New Revelations on Rumsfeld's 9/11 Posted by Suzanne Nossel

My friend Chris Borgen who blogs at Opinio Juris sent me the following from a student of his who blogs at outragedmoderates.org and got some interesting notes from a FOIA request of a meeting Rumsfeld held with staff on 9/11.  Its not totally new, but it beefs up the historical record on sorry episode that had grievous consequences that we are still living with.

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld's 2:40 PM instructions to General Myers to find the "[b]est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" (as discussed on p. 334-335 of The 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News' Sept. 4, 2002 report "Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted Rumsfeld's notes as stating: "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward's Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time" line, Cambone's notes from the conversation read: "Hard to get a good case."

Links to the released documents are available at the OutragedModerates site.

Eating Velveeta in Tehran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This is almost enough to restore one's faith that the people's of the world will overcome their differences and avert nuclear war:   This Onionesque headline reports that the Iranian confectioners union has renamed Danish pastries - which are evidently all the rage in Persia - Roses of the Prophet Mohammed.   Rather than banishing their beloved cheese danish, bakers have covered up signs that remind their countrymen of the raging controversy over the Muslim cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands -Postens, replacing them with homages to the maligned seer.   

The move echoes the redubbing  French Fries sold in the Capital Hill cafeteria "Freedom Fries" after the French declined to support the American-led invasion of Iraq.   By taking a page from a sorely misguided republican Congressman, the Iranian bakers have, amidst a tense international fracas, offered the people of Iran, the US and the rest of the world a chance to step back and share a good laugh that maybe, just maybe, could point the way toward some broader common ground.

Answers on Spying? Talk to the Hand... Posted by Lorelei Kelly

VICE CHAIRMAN Rockefeller’s STATEMENT on the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’s failure to vote on whether to AUTHORIZE an investigation into the NSA surveillance program  Washington, DC -- Feb 16

Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was scheduled to debate and vote on whether to authorize a committee investigation into the legal and operational aspects of the NSA warrantless surveillance program.  Unfortunately, using a procedural maneuver, the Chairman prevented the Vice Chairman from offering and voting on his proposal which outlined key questions before the Committee.   Prior to today’s meeting, all Committee members had an opportunity to review the Vice Chairman’s proposal and the Chairman had assured the Vice Chairman his proposal would be voted on. (Committee Investigation Proposal Attached.) The following is Senator Rockefeller’s statement:

Exploiting Terrorist Dysfunction Posted by Lorelei Kelly

West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center has produced report that dissects Al Qa'ida through a group dynamics model straight out of a business school organizational behavior class.  They put forward the idea that members have different goals and objectives, and preferred strategies for achieving these ends.  The authors then ask the question, how might we exploit the weak links in these human relationships?

While capture-kill options may be most effective for certain individuals—e.g., operational commanders—we identify a number of non-lethal prescriptions that take into account differences in al-Qa’ida members’ preferences and commitment to the cause.

The US invested time and money in social science research until about the end of the Vietnam War, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided they would never fight an irregular war again.  Simple linear theories like nuclear deterrence and containment prevailed for the next few decades. But, looking around today,  technology is not the key to victory in the war against terrorism...(nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan)  so social science research is again gaining ground.  The report is fairly academic (and I'm only half way through it) but it provides yet more human-level analysis for today's greatest challenge--that of preventing and disrupting catastrophic criminal networks.

The terrorists’ challenge is simple to describe. For security reasons, political and ideological leaders, the principals, have to delegate certain duties—planning attacks, soliciting funds, recruiting, and the like—to middlemen or low-level operatives, their agents. Such delegation poses no problem if all the agents are perfectly committed to the cause and agree with leaders on how best to serve the cause. Under those conditions, the preferences of the principals and their agents will be perfectly aligned, and the agents will act exactly as the principals would like.

      However, preferences aren’t always aligned.  Read more here.

Iraq War Epitaph Being Written in Iran Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Today Condi Rice went up on the Hill to request $85 million in supplemental funding for democracy promotion activities - like radio and TV broadcasts, fellowships and exchanges - targeted at Iran.   

(The news comes the same day as this report about how government funds allocated to advancing America's image and objectives in the Middle East are being siphoned off to poorly run and dishonest outfits like the Lincoln Group. )

Rice's announcement today underscores just how tight a corner we sit in on Iraq right now.  I am not an expert in the region, but the way I have understood the last few years of Iran policy is as follows:  there are those, like former CIA and National Security Council official Flynt Leverett, who felt that since 9/11 the Administration squandered a major opportunity with Iran. 

