Oh, great! The Democrats’ new Intelligence Chairman is an ijiot

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – SpyTalk
Dec. 8, 2006 – 7:43 p.m.

Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda

By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor

Forty years ago, Sgt. Silvestre Reyes was a helicopter crew chief flying dangerous combat missions in South Vietnam from the top of a soaring rocky outcrop near the sea called Marble Mountain.

After the war, it turned out that the communist Viet Cong had tunneled into the hill and built a combat hospital right beneath the skids of Reyes’ UH-1 Huey gunship.

Now the five-term Texas Democrat, 62, is facing similar unpleasant surprises about the enemy, this time as the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

That’s because, like a number of his colleagues and top counterterrorism officials that I’ve interviewed over the past several months, Reyes can’t answer some fundamental questions about the powerful forces arrayed against us in the Middle East.

It begs the question, of course: How can the Intelligence Committee do effective oversight of U.S. spy agencies when its leaders don’t know basics about the battlefield?

To his credit, Reyes, a kindly, thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see the undertows drawing the region into chaos.

For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.

I thought it only right now to pose the same questions to a Democrat, especially one who will take charge of the Intelligence panel come January. The former border patrol agent also sits on the Armed Services Committee.

Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.

We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players.

To me, it’s like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who’s on what side?

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

It’s been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.

Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?

Civil War

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah...”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Pocito,” I said—a little.

“Pocito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh....”

I apologized for putting him “on the spot a little.” But I reminded him that the people who have killed thousands of Americans on U.S. soil and in the Middle East have been front page news for a long time now.

It’s been 23 years since a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed over 200 U.S. military personnel in Beirut, mostly Marines.

Hezbollah, a creature of Iran, is close to taking over in Lebanon. Reports say they are helping train Iraqi Shiites to kill Sunnis in the spiralling civil war.

“Yeah,” Reyes said, rightly observing, “but . . . it’s not like the Hatfields and the McCoys. It’s a heck of a lot more complex.

“And I agree with you — we ought to expend some effort into understanding them. But speaking only for myself, it’s hard to keep things in perspective and in the categories.”

Reyes is not alone.

The best argument for needing to understand who’s what in the Middle East is probably the mistaken invasion itself, despite the preponderance of expert opinion that it was a terrible idea — including that of Bush’s father and his advisers. On the day in 2003 when Iraqi mobs toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Bush was said to be unaware of the possibility that a Sunni-Shia civil war could fill the power vacuum, according to a reliable source with good White House connections.

If President Bush and some of his closest associates, not to mention top counterterrorism officials, have demonstrated their own ignorance about who the players are in the Middle East, why should we expect the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee to get it right?

Trent Lott, the veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, said only last September that “It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people.”

“Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion?” wondered Lott, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after a meeting with Bush.

“Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference?

“They all look the same to me,” Lott said.

Haunting

The administration’s disinterest in the Arab world has rattled down the chain of command.

Only six people in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad are fluent in Arabic, according to last week’s report of the Iraq Study Group. Only about two dozen of the embassy’s thousand employees have some familiarity with the language, the report said.

The Iraq Study Group was amazed to find that, despite spending $2 billion on Iraq in 2006, more wasn’t being done to try “to understand the people who fabricate, plant and explode roadside bombs.”

Rare is the military unit with an American soldier who can read a captured document or interrogate a prisoner, my own sources tell me.

It was that way in Vietnam, too, Reyes says, which “haunts us.”

“If you substitute Arabization for Vietnamization, if you substitute . . . our guys going in and taking over a place then leaving it and the bad guys come back in. . . .”

He trails off, despairing.

“I could draw many more analogies.”

Yet Reyes says he favors sending more troops there.

“If it’s going to target the militias and eliminate them, I think that’s a worthwhile investment,” he said.

It’s hard to find anybody in Iraq who thinks the U.S. can do that.

On “a temporary basis, I’m willing to ramp them up by twenty or thirty thousand . . . for, I don’t know, two months, four months, six months — but certainly that would be an exception,” Reyes said.

