other "moderate" Arab regimes now seek to curb the tide of both Islamist extremism and Shiite ascendency, it might seem as if Baker's approach is worth pursuing for Israel. Even if talking does not end up with any immediate solutions, the Israelis and the non-Islamist Arabs have a lot of common interest worth pursuing. As I have posited in this blog before, a deal by Israel with the Saudis and Jordanians to hand over control of portions of the West Bank and Gaza to the Jordanians as trustees for the Palestinians under a confederation scheme, withthe Jordanians assuring Israel's security, could be a very promising basis for moving forward in the Middle East, reducing the strength of extremists in the street, taking the Palestinians closer to a solution for them and putting increased pressure on the Syrians to play ball (lets see what the assassination of Gemayel in Lebanon yesterday yields in that regard -- there are over 5,000 well armed European troops in Lebanon now sitting on their hands).

Happy thanksgiving.

Hizbullah and Hamas: Strategic Challenges

This is an excellent and thoughful short video (ignore the typo on the initial slide page) that discusses the strategy and tactics of Hizbullah and Hamas against Israel, which is much different than the ones pursued by Israel's traditional nation-state enemies, is more dificult to combat, and mirrors the challenges we face in the global war agaisnt terrorism, where the acquisition of territory, the traditional tactic of war, is not the initial objective, and weakness and death are virtues. See "Hizbullah and Hamas: Strategic Challenges"

Hedge Funds Underperform in this Market Rally - WSJ.com

In August, I called the market's upturn; this article makes an argument for why we still may have one last leg up in this bull market between now and the ned of the year -- the need for hedge funds to catch up, performance-wise.

Ahead of the Tape - WSJ.com

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Assassination In Lebanon-- Syria, Iran and Hezbullah Working Towards Lebanon Civil War II

DEBKA:

Lebanon’s industry minister Pierre Gemayel is murdered near Beirut

November 21, 2006, 5:21 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Christian minister’s convoy was attacked driving through the Christian Sin el-Fil district as Lebanon faced a Hizballah threat to the anti-Syrian Fouad Siniora government unless it is granted veto powers. Gemayel died on the way to hospital, shot at point blank range. Majority leader Saad Hariri, architect of the anti-Syrian pro-Western New Lebanon, said he sees the hand of Syria behind the murder. His own father was assassinated last year in a suspected pro-Syrian plot. US state department condemned the assassination as “an act of terror” and attempt to intimidate the government which is already shaky after the resignation of six pro-Syrian ministers, including Hizballah’s, ten days ago. It is feared the murder could tip the country over into civil war. Last week the Siniora government approved a proposed UN tribunal for the killers of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri last year, despite their resignation.

Sunday, Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah threatened to call a million Shiites to the streets to topple the anti-Syrian Siniora government.

This challenge was a decisive step in the proxy standoff over domination of Beirut involving Hizballah’s backers Iran and Syria, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel, on the other.

Forcing Hard Choices on Tehran: Raising the Costs of Iran's Nuclear Program--Washington Insititute Monograph

For a worthwhile read, click here and then click "Download Now": Publications

"Human Rights" Counsel A Discredit to the United Nations - New York Times

For once the Times gets it right! It is clear from this editorial, lambasting the new UN Human Rights Counsel for ignoring the sins of its more dictatorial but politically owerful members, that my solution of a smaller UN of Democratic Nations, could better shine a light on human rights abuses and hopefully get something done about them. It doesn't have to work in competition with the UN, but competition clearly will help the UN focus its efforts.

