The Daily Democrat

Home

News

Blog

News Flash

"A Democrat disgrace"
13:25 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
A Democrat disgraceObama's congressmen will sabotage the health bill to keep their seats. It is stomach-churning Michael Tomasky guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 March 2010 21.00 GMT Article historyIn our House of Representatives – "the people's body" – the Democrats at this moment enjoy a gaudy 75-seat majority. Wait. Did I just put "Democrats" and "enjoy" in the same sentence? Scratch that. The Democrats suffer the affliction of a 75-seat majority. That's a joke, except not really. What is going on right now in the lower house vis a vis healthcare reform is a stomach-turning sight to behold – a saga of preening, duplicity, pomposity, self-interest and, most of all, cowardice that is worthy of Holinshed. The players in this drama are participating in the destruction of their own party. They know this. And they persist.What's happening right now, of course, is that Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, and President Barack Obama, are trying to round up the votes in the house to pass the Senate's health bill. Exactly 216 are needed. Right now they have 194. Or 202. Or 210. Or something. But not 216.So Pelosi is on the prowl for yes votes. The house passed its version of the bill last November by five votes, 220-215. At the time, 39 Democrats voted against it. This probably sounds strange to British readers, but it's how the Democratic party does things. Lots of Democrats – 49 of them, in fact – represent districts where John McCain defeated Obama. They live in fear of being tarred by a future Republican opponent of having abetted the march of socialism. So they voted no on the most important piece of social legislation that body has had before it in probably 40 years.Now, under our somewhat arcane rules of legislation, the…
Read more...
Rush Limbaugh, Costa Rica bound?
12:47 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Rush Limbaugh, Costa Rica bound?In praise of Costa Rica's healthcare system – although Rush Limbaugh appears to be unaware of its existenceA rainbow over San Jose, Costa Rica Photograph: Juan Carlos Ulate/ReutersMy colleagues at Cif America have an entertaining poll running at the moment on Rush Limbaugh's vow to move to Costa Rica if healthcare reform gets passed by Congress. So far more than 2,000 voters are hoping that Rush will up and leave – although of course that number may include opponents of healthcare reform who side with Rush.What has Costa Rica done to deserve this? It's the second most beautiful country on earth, after all. More importantly, zwabber, a commenter on the Cif America poll thread points out:This does not make sense at all: Costa Rica has the best socialized medical safety net of all central American countries, if not Latin American countries. Infinitely much better then the US system. In addition there is the government run "extra" medical insurance for people who want to be treated faster in private hospitals and clinics.Is Rush totally ignorant? ... or does he want the best of all combinations: a peaceful country, no army, great health care, great affordable education. The major bad thing: lousy drivers who are intend to kill each other by the most stupid of actions. Maybe Rush would like to join the kamikaze motorcycle drivers of this country.Limbaugh should also be aware that the country's newly-elected president is a woman, Laura Chinchilla, who aims to make Costa Rica the first carbon-neutral nation in the world.
Read more...
Dems want a Win, just in case.
12:27 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Finance Bill to Be Offered Without G.O.P.By SEWELL CHAN Senator Bob Corker, above, a Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, called Senator Christopher J. Dodd’s announcement on Thursday “very disappointing.” Read Article
Read more...
"I could see Obama chuckling."
10:54 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
When Mr. McCain Came to Washington An excerpt from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's memoir goes inside the White House meeting where Obama called McCain's bluff: "I could see Obama chuckling." Read Article
Read more...
Sean Penn wants to "jail journalists"
10:18 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Penn turns on writers over Chávez 'Jail journalists who call him a dictator' Actor accuses US media of smearing Venezuelan president Read Article
Read more...
Why Obama Is No LBJ