Meanwhile, the killing is going on below decks, too, within Sunni and Shiite groups and factions.

Anybody who pays serious attention to Iraq knows that.

Reyes says his first hearings come January will focus on how U.S. intelligence can do a better job helping the troops in Iraq.

It may be way too late for that.

“Stop giving me tests!” Reyes exclaimed, half kidding.

“I’m not going to talk to you any more!”

Next: More on intelligence topics from my interview with Rep. Reyes.

Jeff Stein can be reached at jstein@cq.com.

Source: CQ Homeland Security
© 2006 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Experts: Iran Can Help End Iraq Crisis

Saturday December 9, 2006 2:46 PM

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI

Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Iran could play a crucial role in curbing Iraq's Shiite militias if the U.S. opens a dialogue with Tehran as recommended by the Iraq Study Group, many in the Mideast say.

But Iran's cooperation would depend on how much it trusts Washington in any deal that was struck. And all observers agree that Iran alone, even with help from its ally Syria, cannot bring peace and that a collective effort of Mideast nations is needed.

So far this week's recommendations by the bipartisan commission have not swayed President Bush from his opposition to opening talks with Washington's top rivals in the region, Iran and Syria.

``Countries that participate in talks must not fund terrorism, must help the young democracy survive, must help with the economics of the country,'' Bush said Thursday. ``If people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up.''

But the panel's chiefs - former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton - underlined before Congress that Washington needs to at least try.

Mainly Shiite Iran has close ties to the parties that run Iraq's Shiite militias, and many say Iran gives money and weapons to the militias, which are blamed for killing hundreds of Sunnis in Iraq's sectarian bloodshed.

Iran says it will only step in to help resolve the crisis if the Americans stop making such accusations and announce a timetable for the withdrawal of their troops. Also, Iranians need assurances from the United States that it will not make accusations against it for their own ``propaganda reasons,'' according to analysts.

Iranians felt betrayed when Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union Speech, referred to them as part of an ``Axis of Evil,'' even after Tehran cooperated with the United States during its war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.

Iran may also look for concessions in return for any help - an end to U.S. sanctions, for example. Some hard-liners in Iran's cleric-run regime also want the U.S. to recognize its rights to develop its nuclear program, a concession Washington may not be willing to make.

In Bahrain, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday Iran was willing to help out in Iraq, but pressed on details, he was evasive.

``When they have decided to withdraw from Iraq, then we will explain,'' Mottaki said. ``We are in a position to help by all means for the stability of Iraq.''

Iran could probably push the major Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigade to stop sectarian killings. But if suicide bombings and other slayings by Sunni insurgents don't come to a halt as well, the Shiites will not end their reprisals for long.

The Sunni insurgents are believed to be a patchwork of groups - former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, Iraqi Islamic extremists and non-Iraqi al-Qaida-linked militants, their ranks fed by Iraqi Sunni Arabs embittered by the Shiites' new domination of the country and by killings of Sunnis.

Syria is believed to have influence over former Baathist leaders, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia have strong ties to Iraq's Sunni population. All would be needed to convince Sunnis that reconciliation with the Shiites stands a chance.

But rivalries among all these countries could sink the effort. Iraq's Arab neighbors are deeply concerned about Iran's growing influence in Iraq and across the region. Iran's intervention in Iraq could make Sunnis there even more skeptical, since many already see the Shiite leadership as tools of Tehran.

``I think if a collective decision and initiative is taken, it might work,'' said Mohammed Abtahi, an adviser to former president Mohammad Khatami.

Without such unified effort, ``it will become a fragile process,'' with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia all putting their own interests before those of Iraq's, he said.

``Unfortunately many of these countries try to push their own internal crisis onto Iraq. Many of the neighbors believe if the crisis in Iraq ends, their own will come to fore - so they try to keep the Iraq crisis going,'' he said.

Other observers sounded a less cynical note.