A Discredit to the United Nations - New York Times

Monday, November 20, 2006

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Use of "Human shields" as a Violation of International Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the attached article on the use of Human Shields as a violation of International Law-- Human shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In spite of this, Palestinians have begun to use a human shield strategy actively in Gaza. It is a win-win strategy for the Palestinians. The world community does not hold them responsible for violations of international law -- whether it entails aiming rockets purposely at population centers Like Sderot in southern Israel in order to maximize civilian casualties, or surrounding mosques or homes of civilian-killing terrorists with Palestinian civilian human shields (see, for example, "Human Shields in Gaza" in today's NY Times and AP). Human life (including that of their own wives and children) means little to Palestinian Islamists. If Israel kills the human shileds to get at its targetted prey, Israel is politically attacked by the world community. this week the UN passes a lopsided resolution attacking Israel's seemingly accidental killing of some civilians in Gaza (no one at the UN has even sought to prove otherwise), while the same UN resolution makes no noise about the reason for Israeli operations in Gaza -- the constant barrage of missiles from Gaza at Israeli population centers, which resulted in the death of a 56 year old Israeli civilian this week.

Same old, same old....

Capitalism is Alive and Well in China - US Children, Be Afraid, Very Afraid

The attached article, Capitalism is Alive and Well in China-Rutledge Capital, chronicles why our children must be afraid, very afraid, and stop playing so many video games. Basically, while we are watching reality shows like "Dancing with the Stars", the Chinese are making a show entitled "Win in China" one of the highest ranking TV programs there. Chinese entrepreneurs submit business plans for their startup ideas to an expert panel of judges. The winner receives $1.2 Million of venture financing, becomes the CEO of his (or her) own company, and retains 20% of its equity (not such a great deal by US standards, but who am I to judge Chinese venture capitalists). Over 120,000 business plans have been submitted.

Parents, we are in a global competition for capital and ideas.
There is no natural law that says that the prosperity that generations of Americans have built into our economy cannot be dissipated, to the disadvantage of our children, as the velocity of global cpaital flows and innovation quickens. Unless we want our children to be economic slaves to Chinese children, we must redouble our efforts to educate our children to get serious and work hard, so they can innovate and compete.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Stratfor: Asia, and the Long Term Game in Korea -- a Traditional Geopolitical One (if you read far enough)

The New, Old Face of Asia

By Rodger Baker

U.S. President George W. Bush travels to Vietnam this week for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. The visit will include bilateral and multilateral meetings with several heads of state -- including those from China, Russia, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. The eight-day trip is Bush's first venture overseas since the Democratic Party defeated his Republican Party in congressional elections -- which were closely watched in Asia to gauge what Washington's relations in the region may be like for the next two years.

Bush will arrive in an Asia where North Korea has (somewhat) successfully tested a nuclear device, where Japan is openly discussing the merits of discussing the merits of a nuclear weapons program, South Korea seems to be coming into closer alignment with North Korea than with the United States, and China reportedly is shadowing U.S. carrier battle groups and planning to buy advanced carrier-based aircraft from Russia.

With its resources and priorities squarely centered on Iraq, the United States has paid scant attention to East Asia -- despite its involvement in six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program and trade negotiations with Vietnam, South Korea and China. Asia, as a result, has been left to develop in its own natural direction, without U.S. "interference" and with emphasis more on regional concerns than global ones. The Cold War paradigm of global blocs has been swept away, and the post-Cold War sense of supreme and unchallengeable U.S. global hegemony has been shattered.

In other words, the "old" shape of Asia is re-emerging. And when Washington once again has the need and ability to focus its attention there, U.S. leaders may find themselves on unfamiliar ground.

A Strategic Alliance

Historically, East Asia has revolved around two poles. On one side is China -- a massive land power that once exerted direct influence over much of the region and, under Mongol leadership, up to the very gates of Europe. On the other side is Japan -- a maritime power that is protected by an oceanic buffer, but with limited resources and space. Much as European history has been dominated and shaped by the power struggles between Continental powers and Britain, Asian history has been shaped by and expressed through the struggle between China and Japan.

By the 1930s, Japan had become the dominant power in the region. Japanese forces occupied Manchuria and subjugated eastern China before embarking on an attempt to create a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." But with the Japanese defeat in World War II, the United States began to emerge as the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan was occupied and, thereafter, constrained by its demilitarization and its pacifist constitution.

