"Some of America's most notorious street gangs are turning up in the military. But they aren't just serving their country. Instead, many are taking the opportunity to learn a very deadly trade... There is a growing concern with gang members enlisting in the military with the hope of learning the art of war...

"Gang members brag they now have a pipeline from the U.S. to Baghdad and are picking up new skills, such as war time medical training... It's training that most local law enforcement cannot match. At Fort Bragg, military officers are now working with local law enforcement in an attempt to get violent gang members out of the military."

www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com

*

ANNAN TO ASSAD: GET OUT

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a remarkably stern and uncompromising message to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad tonight, joining the White House in calling for a complete withdrawal of Syrian troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon. Dismissing Syrian murmurings of returning to the long-dead, phased-withdrawal Taif Accord, Annan demanded that Syria completely retreat by April:

Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, added his voice yesterday to American calls for Syria to pull out of Lebanon.

He warned the Syrians in an Arabic television interview that they would face "measures" - presumably some form of sanctions - if they did not pull their army out of Lebanon completely by April.

With pressure growing every day, Waleed al-Mualem, the Syrian deputy foreign minister, committed his country to further withdrawals, but failed to make a clear commitment to complete evacuation.

The new demand by Annan, who almost never operates independent of a consensus, comes as a shock to me and I suspect also to Bashar Assad. The UN hardly stands as a bastion of radical change, but the undeniable momentum of popular revolt in Beirut has grown too large to be ignored any longer. The American alliance with France on the Lebanese question must have emboldened the oft-shy Annan into attempting to get in front of history for the first time in his career.

And that is Assad's problem in a nutshell. While the entire world has decried the American occupation of Iraq, we have shown our clear intention on getting the Iraqi people back on their own feet, and quickly. The Syrians have occupied Lebanon under similar rationales but have obviously meant none of it. They blew off the Taif agreement in favor of a long occupation in order to support their proxy terror network, Hezbollah, in continuing operations against their primary enemy Israel.

When you're a dictator, especially one with a seat on the Secuity Council, having Annan square off against you is almost exactly analogous to Barry Goldwater telling Richard Nixon that no one's buying the burglar story. Assad would do well to listen and retire quietly, and quickly, before the next shoe drops.  Thursday, February 24, 2005

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

www.michellemalkin.com

*

TEXAS: THREE ADMIT TRYING TO SELL IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS TO IRANIANS

Three capitalists sell the rope by which they will be hanged. "Three admit trying to sell documents to Iranians," from the Brownsville Herald, with thanks to Kemaste:

February 24, 2005 — Three members of an alleged ring accused of attempting to sell fake immigration documents to Iranian nationals pleaded guilty in federal court to various counts of fraud and identity theft.

Port Isabel residents Roberto Aburto, his wife Azalia Gaona, Miriam Palestina and Rutilio Marquez are accused taking $1,050 to make fake Social Security cards and green cards in August for three Iranian men.

Aburto, 31, Gaona, 27, and Palestina, 26, were arrested during two Sept. 9 raids in Port Isabel, but Marquez remains at large and is presumed to have fled to Mexico.

According to federal court records, the ring’s activities had been monitored by the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement and the Social Security Administration as part of an ongoing investigation.

Between Aug. 2 and Sept. 9, the group allegedly agreed to make nine sets of fake Social Security cards and green cards for undercover agents for $2,770.  Thursday, February 24, 2005

http://jihadwatch.org

*

Judd Magilnick reviews London's new Churchill Museum for the Spectator Online: "Deconstructing Winston." It appears that those of us who want to learn about Churchill as well as from Churchill will have to stick with the books by his best biographers, Martin Gilbert and William Manchester, and those by Churchill himself. After making his own critical contribution to the survival of Western civilization, Churchill was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953. In his speech accepting the award, Churchill observed:

Since Alfred Nobel died in 1896 we have entered an age of storm and tragedy. The power of man has grown in every sphere except over himself. Never in the field of action have events seemed so harshly to dwarf personalities. Rarely in history have brutal facts so dominated thought or has such a widespread, individual virtue found so dim a collective focus. The fearful question confronts us; have our problems got beyond our control? Undoubtedly we are passing through a phase where this may be so. Well may we humble ourselves, and seek for guidance and mercy.

Later this year James Muller's definitive new edition of Churchill's The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan will be published. Such passages as this one will be restored to their proper place in the text:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Our friend Steve Hayward's excellent Weekly Standard essay on The River War is "Fighting fanaticism." Steve commments on the passage above and renders a fine appreciation of the book.

www.powerlineblog.com

*

SHORT OF WAR

The peculiar problem facing US counterterrorism efforts in Southeast Asia, according to the Congressional Research Service paper Terrorism in Southeast Asia is that it cannot do so directly without offending regional political sensitivities. Thus the US has been forced to work through host governments even when the hosts are corrupt and inefficient. In the Philippines, for example, a constitutional provision prohibiting the presence of foreign combat troops has severely limited US ability to provide support for the Philippine military.

In consideration of the Filipino Constitution’s ban on foreign combat troops operating inside the country, Washington and Manila negotiated special rules of engagement ... U.S. Special Forces personnel took direction from Filipino commanders and could use force only to defend themselves.

The main focus of counterterrorism efforts has been the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group. But not only were US efforts to attack them directly hamstrung by the constitutional provision, but their key military allies were declared 'off limits' by Manila for political reasons. Two of the older-line Muslim insurgents groups, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), had long been the object of 'peace-making' efforts by left leaning groups in the Philippines. These groups have since loosely cooperated with the Abu Sayyaf and have provided them with sanctuary by merely rebranding them as their own personnel, placing them under the protection of the 'peace agreements'.