10:11 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Why Obama Is No LBJ Critics who want Obama to be like Lyndon Johnson misunderstand the political skills that produced LBJ. "The notion of doing anything this big without some opposition support is simply outside the Senate's nature and experience, and would have been alien to LBJ's understanding of how politics works"Read Article
Read more...
Why hasn't Pelosi called the Vote?
09:39 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Can Nancy Pelosi Get the Votes? The Senate bill's abortion language is not the House Speaker's only problem.Read Article
Read more...
"the American people chose to elect an idiot"
09:14 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Barack Obama has made me want to boycott America By Alex Singleton Politics Last updated: March 11th, 2010Obama has refused to support British sovereignty in the Falklands (Photo: Reuters)The special relationship is over. We gave America years of unwavering support after September 11. And now we see how Barack Obama’s administration repays us.First, Obama declared that America was “neutral” over the sovereignty of the Falklands, ignoring the clear wishes of the islands’ population. And, second, his Assistant Secretary of State, Philip Crowley, snubbed Britain by failing to use their proper name and instead calling them the “Malvinas”.I don’t know where Obama learned about diplomacy, but his stinks. I’m normally pro-American, but Mr Obama’s seeming support for Argentinian aggressors, who have no legitimate claim over the Falklands, is gratuitously offensive. So from today, I’m boycotting America as a tourist destination. This summer, I’ll be going to France, not California.Let me be clear: I’m not normally in favour of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama’s reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue.If our American friends want to stop Obama shredding the respect the rest of the planet has towards America, they need to stop Obama’s destructive policies – and fast. And how is that to be done????
Read more...
"Many of them despised George Bush"
09:06 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
The seduction of British intelligenceThe torture scandal shows how easily our intelligence services were led astray by US promises of an influence 'upgrade' Crispin Black guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 March 2010 13.01 GMT Article historyIn a lecture this week, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller criticised George Bush and his administration for torture of terror suspects. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/Getty ImagesVikram Dodd's elegant destruction of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller's evasions over the torture by US intelligence of terrorist suspects should be the last word on whether our spooks knew about it or not. But there is another nagging question that is more difficult to answer and in a way more disturbing. Why did our senior intelligence officials not take a firmer stand? Could they not anticipate the damage it would do to the reputation of the intelligence services, particularly among our large Muslim minority? Keeping their loyalty, I would assume, is the key aim of our counter-terror strategy.It is especially odd given that the formative years of just about every top official at Albert Embankment were spent pursuing the IRA – within the law and under a strict set of political riding instructions. It was a cardinal principle of both intelligence and military operations that the key to neutering the IRA was to undermine support for its message and methods among potential future sympathisers. That is part of the reason why IRA suspects were treated just like any other suspected criminals and subject only to routine police questioning. Most remained silent. However, in the long term our subtle approach worked enhancing the flow of actionable intelligence.Ironically, the intelligence relationship with the Americans…
Read more...
Justice Roberts still "troubled" by Obama's call-out.
07:52 - 11.03.2010 News >> Latest
Roberts calls scene at State of the Union 'very troubling'In remarks during a question-and-answer session with law students at the University of Alabama, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. protested the timing of President Obama's State of the Union disapproval of the court's decision in a major campaign finance case.LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER
Read more...