Leverett has argued that Iran's more reform-minded, stable government under former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani made numerous overtures toward the Administration that - if reciprocated - could have culminated in Iranian cooperation on terror and other issues, on a thawing of relations, and on continued popular support for reformers as a potential bridge between the Iranian people and the West.   

Iraqi Insurgency in its Own Words Posted by Heather Hurlburt

My friends over at the International Crisis Group have gotten some nice coverage (including this segment on Nightline) for their analysis of the websites and 'Net propaganda put out by Iraqi insurgent groups.  (Program director Rob Malley says ICG has an analyst who, under a pseudonym, is on the insurgents' listservs.  Nice work.)

But this is not a happy story.  I'll just reproduce the toplines of their conclusions and you can go read the rest:

The insurgency increasingly is dominated by a few large groups with sophisticated communications.

There has been gradula convergence around more unified practices and discourse, and predominantly Sunni Arab identity.

Despite recurring contrary reports, there is little sign of willingness by any significant insurgent element to join the political process or negotiate with the U.S.

The groups appear acutely aware of public opinion and increasingly mindful of their image.

The insurgents have yet to put forward a clear political program or long-term vision for Iraq.

The insurgency is increasingly confident of victory.

As I said, not much comfort for anybody there, "out now" or "stay the course."  A must-read.

Is NATO really right for Sudan? Posted by Jeffrey Laurenti

Progressive-minded Americans can relish the moment.  Kofi Annan went to see George Bush on Monday to tell him—if we may strip away the layers of flowery diplomatic politesse—to put up or shut up.  For two years Washington has been insistently demanding strong action by the United Nations to halt the janjaweed massacres and expulsions in Darfur.   Now that the international will has congealed to send in a U.N. protection force, an administration that has dominated the jawboning needs to do a share of the heavy lifting.

But the notion that NATO should send a force into Sudan is, with due respect to Senator Joe Biden and its other enthusiasts, simply bone-headed.  NATO is already on thin ice in Afghanistan as an alien force in a Muslim sea, but at least the Afghan government in Kabul wants it there.  NATO has even less business going into a civil conflict in Sudan, where a resistant government in Khartoum suspects Western governments really just want to split the country—and many Africans believe it. 

Western military capacities can certainly strengthen the limited reach of the force currently deployed by the threadbare African Union.  But they can’t substitute for it:  Africa’s participation is indispensable (and no one else, from NATO or otherwise, will put up the troops needed on the ground to police so vast an area as Darfur).  And neither Europeans nor Africans have any stomach for becoming a military arm of the Darfur rebels.  Neither do Americans, at least not those outside of Washington.

The obvious framework is a U.N. operation that harnesses both African and Western capacities. Members of NATO can put the same military capacities to work under a U.N. aegis as under NATO’s – but the Africans will not take orders from a Euro-American command and political body in which they have no voice. Of course, Washington is allergic to U.N. operations, and armchair warriors are quick to accuse U.N. leadership of being too reluctant to use military force.  (That’s why we did our own thing in Somalia in 1993.)  But after the recent experience of U.S. military unilateralism, the American public may be grateful for the restraint on reckless “robustness” that global accountability may entail.

We should be careful what we wish for.  Just when the American people have caught on to the folly of military adventurism in Iraq, do “progressives” want to tell them we have another war to involve them in?  Handle with care….   

Darfur Needs More Cheek and Less Bush Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Number of troops and/or dollars President Bush committed on Monday to UN peacekeeping mission for Darfur, Sudan, after a request for support from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in an Oval Office meeting: 0.

Number of troops and/or dollars American speedskater Joey Cheek committed to Sudanese relief after winning a $25,000 bonus for his Olympic gold medal:  $25,000.

Ok, Derek brings you the substance and I bring you the guy in tights.   

But this points up both how far Darfur and its horrors have crept into the public consciousness (through the unlikely triumverate of aid groups, evangelicals, and MTV) and how little both the folks in power and the media have responded to those concerns.

So, reasons for optimism:  1) Americans really do care about this one; and 2) Cheek is skating for the kids of Darfur again later this week, and Darfur will get more airtime on NBC thanks to Mr. Cheek than the peace talks and Kofi Annan's pleas combined.

Go, Joey.