As a first step, Iranians would like to see U.S. troops leave Iraqi towns, hand over the intelligence apparatus to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - as well as all the decision-making tasks - and bolster the Iraqi police, said Ahmad Bakhshayesh, professor of political science at Tehran University.

Iraqi Shiites are worried that the United States would take away the powers they have gained for the first time in history. ``That is why the Mahdi Army is fighting them,'' he said.

His comments highlight another complication in the delicate process. Many Shiites in Iraq tend to see any demands by Sunni Arabs for a greater share in government as an attempt to reverse the power Shiites won in elections. Sunnis, on the other hand, complain that Shiites are squeezing them out.

Any long-term stop to violence will require both sides - and their backers in the region - to be assured their sometimes contradictory interests will be sustained.

If they receive American assurances, the Iranians ``can rein in the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade,'' Bakhshayesh said.

``Each country knows the language of the group it controls. Saudis can speak to the Sunnis and Iran can speak to the Shiites and to the Kurds,'' he said.

``Iraq is not easy, but it's not insolvable,'' said Musayeb Naimi, editor of Iran's Arabic language magazine al-Wifaq. The Iraq Study Group report ``is positive on condition that it will be followed by a practical plan. To get Iran's cooperation there must be that initial trust.''

James Zogby: Bush and the ISG

James Zogby Fri Dec 8, 9:28 PM ET

Some observations on the Iraq Study Group (ISG), which is also known as the Baker-Hamilton, report:

It is a stunning indictment of current policy.

Most press accounts have focused on the fact that the ISG report terms U.S. efforts in Iraq as failing and describes the current situation as "dire." But a more significant indictment comes through in the report's 79 recommendations. The long list of solid proposals of what the U.S. needs to do are in such stark contrast to what the Administration is actually doing, that it only reveals a damning gap in performance.

Many of the recommendations have been made before and most make such sense, a reader of the report is compelled to ask, "How did policy get so detached from reality?"

The report didn't endorse a number of half-baked proposals.

As former Secretary of State James Baker made clear in his press conference, there are a number of ideas circulating in the U.S. policy debate that the ISG report has smartly dismissed. They reject the idea of "staying the course," since there is no course to stay. They reject the idea of dividing Iraq, noting that this would have disastrous consequences and accelerate sectarian violence throughout the country. They reject the idea of a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops, noting that this also would result in disaster and an acceleration of violence that could spill out beyond Iraq's borders. Finally, they reject the idea of a dramatic increase in U.S. forces in an effort to achieve a military victory, noting that no such forces are available.

The ISG understand that the U.S. must save itself in the Middle East if it is to salvage the Iraqi mess.

Some diehard hawks and ideologues are howling at the ISG's recommendations that the U.S. must engage its regional adversaries, and also aggressively pursue a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. [Significantly, the report for the first time uses the term "right of return" to describe one of the key issues to be resolved between Israelis and Palestinians.] But these recommendations are not, as the critics suggest, diversionary. They are central to a resolution of the Iraq war.

At present, the U.S.'s credibility is at an all-time low in the Middle East, with anti-American sentiment at an all-time high. If the Administration is to get the support it needs to invest other countries in a joint effort to promote regional stability, the U.S. must take action to address other countries' pressing concerns. Coalitions that achieve success are not just of the "willing," they require partnerships and "give and take" - something this Administration has not been especially good at.

At the same time, to resolve the conflict in Iraq, it's clear that Syrian and Iranian cooperation must be secured. While we have an interest in these countries' changing their behavior, they too, have concerns we must address.

Adversaries can talk and solve problems. As Baker noted, for 40 years the U.S. engaged the Soviet Union in sometimes constructive efforts despite our mutual hostility.

It is not only a policy document, the ISG report needs to be embraced as a bi-partisan political package.

The reality is that Iraq is not only a military and Middle East policy disaster, it is a domestic U.S. political problem as well. To find a way forward, it is critical to find consensus.

As the committee members made clear in their presentation, the 79 recommendations included in the report represented a bi-partisan consensus - the only such effort on Iraq.