Syndicate

Big Time Crook tells fellow-Dems: I'm just like you.

Rangel Fights to Hold Party Backing as Ethics Charges Fly

By MARTIN VAUGHAN

WASHINGTON -- Despite a barrage of negative publicity surrounding alleged ethics breaches, Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) so far continues to hold support from fellow Democrats, party insiders say. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has set a Jan. 3 deadline for the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, reviewing an array of charges against Rep. Rangel, to complete its work.

Calls for Rep. Rangel to step aside as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee that began with House Republicans have spread to major newspapers like the New York Times -- and most recently, the Washington Post in a Saturday editorial.

Getty Images

Rep. Charles Rangel faces a barrage of negative publicity surrounding alleged ethics breaches.

The House ethics panel is investigating three complaints, filed by Mr. Rangel himself after embarrassing news reports about his personal finances.

The allegations include that Mr. Rangel failed to report and pay taxes on income from a Dominican Republic vacation home, that he used House stationery to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of New York, and that he improperly used four rent-controlled apartments at his Harlem residence.

But even supporters of Mr. Rangel acknowledge privately that the most damaging revelations to date came in a New York Times article last week.

That article detailed how Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Bermuda-based oil-driller Nabors Industries, pledged $1 million to the Rangel Center around the same time as Mr. Rangel's Ways and Means Committee helped to bury a Senate proposal that would have taken away a tax benefit from Nabors.

On Tuesday, campaign finance watchdog group Common Cause called on the House ethics panel to expand its inquiry to encompass Times's revelations about Mr. Rangel's connection to Mr. Isenberg. It remains unclear whether the panel will examine that connection as part of its inquiry into fund-raising for the Charles B. Rangel Center.

Mr. Rangel's attorney, Leslie Kiernan, didn't return calls seeking comment for this article. But this week, Mr. Rangel has gone on the offensive in an effort to prove that he did not intervene on Nabors' behalf.

The issue surrounds a 2004 law that aimed to ensure that firms cannot avoid U.S. taxes simply by moving their headquarters to an offshore tax haven.

That loophole-closer took effect in March 2003, grandfathering in Nabors and four other formerly Texas-based oil firms that had moved offshore in the summer of 2002.

Rangel aides hasten to point out that the deal, which allowed Nabors to continue to enjoy the offshore tax benefit, was negotiated by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.), Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), and then-Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R., Calif.). Mr. Rangel wasn't involved in those discussions.

In 2007, as part of legislation to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes for small businesses, the Senate voted to bump the loophole-closer's effective date back by one year, effectively yanking the tax benefit from Nabors, Noble Corp., and two others. Rep. Rangel opposed that Senate provision for several reasons, his aides argue, none of them having to do with Isenberg. For starters, it would have re-opened a tax change that was settled in 2004. Some tax policy makers frown on so-called retroactive tax increases.

In addition, Mr. Rangel's only instructions to staff regarding the bill were to develop a bipartisan bill with his Republican counterpart, Rep. Jim McCrery, (R., La), House Ways and Means Tax Counsel John Buckley told Dow Jones.

Democratic committee staff knew well that Republicans would oppose the tax increase on Nabors as well as other Senate-passed tax-increasing measures. Rangel aides said those provisions were off the table more than a week before Mr. Rangel's Feb. 12 meeting with Kenneth J. Kies, a lobbyist for Nabors, which was the focus of the Times article.

When it came to negotiations between the Senate and House on the final package, Mr. Rangel and Sen. Baucus agreed on a $5 billion total, but left the specifics to staff. Rangel spokesman Matthew Beck also said it was Senate negotiators who ultimately dropped their demand for the tax provision affecting Nabors.

"Neither the inversion issue, nor the other offsets in the Senate bill were the subject of discussions between Chairmen Baucus and Rangel in the final conference," said Mr. Buckley. "In fact, the only substantive provision Baucus and Rangel discussed was the rural counties tax credit piece."

Few Democrats on the Hill expect the ethics process to result in Mr. Rangel being stripped of his chairmanship, according to interviews with staff and Democratic lobbyists. Mr. Rangel has enjoyed warm relations with the House speaker, and has deep support among Ways and Means members.

"Rangel has little to worry about from the House ethics committee," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. She said the panel in past complaints has soft-pedaled its findings.

Removing Mr. Rangel from his chairmanship would actually require a House vote. "I wouldn't look for that to happen anytime soon," said Ms. Sloan.

But one senior aide to a House Democrat said Ms. Pelosi will face pressure to uphold the image of rooting out corruption that helped sweep Democrats into the majority.

"The optics of the Times article were awful," the aide said. "Come January, Republicans will be bringing their privileged resolutions over and over again" calling for Mr. Rangel to step down, the aide said.

Removing Mr. Rangel from his post might also set off a fight for the chairmanship among senior Democrats at a time when President-elect Barack Obama will be seeking a smooth transition to advance his economic agenda.

The next most senior Democrat, Rep. Pete Stark of California, is seen as so liberal on tax, trade and welfare issues that centrist Democrats in the House caucus would be loathe to see him take up the gavel.