Over time, Tokyo learned to exploit this unnatural state of affairs for its own benefit. During the Cold War, Washington needed Japan to act as a cork on Soviet naval power in the Pacific, and as a forward staging ground for any potential East Asian contingency. But it was the United States that had designed the Japanese Constitution, which forbade collective self-defense or the possession of an offensive military. Because of this, U.S. forces were based in Japan, and Japan's national security became a core of U.S. strategic interests. Washington provided for Japan's defense, and Japan used the money and energies normally associated with national defense and securing of national interests to build a massive economic machine instead.

As it was expanding to become the world's second-largest economy -- a title that is still far from being challenged -- Japan also built (with Washington's encouragement) a technologically advanced and well-armed "Self-Defense Force." However, it never was required to contribute anything but money to international or U.S.-led peacekeeping or military operations.

The end of the Cold War terminated this comfortable arrangement, however.

In the late 1980s, China was not seen by the United States as a major military threat -- at least not on the scale of the former Soviet Union. Japan and other East Asian allies became less important to U.S. strategic thinking. Although the legacies of the Cold War structure were not readily abandoned -- and North Korea provided a convenient reason to avoid any significant change -- Washington's strategic need to ensure Japan's economic and national security diminished. Japan's rise as an economic power in the late 1980s gave rise to a fear in the United States that the island nation once again would come to dominate the Asia-Pacific region, that American schoolchildren would need to learn Japanese, and Japan would overtake the United States economically.

These fears, coupled with the collapse of the Soviet bloc (and of the Soviet Union itself) triggered a shift in U.S.-Japanese relations. The natural order of competition (fierce at times) between the world's largest and second-largest economies was restored. Due to concerns about North Korea and, later, a rising China, the security relationship has remained largely intact, but economic security issues have grown more contentious -- most recently with the spat between Tokyo and Washington over Japan's energy relations with Iran. In this case, a fundamental interest of Japan (having a secure and diverse supply of energy) and a fundamental interest of the United States (constraining Iran in order to stem nuclear proliferation and to better manage the security situation in Iraq) came into conflict.

That said, shared concerns such as the rise of China in the mid- to late-1990s and North Korea's periodic outbursts have helped to reduce the potential for direct confrontations in U.S.-Japanese relations. As Washington's attention and resources turned to the Middle East and South Asia following the 9/11 attacks, its allies in the Asia-Pacific region -- particularly Japan and Australia -- took on greater responsibilities for ensuring regional security. This process was already under way before 9/11 -- Canberra's intervention in East Timor being a case in point -- but accelerated after the attacks, and particularly as the United States became more deeply engaged in Iraq.

Japan's New Concerns

During the past decade, most notably under the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Japan began to take a more serious look at its own fundamental interests and taking steps to ensure them. These steps ranged from developing and practicing combined operations to deploying forces to Iraq, as well as openly discussing and preparing for a change in the Japanese Constitution -- and its restrictions on the military. Today, under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Japanese leadership is continuing efforts to abolish the half-century-old psychological taboo concerning military capabilities. The Defense Agency is rising to a Cabinet-level position, and there is an open debate about the potential for Japan to eventually develop nuclear weapons.

For Japan, the core national imperative is protection of supply routes. Japan is an island nation that lacks sufficient arable land and natural resources. This reality has been central to Japan's political development: Successive waves of imperialism emerged as Japan sought to gain and control access to resources and materials. Because it is a maritime nation with minimal strategic depth, Japan's natural security concerns are less about securing its actual borders than about ensuring that no one can reach its borders -- or cut its vital supply lines. This is why, despite economic linkages with the United States and beyond, Tokyo considered it necessary to attack Pearl Harbor, a seat of U.S. naval power, in 1941. The United States was the only naval power capable of challenging Japan's control of the seas in the Pacific theater.

Currently, Japan sees its greatest risks in the area running along the Chinese coast through the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca, through the Indian Ocean to the Middle East. This is the route that energy supplies -- so fundamental to the Japanese economy and national strength -- travel. Tokyo cannot allow any other state to threaten its energy lifeline. Therefore, we expect to see Japan expanding security arrangements with Taiwan, Singapore and India -- all key states along the route -- and developing additional naval power, including light aircraft carriers (which Tokyo euphemistically refers to as "helicopter destroyers").