While some partisans may be tempted to pick and choose only some of the report's proposals while rejecting those with which they disagree, to do so would only do damage to the consensual nature of the report. It is a well-crafted and substantive document. On the policy side, it is important to recognize, as former Congressman Lee Hamilton noted, that the major goals of the report are reinforcing and must be embraced in total. Picking and choosing only the pieces you like would not work. Such an approach would create a situation no different than the current mess.

Will Bush buy it?

From the outset, I said that there were three conditions that had to be met for the ISG to be successful. The report's recommendations had to be substantial and far reaching, they had to be embraced by the Administration, and Congress could not play politics with the effort. It appears that the first of these three conditions has been met. I'm not at all sure about the second, and signs are not promising.

In the week leading up to the ISG release, the White House engaged in a bit of old fashioned "razzle dazzle" in order, I believe, to distract attention from the report. Given the fact that just one month ago, the Bush Administration was "staying the course," and not much else, the hyperactivity of recent weeks has been striking. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned; Bush traveled to Jordan to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; a number of internal secret memos have been leaked, revealing the deep concerns of key Bush Administration officials about the war effort; and the president has authorized both the Department of Defense and the National Security Council to undertake reviews of their own.

All of this, I believe, has been done in order to dilute the impact of the ISG report and allow the president to choose from a menu of options more to his liking. To make it perfectly clear, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said earlier this week, "The (ISG) report will be an important input, but as you would expect (the president) is going to get inputs from a number of sources." For his part, President Bush said much the same: "One of the key points is that I'm getting a lot of advice documents ... these are frank assessments by different members of my Administration ... my attitude is I ought to absorb and listen to everything that's being said."
What all this appears to be setting the stage for is confusion, obfuscation and more of the same.

Colbert Interviews Elizabeth de la Vega, Author of "U.S. vs. Bush et al."

Colbert Interviews Elizabeth de la Vega, Author of "U.S. vs. Bush et al."

Video

UK charity trustee resigns after attacking 'pro-Israel lobby'

Baroness Tonge claimed Israeli interests also had grip' on LibDems
[Daily Edition]

Jerusalem Post - Jerusalem
Author: JONNY PAUL, Jerusalem Post correspondent
Date: Dec 1, 2006
Start Page: 06
Section: News
Text Word Count: 422
Abstract (Document Summary)

London - Baroness Jenny Tonge has stepped down as a trustee of the charity Christian Aid, a move believed to be related to comments she made about the "financial grips of the pro-Israel lobby" in September.

Speaking last week at Edinburgh University, as reported in The Jerusalem Post, Tonge stood by her earlier comments, saying there had been "extensive" research in the US supporting her argument that the Israeli lobby has a disproportionate voice in Anglo- American foreign policy.

Dr. Daleep Mukarji, director of Christian Aid, confirmed that Tonge chose to resign and said this would be formally reported to the next board meeting.

Bush's Iraq approval at new low - 27 percent

Bush's Iraq approval at new low

WASHINGTON President Bush's approval rating on Iraq has slumped to a new low.

Just 27 percent of those questioned in a new A-P-Ipsos poll approve of the way he's handling the war. At the same time, dissatisfaction has climbed to an all-time high of 71 percent.

Ohio State University's John Mueller, who's an authority on presidents and public opinion, says Bush's support is continuing to erode and there no reason to think it can be turned around.

The poll also indicates nearly two-thirds of the American people do not think Iraq is going to end up with a stable, democratic government. Only nine percent think the Iraq war will end with a clear-cut victory.

The survey was taken from Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.


Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Troops under investigation for Kandahar shooting spree

Fury in Afghan city after targeted British convoy kills civilians

Declan Walsh in Kandahar
Saturday December 9, 2006
The Guardian


The Nato vehicle hit by a suicide bomb which killed three Afghans and injured three Britons. Photograph: Allauddin Khan/AP

British military authorities are investigating allegations that Royal Marines shot indiscriminately on Afghan bystanders following a suicide bombing last weekend.