But the next three most senior members -- Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.) and Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.) -- will not please moderates either, according to a House aide.

Telegraph/UK: Some US Generals want torture ended.

US generals call on Obama to end 'torture'

Retired US generals and admirals have urged President-Elect Barack Obama to restore America's battered image.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 11:32PM GMT 03 Dec 2008

Joe Biden briefing - US generals call on Obama to end 'torture'

Jim Talent, the co-chairman of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, right, briefs Joe Biden. Photo: AP

At a meeting with Vice President-Elect Joe Biden and senior members of Mr Obama's transition team, they presented a long list of "things that need to be done and undone".

They called on him to reverse the controversial interrogation, detention and rendition policies of the Bush administration.

The group was headed by General Joseph Hoar, a retired marine who headed the Central Command region from 1991 to 1994.

The generals were motivated by concern that the use of waterboarding, secret prisons, the abuse at Abu Ghraib and the detention without trial for six years of prisoners at Guantánamo had sullied the global reputation of America and its military.

The group, which represents 36 retired generals, with 80 service stars between them, has expressed its fear that excesses committed by US officials would remove the moral authority to demand US military personnel captured in the future are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Among their demands was an end to the CIA's authority to use what the administration has called "enhanced interrogation methods" that exceed what is permitted for the military.

The techniques are said to include prolonged sleep deprivation, painful stress positions and waterboarding, whereby a prisoner is dunked in running water and feels like he is drowning. The agency has said waterboarding has not been used since 2003.

Exactly what the CIA is allowed to do in interrogations remains secret.

However, the White House has insisted the CIA programme adheres to the US ban on cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners.

"Gradualism won't do. It's time for an abrupt change," said Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, a former navy inspector general. "That abrupt change will send a signal to the world that America is back."

"We need to remove the stain, and the stain is on us, as well as on our reputation overseas," said retired Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, former Navy inspector general.

Mr Obama has denounced waterboarding and other forms of harsh questioning allowed by secret orders.

"Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them," he said in October 2007. He has also vowed to close the Guantánamo Bay prison.

U S President George W. Bush has repeatedly denied condoning torture, but the denials have widely rung hollow among U.S. and international audiences.

A Justice Department report this year found the White House ignored reports that FBI agents viewed some interrogations as "borderline torture."

Mr Obama could quickly revoke presidential orders allowing the CIA to use harsh treatment, giving the International Red Cross access to all prisoners held by intelligence agencies and declaring a moratorium on taking prisoners to a third country for harsh interrogations.

"If he'd just put a couple of sentences in his inaugural address, stating the new position, then everything would flow from that," said retired Gen Fred Haynes, whose regiment in World War Two raised the American flag on Iwo Jima.

It came as Mr Obama named New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as his commerce secretary, dubbing him a top "economic diplomat" who would help lead the United States out of the financial crisis.

Mr Richardson is the ninth ex-Clinton administration official appointed to the new cabinet.

AsiaTimes ON Engaging China in Space.

ENGAGING CHINA IN SPACE, Part 1
A fresh start or a protracted showdown?
By Peter J Brown

United States president-elect Barack Obama has some tough choices to make with respect to how he will deals with China in space. He might prefer to proclaim the advantages of cooperation with China in terms of space exploration and other activities, but the execution of any plan where the US is perceived as letting its guard down is going to draw a lot of criticism from conservatives, a wing of the US Congress which has been deeply suspicious of the Chinese space program from the start.

In Section 3 of "The Impact of China’s Space Program on US Security", the latest report issued last week by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, it states:

The potential effect of China’s space program on US national security is significant. First, it is steadily increasing the vulnerability of US assets. Improvements in its imagery and intelligence satellites will enable China to locate US assets such as carrier battle groups more accurately and rapidly and from greater distances. Improved communications satellites will enable China to pass important targeting information more quickly and securely to guided missiles or other weapon systems. Improved GPS-type navigational and weather satellites will enable missiles to fly more accurately to their targets. Finally, the cycle is completed by the battle damage assessment that imagery and intelligence satellites provide to Chinese commanders as weapon systems engage their targets.