The Chinese Trajectory

As Japan reassesses its strategic concerns in a region with less direct U.S. involvement, China too has developed along its own path. As a land power, China's first concern is its neighbors. Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are all key factors in China's desire to maintain strategic depth and build buffers against potential invaders.

On the international front, China's concerns since the Communist victory in 1949 have matched those of Chinese empires for millennia: protection of the borders and the dominance of a central, unopposed leadership. The concerns over its borders and territorial security led to skirmishes with India, Russia and Vietnam, and to Chinese involvement in the Korean War. More recently, however, China has taken a different approach -- engaging its neighbors to formalize borders and offering economic trade and interaction as a way to mitigate potential security threats.

Now, with its land borders largely under control, China once again is looking eastward, to the sea.

Unlike Japan with its limited resources and space, China has not traditionally been an expansionist power (aside from the aforementioned Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia). The Chinese have access to plenty of resources within their territory or from just across the border. But with economic modernization has come a rapidly increasing need for additional energy supplies. This is driving China's more active foreign policy -- the search for access to, and security of, energy and certain raw materials. And that, in turn, is moving Chinese and Japanese interests toward confrontation. For instance, there have been very vocal disagreements over access to energy deposits in the waters between the two nations, as each seeks supplies close to home.

The Koreas: Caught in the Middle

Now, without the external dynamic imposed by the United States, the long-standing rivalry between mainland China and maritime Japan once again is becoming the driving force in Asia. For many countries, particularly those in Southeast Asia, this translates to a low-key struggle for influence through economic and political means. But on the Korean Peninsula -- which is the traditional invasion route between China and Japan -- the struggle is expressed differently.

Consider the North Korean nuclear issue. Neither China, which has relations with Pyongyang, nor Japan, with its Cold War alliance with South Korea, views that as a Korean issue. Rather, Beijing sees North Korea as a means of maintaining a buffer between China and potential challengers, and uses the issue as a way to counterbalance U.S. influence and Japanese interests. Japan sees the issue as one of national security, but also as part of the broader competition shaping up with China.

Meanwhile, the two Koreas have become more closely aligned -- often to the chagrin of their erstwhile sponsors, Beijing and Washington -- in the post-Cold War system. Though they are pursuing different paths, both Koreas see their futures as being shaped by the resurging competition between China and Japan.

Korea long has been the "minnow between two whales," stuck between China and Japan, and historically has pursued two paths to preserve its independence -- attempted isolation or reliance on one big power to fend off another. Neither strategy has worked very well.

Both Koreas, independently but in parallel, are now pursuing more robust domestic defense capabilities and eyeing eventual reunification on mutual terms. To end their dependence on third parties for security, the only path that Pyongyang and Seoul see is to join together -- creating a nation of some 70 million or more that combines South Korea's technological strengths with North Korea's resources and labor. Such a unified state remains a distant goal, but the vision drives much of the strategic thinking in both Pyongyang and Seoul -- and causes confusion in the six-party talks, as Pyongyang bucks Chinese influence when possible and Seoul counters U.S. goals.

This is the dynamic that Bush will encounter during his travels to East Asia. The fundamental forces are local, the Cold War paradigm is finally being shed and the United States -- though still influential -- is no longer the driver. It is a return to the Asia of the past, shaped by natural geopolitical forces and competitions.