At least two people died and five were wounded by shots fired from a supply convoy that raced through Kandahar after coming under attack. The incident has sparked widespread public anger in the southern city, where recent suicide bombs have frayed nerves and shortened tempers among Nato forces.

Squadron Leader Jason Chalk, a spokesman for Nato regional command in Kandahar, described the reports as "disconcerting" and promised a thorough investigation by Royal Military police. "If people are found to have acted outside the rules of engagement, they will be held to account for their actions," he said.

---

---

But Lieutenant Colonel Andy Price, spokesman for the UK taskforce in Helmand, said the troops acted within their rules of engagement. "I can categorically state that we did not indiscriminately open fire," he said.

The extent of the allegations has only emerged in Guardian interviews with medics, witnesses, local journalists and western officials in Kandahar.

The suicide bomber struck at about 11am last Sunday as the British convoy passed on its way to Camp Bastion in Helmand. The blast flung an open-topped vehicle near the rear of the convoy on to a central reservation. Three Afghan labourers were killed, witnesses said, and three British soldiers suffered life-threatening injuries. The convoy security detail moved the wounded into two vehicles and started towards an evacuation point. Seconds later gunfire erupted.

Abdul Wali, 26, a baker, was cowering inside when he heard the first bullets. Stepping into the street, he saw a taxi driver with apparent bullet wounds being pulled from his car. "The British were shooting and shouting 'Go! Go! Go!'" he said yesterday. "They were scared and they were taking their revenge."

The British convoy pressed towards the city centre. At the busy Martyrs Square junction Abdul Rahim stopped his motorcycle to let it pass. More gunfire rang out, sparking panic. Bystanders dived into shops for cover, he said. Abdul Rahim tried to push his motorcycle back but it was too late. The first bullet passed through his upper back. The second pierced his side and lodged near his spinal cord. Grimacing with pain, the 35-year-old spoke softly from his bed at Kandahar hospital. "The British say they came to bring peace to our country. What kind of peace is this?" he said.

Noor Khan, a reporter for Associated Press, who was sitting in his car nearby, feared he would also be shot. "They aimed their guns straight at me. I immediately raised my hands," he said.

The convoy pushed towards the Helmand road. But as they left the city the British soldiers allegedly opened fire again, more than five miles from the suicide attack site, on a taxi carrying three men. "The taxi was trying to park along the road. The driver and one passenger were wounded," said Rahmatullah, 19, a security guard, who witnessed it.

At Kandahar hospital the third man in the car, Dost Muhammad, said: "Our driver reduced his speed and tried to stop on the side of the road. The British passed by very close and started firing."

Colonel Price said the Marines believed they were under threat from a possible secondary attack. Bullet marks on two vehicles in the convoy indicated possible hostile fire from Taliban marksmen, he said. He said the British soldiers fired more than 300 warning flares as the Marines raced through the city carrying their wounded. But civilian cars drove up one-way streets and blocked their escape.

"It's very regrettable that civilians got hurt. But the Taliban detonated a bomb that killed innocent people on a busy street. That is not our fault," he said.

Gunfire and secondary attacks do not usually follow suicide bombings in Afghan towns. Suicide bombers have struck six times in the past 12 days.

In the latest attack, a bomber killed one Afghan and wounded nine, including a six-year-old girl, but a Canadian convoy nearby escaped unscathed. The driver said the fleeing Canadians had shot the boy. But the British incident stirred the most emotion. Mourners at funerals on Tuesday spoke of a jihad against British soldiers. On Thursday the deputy commander of Nato forces in southern Afghanistan, Col Tim Bevis, spoke on local television to explain the events.

"The foreigners should leave," declared Fida Muhammad. "Some say they are our enemy. I agree," he said. But others said the alternative - a return to Taliban rule or internecine bloodshed - was a worse prospect. "At the bottom of their hearts they don't want the coalition to leave," said Noor Khan.