Many US weapon systems and deployed military forces depend on space support for targeting, navigational, and communications support. A large portion of the US space systems’ architecture consists of ground-based nodes and centers located around the United States and the globe far from the battlefield.

The ground nodes and centers in space or on the ground are critical elements of US military power. As such, they are potential targets for China. Some Chinese strategists believe that space-related installations, including ground stations, are so critical that they are valid targets during a conflict. China could choose to engage these critical assets physically with missiles or non-kinetically through means such as a computer network attack.

In the 21st century, any showdown over Taiwan in particular involving the US and China could immediately escalate into a series of attacks on space assets, according to Eric Sayers, a national security research assistant at the conservative Heritage Foundation, who addressed this scenario in the October issue of the Armed Forces Journal.

"At present, and according to the 2009 Pentagon review of China’s military capabilities, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has judged that the possession of proficient anti-satellite (ASAT) technologies could deter the US from entering into a conflict over Taiwan," wrote Sayers. "According to the judgments of PLA strategists, the US is unlikely or less likely to intervene in conflicts where it runs the risk of being the target of a space 'shock and awe' strike which may leave its conventional forces seriously disadvantaged against Chinese forces and equally incapacitated in other global theaters of operation."

As a result of these and other considerations, the incoming Obama administration must cope with numerous constraints which limit its options in terms of any wide-ranging bilateral space-related agreements with China, according to Eric Hagt, China program director at the World Security Institute in Washington, DC.

"Obama’s overall tone has suggested he would be far more open to discussions with others on key space security issues. But that is different from cooperation," said Hagt. "I see the [prospect of] the US and China working together on space programs of any substance [as] highly unlikely, simply because the larger political and security relationship, not to mention a change in legislation [impacting on US International Traffic in Arms Regulations controls and sensitive export laws] would need to be in place before actual cooperation between space agencies can occur."

Hagt points to important and relevant statements made by Obama about policy that will help set a better tone, including Obama's endorsement of a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites.

Here is an excerpt of "Advancing the frontiers of space exploration", posted at www.BarackObama.com.

Keeping our space assets free of threats of disruption will be an Obama priority. This is not only a military concern, but also an issue relevant to commercial and scientific operators. Developing an international approach to minimizing space debris, enhancing capabilities for space situational awareness, and managing increasingly complex space operations are important steps towards sustaining our space operations.

Negotiating Agreements on "Rules of the Road": Barack Obama will work with other nations to develop "rules of the road" for space to ensure all nations have a common understanding of acceptable behavior.

Opposing Weaponization of Space: Space assets are increasingly important to our national security and our economy, but they are also extremely vulnerable. China's successful test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007 signaled the beginning of a potential new arms race in space. Barack Obama opposes the stationing of weapons in space and the development of anti-satellite weapons. He believes the United States must show leadership by engaging other nations in discussions of how best to stop the slow slide towards a new battlefield.

Protecting America's Space Assets: Recognizing their vulnerability, Obama will work to protect our assets in space by pursuing new technologies and capabilities that allow us to avoid attacks and recover from them quickly. The Operationally Responsive Space program, which uses smaller, more nimble space assets to make US systems more robust and less vulnerable is a way to invest in this capability.

"He said he would only support a missile defense system that was proven to work [which is] probably code for a much more cautious approach than [President George W] Bush. The first is a direct reference to space and the second, while indirect, is very important since many, including China, see a multi-layered missile defense program as strategically threatening and destabilizing," said Hagt.

John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University and former director of GWU's Space Policy Institute, also finds Obama's detailed space policy statement - which was made in August - to be highly supportive of increased cooperation.

"[Obama] identified enhanced international cooperation as a key element of his approach to civilian space activities. I expect that the preliminary dialogue on areas of interest that has already started between NASA and its Chinese counterparts will continue and perhaps increase in priority," said Logsdon. "But our space relationship with China is at a very early stage, and we will need to cultivate mutual understanding and trust for it to develop into a significant partnership. With respect to national security space, I think it is up to China to demonstrate that it will not continue the kind of developments that lead to the 2007 ASAT test."