Ethanol: Chemistry Lesson on Carbon Dioxide Rates - Ethanol Contributes More to Global Warming on an Energy Output-Adjusted Basis than Gasoline

I have seen this data elsewhere, but nowhere as clearly as in the following letter in the Wall Street Journal, Ethanol: Chemistry Lesson on Carbon Dioxide Rates - WSJ.com Basically, a cornerstone of my personal foreign policy is energy independence, and for that reasons ethanol from corn is a good thing worthy of consideration. However, on closer examination, we would be fooling ourselves to think that ethanol from corn (includngthe neergy inputs to grow it) is the right choice from a greenhouse gases perspective -- in fact, ethanol, for the amount of energy it emits, creates more than half as much MORE greenhouse gases than gasoline. As Washington hands out big subsidies to politically powerful corn producers and other special interests, it is important to keep these facts in mind, if we are really to make progress on BOTH the energy independence AND global warming issues.

We are rarely presented with a "two for the price of one" opportunity in solving the world's problems -- lets not screw this one up. Any solution to both these problems is not going to invove one big fix, but a variety of fixes. Also, whether we like it or not, nuclear has the greatest potential to be a big part of this solution, alongside coal (with regard to the latter, only IF we can figure out how to sequester carbon dioxide from coal burning at power plants). A good beginning would be to focus research dollars on development of more efficient batteries and mobile (i.e., automobile-level) fuel cells, superconductivity to transport nuclear generated electrivcity from remote locations, and safe nuclear electricity (and related hydrogen production to power those fuel cell-powered cars) as REALISTIC alternatives to solving our energy and green house gas problems. See my old blog posting from this summer "Our National Security Requires a Solution to Our Total Energy Dependence Upon Hydrocarbons" (scroll down to the bottom of that page to find it) which includes a link to a great article from Scientific American on a new national power grid idea. Also, for something very market driven but containing some real innovative thinking, see the recent Forbes opinion piece by Peter Huber, "Love Uranium" (yeh, I know, very off-putting title,, but the piece really makes you think).

An Ordinary Dutch Life - Islamic Pressure on Free Speech in Europe

Democracy and free speech are threatened throughout Europe by Islamic radicalism on that continent, and the evergrowing trend towards silencing or threatening to silence -- in violent ways -- anyone who makes negative observations regarding Islamic behavior. Is Western civilization to permit its core values to be pressured by aliens back into the Middle Ages? Read An Ordinary Dutch Life - WSJ.com

Friday, November 17, 2006

Islam on the March

The title of this article, Islam on the March ,says it all. Yes, there are "moderate" Muslims who do not seek either the conversion to Islam, or the destruction, of Western culture. But there is a sizable and growing minority of Muslims who take to the traditional message of the Q'uran, and see their ultimate domination of Western culture as a logical, and blessed eventuality. There is no reasoning with these people, and throwing them Israel (or any subset of Israel's strategic equasion), on a silver platter as a sacrificial lamb will be no more successful than throwing Hitler the Sudetenland as a means of compromise -- each lives (or lived) by an absolutist ideology that can only be defeated absolutely, and not through fair (or unfair) compromise.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Global War on Terror, Part 2: U.N. Says Over Seven Hundred Somalis Helped Hezbollah Fighters - New York Times

U.N. Says Somalis Helped Hezbollah Fighters - New York Times

Stratfor on Global Terror Threat in India

TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE REPORT
11.14.2006

LeT: Nebulous but Dangerous

By Fred Burton

In a slightly new twist on what is becoming an old tale, India's airports were placed on high alert this week after being threatened with terrorist attacks, and Pakistan's airports followed suit. One of the threats, which according to media reports was disclosed by the FBI, came in an email that discussed the possible hijackings of aircraft leaving India for the United States and Europe -- a situation that immediately brings to mind a plot, attributed to al Qaeda, that was disrupted by British authorities in August. Another threat was found in a letter, handwritten in the Tamil language and found by a janitor at Tiruchirapalli Airport, saying 10 suicide bombers would carry out attacks in airports in Tiruchirapalli, Madurai and Coimbatore in the southern Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

Though al Qaeda has never issued a specific warning, describing the location or methods to be used in a pending attack, these threats very well could be credible in a larger sense, when the recent history of terrorist strikes in India is taken into consideration. After all, the July 11 train bombings in Mumbai, which killed more than 200 people, were preceded, and followed, by a number of warnings and hoaxes directed against trains (though, intriguingly, all of those were against trains in places other than Mumbai). Such a spate of warnings can work very much to the advantage of a militant group: In "pinging the system," they can both gauge the responses of authorities (to determine where an actual strike might be most effective) and induce "alert fatigue," which weakens watchfulness and defense systems over time. Having observed this pattern previously in India, and given the large numbers of potential targets and actors, it would be difficult to argue that the threats received this week are not, on some level, credible -- though, following the Mumbai train pattern, it is likely an attack might come against an airport that was not mentioned in the alerts, or perhaps another target entirely.