Reasons for pessimism:  remember how lambasted the Clinton Administration was for its slow response to Bosnia?  the Bosnian conflict lasted for three years and killed between 100-200,000; in Darfur, we're coming up on three years and 180,000 dead.  Or is that a reason for optimism?  Is three years and six figures our real threshold for genocide?

A Darfur Breakthrough? Posted by Derek Chollet

After failing to utter a syllable about the genocide raging in Darfur during his State of the Union address, President Bush finally spoke out today.  Well, he didn’t really have much of a choice – in the press availability following his meeting with Kofi Annan, it was bound to come up. 

Yet this follows what has been – the President’s silence notwithstanding – a pretty good few weeks by the Administration on this issue.  One of John Bolton’s first moves as this month’s UN Security Council president was to raise Darfur, calling on the Council to authorize planning from the woefully undermanned and underequipped African Union force to a more robust, UN peacekeeping force.  The Council agreed to do this last week, and planning is underway for a UN force that could be as large as 20,000 troops.

Could we be on the cusp of a breakthrough in terms of the international community's actions toward Darfur?  Perhaps.  But even if the days ahead in the UN go smoothly (and that's a big if), the problem is what to do in the meantime – the UN planning process is not exactly speedy, and the African Union troops there are not up to the task.  Their mandate runs out at the end of March.  So we need some kind of “bridging force,” and last week Senator Joe Biden called for NATO to get involved.  This is the right move -- we have been arguing for it for nine months – and one that the Administration must support.  But the truth is that this will only happen if the Administration comes under greater pressure from more than just editorial boards and, ahem, blogs.  It needs to hear from the public and Congress, and groups like Stop Genocide Now are working on it -- and need our help.

Beyond NATO, there’s so much more the President could do.  Nicholas Kristof, who has perhaps done more than any other journalist to raise awareness on Darfur's plight, offered a series of practical and completely doable steps in his NY Times column over the weekend (notice also that he raises a good point about the prospect of American military troops on the ground there, which is something that Biden is open to).

Iraq's Election Result: Elegant US Exit Looking More and More Elusive Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Exactly two months ago I posted on the eve of the Iraqi elections identifying 10 signs to watch for to see whether the polling would help stabilize Iraq and hasten an elegant exit by the Bush Administration, or instead only harden the country's violent divisions.  With the election results officially certified on Friday and a parliamentary vote today to retain Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, now seems like a good time to revisit those markers and see which way they now point.   The long and the short is, as usual, mostly bad news for the US in that our most virulent opponents are gaining sway.  While they just might have the power to unify and stabilize the country, they will do so on a platform of radical Islam and deep hostility toward the US. 

1.  Role of the United Iraqi Alliance - This is Jaafari's party and, as I pointed out in December, its success spells growing Iranian influence over Iraq, and a related diminution in America's sway over events.    Jaafari won today (despite a weak track record) because of the support of notorious cleric Moktada al-Sadr who controls the largest bloc of seats within the alliance.  So, in addition to boding well for Iran, Jaafari's victory portends the growing power of Sadr, who led two violent anti-US rebellions in 2004.   Jaafari is also far less popular with Kurdish and Sunni leaders than his chief rival for the PM's post, so - while Sadr dreams of uniting all Muslims against the infidel - inter-ethnic reconciliation on Jaafari's watch is by no means a sure thing.

2.  Performance of the Iraqi National List - This was the party of Iyad Allawi, the CIA's old friend who was appointed Iraq's first interim Prime Minister and was the US's preferred candidate to head Iraq's powerful interior ministry which controls the country's security forces.   Strong performance would have been a good sign for secularism and the US's leverage in Iraq.   Allawi's group won 25 seats, which - if my math is right - amounts to 9% of the vote, or 5% less than Allawi won during elections a year ago.  Moreover, there's now talk of Allawi's party being shut out of the government, rumors that have prompted the Kurds to threaten that if Allawi is left out in the cold, they'll boycott.   Unless and until these disputes are resolved, secularists look to be on the outs in the emerging structure.

3. Speed with which a new government is formed - There were just four months between the December elections and the deadline to fill in a series of highly fraught blanks left in the constitution adopted last October and dealing with issues like federalism and regional autonomy.   Two months have past, and the naming of Jaafari seems liable to prolong rather than expedite talks on forming a government.   Some are saying it will take until June.  The more time that goes by, the less the chances of a grand bargain emerging.