Logsdon describes Obama as opposing weapons in space, but unsure as to how exactly he will approach achieving this objective. "[Whether this will happen] through a treaty-based regime or through a 'bottom-up' process of developing rules of the road, a code of conduct, or similar incremental steps towards space security remains to be seen," said Logsdon.

Given the current state of US-China space affairs, the choice for the new Obama administration is really one of continuing to view all Chinese space activities primarily as a threat to the US - which could be technological, to military space assets, or political and leadership threats in the area of exploration - or it could try to identify areas where cooperation is possible, while acknowledging that competition will likely continue in others, according to Dr Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the US Naval War College.

"Few relationships are purely cooperative or competitive. It appears that the Obama administration will be more open to the latter, in line with broad positions already stated by the new administration indicating that diplomacy will have more of a role in US foreign and security policy considerations," said Johnson-Freese.

Hagt asserts Obama will probably put less emphasis on - and reduce funding for - military space control and force application programs, and put more on space protection, space situational awareness (SSA), and operationally responsive space (ORS) as well as space science exploration.

"That is, he will try to change the perception that the US strives for absolute dominance in space as the Bush administration has done," said Hagt. "Banning space weapons, along with other technical and policy measures, to protect US national interests in space is an imperfect solution but Obama realizes it is the best one."

All of this depends on increasing mutual trust and to accomplish that, there has to be a significant increase in transparency, something that the US accuses the Chinese of having ignored for far too long.

"A greater degree of transparency is essential if cooperation beyond simple data exchanges or coordinated mission[s] is to develop. The US has a good record of transparency in its cooperative undertakings, [and now] it is up to China to demonstrate a similar approach to working together," said Logsdon.

When discussing transparency in space, Brian Weeden, technical consultant at the Colorado-based Secure World Foundation, conjures up the Cold War, and the fact that not so long ago both sides realized the value in using space to verify arsenals and arms control arrangements.

"Both sides were wary to disrupt each other's satellites for fear of destabilizing the situation," said Weeden. "However, those lessons don't appear to have been transferred to the post-Cold War regime in the area of SSA. All the states with such capability tend to view SSA data as military secrets and rarely share it with the world. The end result of this is reduced transparency and increased tensions. The real irony is that much of the positional information on satellites that the states attempt to keep secret is not, and is easily obtained by anyone with a backyard telescope and an inquisitive mind."

Weeden is hopeful that all parties in space will realize the benefits that could be gained by sharing certain types of SSA data.

"It would not only increase transparency and stability, but also the pooling of data would benefit all parties. Europe is already making some progress in this area with the European Space Situational Awareness System currently under consideration," said Weeden, "A data sharing policy within Europe would allow for all the members to access SSA data on some level and to use it for a variety of reasons, the most significant being safer operation of satellites."

Johnson-Freese has looked closely at efforts by the US and China to address transparency, and she advocates a subtle but important shift in the US approach.

"Transparency is of course important as an enabler for more cooperation and an overall better relationship between China and the US," said Johnson-Freese. "It is part of a need to better understand the Chinese political process and their 'ways of working'. Part of that too is communication."

For example, some Chinese delegates at recent space conferences have suggested that the word transparency carries connotations in Mandarin that they are not comfortable with - ie that it suggests revealing information in ways that could be associated with espionage, adds Johnson-Freese. "The suggestion was made that requesting clarity of intent might work better. While I think some lack of transparency on the part of the Chinese has been cultural and intentional, if phrasing our requests differently gets better results, I think we should try it."

Peter J Brown is a satellite journalist from Maine, USA.

AsiaTimes: al-Qaeda " hijack " let to Mumbai attack.

Al-Qaeda 'hijack' led to Mumbai attack
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

MILAN - A plan by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months - even though official policy was to ditch it - saw what was to be a low-profile attack in Kashmir turn into the massive attacks on Mumbai last week.