New Delhi has no choice but to treat the threats as though they are legitimate, of course. The real question is how to trace the threats and potentially pre-empt a forthcoming attack -- which means identifying the group responsible.

The fact that the target set is, again, in the public transportation sector, and that multiple strikes were mentioned, would seem at first to fit the al Qaeda/jihadist pattern. However, the fact that the threat letter was written in Tamil -- indeed, the fact that a written warning was issued at all -- and that the targets named were in India, all signal that these threats did not emanate from Osama bin Laden's organization directly. Numerous other militant groups, including Kashmiri outfits and Naxalites, have carried out violent attacks in India and logically can be placed on the suspect list for these threats. However, if recent history is any indication, New Delhi likely will focus intensely on one group in particular: Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) (which translates as "Army of the Pure"), a Kashmiri militant group that has demonstrated an ability to strike deep within India.

In fact, New Delhi has spoken of the LeT as its bogeyman du jour since the December 2001 shooting attack at its Parliament building -- blaming it for a wide variety of attacks, including the July train bombings in Mumbai, that encompass a tremendous variety of tactics, targets and geographic locations.

The problem is that it has become almost as difficult to speak of the LeT as a cohesive group as it has to speak of al Qaeda, and for largely the same reasons. Both groups have been "disrupted" and driven underground, but the circumstances of their existence have not necessarily made them less dangerous. Strange as it may sound, they have become both more shadowy and more prominent simultaneously.

LeT: A Brief History

For terrorism purists, the mere mention of LeT's name is problematic: The organization, funded and trained by Pakistan, was labeled a terrorist group early in the U.S. war against jihadists, and it no longer claims responsibility for attacks in its own name. Instead, the LeT has splintered -- or actively attempted to create the impression that it has splintered -- into a number of smaller groups that appear to operate with great autonomy and to use a variety of names, likely in efforts to keep security authorities confused. (This fits with the pattern that al Qaeda used prior to, and shortly after, 9/11: denying responsibility for attacks and claiming them in the name of other groups. In recent years, of course, al Qaeda has bent the other direction -- sometimes claiming attacks that clearly were committed by other, regional actors, and at others allowing smaller groups to use the al Qaeda brand name -- as it sought to transform itself into a grassroots movement.) At any rate, the Indian government and press continue to keep the LeT name alive and to link the group to nearly every serious terrorist attack, threat and foiled plot in the subcontinent.

The LeT is believed to have been formed in 1990 in Afghanistan's Kunar province. Its presence in India's Jammu and Kashmir state was first recorded in 1993. The group's stated goal is to overthrow Indian rule over the contested Kashmir region, though some Indian sources claim the group has a wider agenda of uniting all Muslim-majority regions through South and Central Asia. Indian sources say the LeT has (like al Qaeda) named the United States and Israel as targets, alongside India, but the group has never been shown to have struck at U.S. or Israeli assets independently.

The group evolved as the military wing of Markaz Dawa wa al-Irshad (MDI), a radical Wahhabi organization founded by engineering professor (and later Islamist ideologue) Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. It found a natural sponsor in Pakistan. At one time, Pakistan openly ran militant training facilities on its side of the Line of Control through Kashmir, and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played an active role in formulating the operations of groups that targeted India. The LeT, with funding and other assistance from the ISI, is believed to have carried out dozens of attacks -- using both firearms and explosives, in a number of different tactical scenarios -- against Indian targets over the years.