The original plan was highjacked by the Laskar-e-Taiba (LET), a Pakistani militant group that generally focussed on the Kashmir struggle, and al-Qaeda, resulting in the deaths of nearly 200 people in Mumbai as groups of militants sprayed bullets and hand grenades at hotels, restaurants and train stations, as well as a Jewish community center.

The attack has sent shock waves across India and threatens to revive the intense periods of hostility the two countries have endured since their independence from British India in 1947.

There is now the possibility that Pakistan will undergo another about-turn and rethink its support of the "war in terror"; until the end of 2001, it supported the Taliban administration in Afghanistan. It could now back off from its restive tribal areas, leaving the Taliban a free hand to consolidate their Afghan insurgency.

A US State Department official categorically mentioned that Pakistan's "smoking gun" could turn the US's relations with Pakistan sour. The one militant captured - several were killed - is reported to have been a Pakistani trained by the LET.

A plan goes wrong
Asia Times Online investigations reveal that several things went wrong within the ISI, which resulted in the Mumbai attacks.

Before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the ISI had several operations areas as far as India was concerned. The major forward sections were in Muzzafarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which were used to launch proxy operations through Kashmir separatist groups in Indian-administered Kashmir.

The next major areas were Nepal and Bangladesh, where both countries were used for smuggling arms and ammunition into India and for launching militants to carry out high-level guerrilla operations in Indian territory other than Kashmir.

After 9/11, when Islamabad sided with the United States in the "war on terror" and the invasion of Afghanistan was launched to catch al-Qaeda members and militants, Pakistan was forced to abandon its Muzzafarabad operations under American pressure. The major recent turn in the political situation in Nepal with the victory of Maoists and the abolishment of the monarchy has reduced the ISI's operations. An identical situation has happened in Bangladesh, where governments have changed.

The only active forward sections were left in the southern port city of Karachi, and the former Muzzafarabad sections were sent there. The PNS Iqbal (a naval commando unit) was the main outlet for militants to be given training and through deserted points they were launched into the Arabian sea and on into the Indian region of Gujarat.

At the same time, Washington mediated a dialogue process between India and Pakistan, which resulted in some calm. Militants were advised by the ISI to sit tight at their homes to await orders.

However, that never happened. The most important asset of the ISI, the Laskhar-e-Taiba (LET), was split after 9/11. Several of its top-ranking commanders and office bearers joined hands with al-Qaeda militants. A millionaire Karachi-based businessman, Arif Qasmani, who was a major donor for ISI-sponsored LET operations in India, was arrested for playing a double game - he was accused of working with the ISI while also sending money to Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area for the purchase of arms and ammunition for al-Qaeda militants.

The network of the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, which was a major supporter of the ISI in the whole region, especially in Bangladesh, was shattered and fell into the hands of al-Qaeda when Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri, chief of Harkat, a hero of the armed struggle in Kashmir who had spent two years in an Indian jail, was arrested by Pakistani security forces in January 2004. He was suspected of having links to suicide bombers who rammed their vehicles into then-president General Pervez Musharraf's convoy on December 25, 2003.

He was released after 30 days and cleared of all suspicion, but he was profoundly affected by the experience and abandoned his struggle for Kashmir's independence and moved to the North Waziristan tribal area with his family. His switch from the Kashmiri struggle to the Afghan resistance was an authentic religious instruction to those in the camps in Kashmir to move to support Afghanistan's armed struggle against foreign forces. Hundreds of Pakistani jihadis established a small training camp in the area.

Almost simultaneously, Harkat's Bangladesh network disconnected itself from the ISI and moved closer to al-Qaeda. That was the beginning of the problem which makes the Mumbai attack a very complex story.

India has never been a direct al-Qaeda target. This has been due in part to Delhi's traditionally impartial policy of strategic non-alignment and in part to al-Qaeda using India as a safe route from the Arabian Sea into Gujrat and then on to Mumbai and then either by air or overland to the United Arab Emirates. Al-Qaeda did not want to disrupt this arrangement by stirring up attacks in India.