Those attacks culminated in the December 2001 attack at the Parliament building in New Delhi. At least up to that point, the LeT was thought to have a well-established and military-like structure, with Saeed as its "emir," or supreme commander. The top policymaking body included the emir and his deputies, a finance chief and others with executive functions, while authority at the field level was distributed from chief commander to divisional commanders, district commanders, battalion commanders and so forth.

The organization's physical infrastructure was said to be considerable: a 200-acre headquarters compound at Muridke (near Lahore) comprising a fish farm, a market, a hospital, madrassas and other facilities. The LeT operated several media mouthpieces -- a Web site and various monthly and weekly publications written in Urdu, Arabic and English. It also ran schools and health services (such as blood banks and mobile clinics) in Pakistan, with a network of branch offices to collect donations and provide other forms of support.

Point of Disruption

However comfortable and well-documented the leadership and decision-making processes may have been at one point, the LeT underwent a drastic change after the 2001 Parliament attack. In that strike -- which was similar to an assault at the Kashmir state assembly in Srinagar, just two months before -- gunmen wearing military fatigues, who apparently had used a fake identity sticker to get past security checkpoints, broke into the area before the government building while the legislative body was in session. One of the attackers, with explosives strapped to his body, blew himself up; the other four were killed in the protracted gun battle that ensued. Six policemen and a gardener also were killed.

Under pressure from the United States and Britain, both of which quickly labeled the LeT a terrorist organization, Islamabad reinvented its relationship with the organization. The ISI severed direct links with the group, which began to splinter into more autonomous groups operating under several names (Lashkar-e-Qahar, al-Arifeen, al-Mansoorain, Al-Nasireen and Al-Qanoon, for example). With the post-9/11 pressure from Washington and London, Islamabad had no choice but to act -- but it also needed to retain the geopolitical leverage against its nemesis, India, afforded by the militant groups. Thus, the Musharraf regime outlawed both the LeT and MDI but allowed an MDI successor organization, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, to exist as a "nonprofit" group that collects donations and engages in social, cultural and humanitarian activities. MDI founder Saeed is the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, and the organization has taken over -- and expanded on -- many of the social services previously offered by LeT.

Though it is possible that special cells within the ISI still dispatch liaisons on occasion to have tea with "former" LeT operatives and "suggest" future operations, the net effect of the changes was to drive the militant organization underground and make its financial and organizational links to Islamabad much harder to trace. (The Musharraf government does, however, retain enough contact with LeT-linked figures to suit the political needs of the moment. For instance, to offset political pressure following the July 11 bombings, officials placed Saeed under house arrest in August -- only to free him again in mid-October.)

Like other Islamist militant groups, LeT is thought to fund its activities through a variety of sources, including charitable organizations scattered through the Muslim world and hawala exchanges. There have been suspicions that its networks spread into the West: In the United States, 11 men convicted on federal charges -- who have become known as the "Virginia Jihad Network" -- were thought to have trained in LeT camps in preparation for waging war against India. And several of the suspects arrested by British authorities following the Aug. 10 disruption of a plot involving transatlantic airline flights were Pakistani nationals thought to have ties to LeT.

The criminal underworld may provide significant sources of financing for the LeT as well. A prominent Indian mobster, Dawood Ibrahim, is believed to have planned the group's March 12, 1993, attacks in Mumbai. In those strikes -- which claimed 247 lives, making them the most deadly terrorist attacks in Indian history -- more than a dozen improvised explosive devices and grenades exploded at the city's stock exchange, several hotels, markets, an airport and other targets.

Tracing the Network

The LeT is widely networked. Members of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), along with sympathizers in Bangladesh and elsewhere, are believed to act as local guides and provide safe-houses for operatives deploying from Kashmir or Pakistan. Bangladesh -- where the government for the most part turns a blind eye to the activities of Islamist militant groups -- may well serve as a safe-haven. LeT operatives likely mask their meetings with authorities in Pakistan by routing their travel from India through Bangladesh or sneaking across the border to Nepal, and thence to Kashmir or other key locales.