Nevertheless, growing voices from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and from within India for the country to be a strategic partner of NATO and the US in Afghanistan compelled al-Qaeda, a year ago, to consider a plan to utilize Islamic militancy structures should this occur.

Several low-profile attacks were carried out in various parts of India as a rehearsal and Indian security agencies still have no idea who was behind them. Nevertheless, al-Qaeda was not yet prepared for any bigger moves, like the Mumbai attacks.

Under directives from Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kiani, who was then director general (DG) of the ISI, a low-profile plan was prepared to support Kashmiri militancy. That was normal, even in light of the peace process with India. Although Pakistan had closed down its major operations, it still provided some support to the militants so that the Kashmiri movement would not die down completely.

After Kiani was promoted to chief of army staff, Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj was placed as DG of the ISI. The external section under him routinely executed the plan of Kiani and trained a few dozen LET militants near Mangla Dam (near the capital Islamabad). They were sent by sea to Gujrat, from where they had to travel to Kashmir to carry out operations.

Meanwhile, a major reshuffle in the ISI two months ago officially shelved this low-key plan as the country's whole focus had shifted towards Pakistan's tribal areas. The director of the external wing was also changed, placing the "game" in the hands of a low-level ISI forward section head (a major) and the LET's commander-in-chief, Zakiur Rahman.

Zakiur was in Karachi for two months to personally oversee the plan. However, the militant networks in India and Bangladesh comprising the Harkat, which were now in al-Qaeda's hands, tailored some changes. Instead of Kashmir, they planned to attack Mumbai, using their existent local networks, with Westerners and the Jewish community center as targets.

Zakiur and the ISI's forward section in Karachi, completely disconnected from the top brass, approved the plan under which more than 10 men took Mumbai hostage for nearly three days and successfully established a reign of terror.

The attack, started from ISI headquarters and fined-tuned by al-Qaeda, has obviously caused outrage across India. The next issue is whether it has the potential to change the course of India's regional strategy and deter it from participating in NATO plans in Afghanistan.

Daniel Pipes, considered a leading member of Washington's neo-conservatives, told Asia Times Online, "It could be the other way around, like always happens with al-Qaeda. Nine-eleven was aimed to create a reign of terror in Washington, but only caused a very furious reaction from the United States of America. The 07/07 bombing [in London] was another move to force the UK to pull out of Iraq, but it further reinforced the UK's policies in the 'war on terror'. The Madrid bombing was just an isolated incident which caused Spain's pullout from Iraq."

Pipes continued, "They [militants] are the believers of conspiracy theories and therefore they would have seen the Jewish center [attacked in Mumbai] as some sort of influence in the region and that's why they chose to target it, but on the other hand they got immense international attention which they could not have acquired if they would have just attacked local targets."

Israeli politician and a former interim president, Abraham Burg, told Asia Times Online, "It was not only Jewish but American and other foreigners [who were targeted]. The main purpose may have been to keep foreigners away from India. Nevertheless, there is something deeper. This attack on a Jewish target becomes symbolic.

"I remember when al-Qaeda carried out the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen [in 2000] and then they carried out attacks on American embassies in Africa, they mentioned several reasons. The Palestinian issue was number four or five, but later when they found that it had become the most popular one, it suddenly climbed up to number one position on their priority list. Since the attack on the Jewish institution drew so much attention, God forbid, it could be their strategy all over the world," Burg said.

Al-Qaeda stoked this particular fire that could spark new hostilities in South Asia. What steps India takes on the military front against Pakistan will become clearer in the coming days, but already in Karachi there has been trouble.

Two well-known Indophile political parties, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, a coalition partner in the government comprising people who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of British India in 1947, and the Awami National Party, another coalition partner in the government and a Pashtun sub-nationalist political party, clashed within 24 hours of the Mumbai attacks. Fifteen people have been killed to date and the city is closed, like Mumbai was after the November 26 attacks.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

<< Start < Prev 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 Next > End >>

Results 6921 - 6924 of 9482