LeT has shown a capability to strike far from Kashmir. Attacks have occurred in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Varanasi, Kolkata, Gujarat and elsewhere.

Significantly, LeT's strategic goals overlap with those of al Qaeda in many ways, and the group shares al Qaeda's beliefs in a radical strain of Wahhabi/Salafi ideology. This makes the Kashmiri movement a useful vehicle for furthering the goals of the better-known jihadist organization -- if it can be properly harnessed.

This, of course, is where the organizational lines begin to grow blurry, to the point of being meaningless.

Bin Laden clearly has placed India in al Qaeda's targeting scopes, having espoused the cause of Kashmiri Muslims and referring in an April 2006 recording to the "Crusader-Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims." Moreover, the subcontinent is a strategic linchpin in the grand U.S. geopolitical strategy (used as a lever for containing China), and its economy has become linked to that of the United States in significant ways. From bin Laden's standpoint, the financial centers in cities like Mumbai and Bangalore constitute politically and economically meaningful targets, within convenient striking distance. Only days after the train bombings, al Qaeda claimed to have established itself in Jammu and Kashmir -- a claim the Indian government deemed credible -- and it is known to have been actively recruiting among Kashmiri groups formerly controlled by Islamabad.

But to say that the LeT is controlled by al Qaeda, or even learning most of its current tactics from it, might be going too far. To be fair, both groups seem to have learned from each other over time: LeT's use of government decals to slip past security in the 2001 Parliament attack, for example, far predates the use of similar tactics by al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. The multiple target strikes in the 1993 Mumbai attacks also serve as a precedent.

Historically, the LeT has struck the same types of targets al Qaeda has chosen in its war against the United States: government sites, economic symbols (as signified by the Mumbai Stock Exchange hit) and transportation systems, as well as "soft targets" like cinemas and places of worship. However, unlike al Qaeda, the LeT and its successor groups thus far have shown little interest in striking directly at the West. Rather, they seem particularly focused on fighting India's Hindu majority, stirring up sectarian strife and reprisal attacks in hopes of producing high body counts and weakening the government in New Delhi.

Looking Ahead

Whether or not that focus will shift remains an open question, but it is possible that the recent threats to Indian airports are a sign of things to come.

The Muslim-Hindu attacks and counterattacks triggered by LeT are a significant issue for New Delhi, but thus far the violence has not reached a level that India -- with its vast geography and tremendous population -- is not able to absorb. The Western technology companies and other multinationals that have made India a strategic hub for business have not moved their operations elsewhere as a result of sectarian strife.

The July strikes in Mumbai left many feeling vulnerable, however. The city of 16 million is an important hub for the finance and shipping industries, and home to numerous foreign businesses. In light of the general poverty, putting high-tech or sophisticated security measures in place would be possible only for specific, critical locations, leaving a great deal of infrastructure vulnerable. Moreover, due to the economic linkages, the effects of such a shift would be felt in the United States, Britain and other countries the Islamists consider their enemies.

Raising a terror alert for critical infrastructure, such as airports, is one way of potentially maxing out Indian security forces, leaving other targets unprotected. It also could be a ploy to mask a terrorist group's true targets, or an alternative way of striking at the national economy. The economic impact from the 9/11 attacks, which shut down U.S. air travel for days, needs hardly to be mentioned in this respect. Whoever receives the blame -- or takes the credit -- for issuing threats and/or carrying out attacks, the fragments of LeT pose the same kind of danger to India as the group as a whole.

Obviously, it cannot be known whether a terrorist group will strike at an Indian airport, but given the large number of potential targets, and potential actors, we believe an attempt is more rather than less likely to be made. If and when that time comes, one thing is all but certain: Al Qaeda and LeT will be deemed responsible. No matter how disrupted the organizations may have become, perceptions linger that al Qaeda and LeT are powerful, cohesive actors in South Asia. And the longer that perception lingers, the more indistinguishable the two groups are becoming in the public mind.