The U.S. focus on Abu Sayyaf is complicated by the broader Muslim issue in the southern Philippines, including the existence of two much larger groups, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Both groups have been in insurrection against the Philippine government for much of the last 30 years. The MILF, with an estimated armed strength of 10,000, has emerged as the larger of the two groups. Its main political objective has been separation and independence for the Muslim region of the southern Philippines. Evidence, including the testimonies of captured Jemaah Islamiyah leaders, has pointed to strong links between the MILF and JI, including the continued training of JI terrorists in MILF camps.... The MILF has had tenuous cease-fire agreements with the Philippine government. ... However, there continues to be evidence that the MILF provides training facilities to JI.

Nevertheless, US trainers managed to produce a force of 16 light infantry companies which could be deployed in an offensive capacity against the terrorists. It is worth noting that although the Philippine Army has nearly as many divisions as the US Army only the merest fraction of Manila's forces are available for offensive, the great bulk being passively scattered in garrisons and camps throughout the archipelago. In an earlier post, I had informally estimated that the Philippine Armed Forces could field approximately one brigade for two months without running out of ammunition, money and steam. Philippine government 'all out-war' campaigns have historically been limited to these parameters. In a sense, Manila must negotiate with the Muslim rebels because it has not had a military victory option available for the last forty years. While the Muslim insurgency was limited in scope that fact did not matter. Now that the insurgents have been souped up by Al Qaeda they may now pose an existential threat to Manila. The availability of 16 additional companies and US logistical, intelligence and fire support would have been transformative. But the capability can't be used, again due to leftist-inspired constitutional provisions.

The United States and the Philippines have attempted to negotiate a second phase of U.S. training and support of the AFP since late 2002. The negotiations have experienced difficulties in determining the “rules of engagement” for U.S. personnel and the terminology to be used in describing Philippine-U.S. cooperation. The basic issue has been whether any facets of the U.S. role could be considered a combat role. The two sides initially announced that U.S. training of AFP light reaction companies would take place in northern Luzon and again on Mindanao. The objective was to train 16 light infantry companies by the end of 2003 for use against both Muslim insurgents and the NPA. ...

In February 2003, Pentagon officials described a plan under which the United States would commit 350 Special Operations Forces to Jolo to operate with Filipino Army and Marine units down to the platoon level of 20-30 troops. Another 400 support troops would be at Zamboanga on the Mindanao mainland. Positioned offshore of Jolo would be a navy task force of 1,000 U.S. Marines and 1,300 Navy personnel equipped with Cobra attack helicopters and Harrier jets. ...

This and subsequent statements indicated that the Special Operations Forces on Jolo would participate in AFP offensive operations against Abu Sayyaf and that the Special Operations Forces would not be limited to using their weapons for selfdefense. The U.S. Marines were described as a “quick reaction” force, undoubtedly meaning that they could be sent on to Jolo to reinforce AFP units. The Cobra helicopters and Harrier jets would give AFP commanders the option of requesting U.S. air strikes in support of AFP operations or transporting Filipino troops on U.S. helicopters. ...

President Arroyo and AFP commanders reportedly had agreed to the plan for a second phase of U.S.-Philippine joint military activity in a meeting on February 4, 2003. The announcement of the plan caused immediate controversy in the Philippines. Filipino politicians and media organs criticized the plan as violating the constitutional prohibition of foreign troops engaging in combat on Philippine soil. Filipino Muslim leaders warned of a Muslim backlash on Mindanao.

American support would provide what would be a two-brigade Philippine force with exactly the complementary capabilities they would need: mobility, communications, combat logistics and fire support. They could actually pursue the enemy with greater agressiveness and confidence, in the assurance that US firepower could extract them from any tactically disadvantageous position. But military strategy must in this case, be subordinate to political feasibility. Recent attacks by the Abu Sayyaf on the Philippine capital itself may eventually start to turn the political tide as it becomes evident that the Philippines is already flooded with foreign combat troops -- supplied by the JI and Al Qaeda -- and that American support is actually required to repel an invasion. But things will probably have to get worse before the tipping point is reached.  Thursday, February 24, 2005

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com

*

DISTANT NORTHERN NEIGHBORS

As President Bush tours Europe to mend the stressed relationships with European leaders, our northern neighbor has chosen to opt out of participation in the Nuclear Missile Defense (NMD) program, which is designed to protect North America and eventually other allies of the United States. Canada will continue to cooperate with tracking aerospace threats via the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), but will not take part in program development or deployment. The main reasons cited for not participating in NMD are “dislike of President Bush's policies” and concerns about the effectiveness of the system (DefenseTech is highly critical of the prospects for NMD).

The Brookings Institution has a good Questions and Answers piece on NMD, weighing the pros and cons of NMD, and includes discussions on the viability of the technology, concerns about NMD increasing the proliferation of long range nuclear weapons and the difference between national and theater missile defense technologies. The Bush administration views Theater Missile Defense (TMD) as part of the overall nuclear shield. TMD consists of short and medium range mobile missile systems designed to protect US troops in theater as well as regional allies (protecting South Korea from short range North Korean theater missiles is an example of a mission of TMD). TMD weapons systems include the Navy’s AEGIS/Standard Missile air defense system (testing is being conducted today), the Army’s Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Theater High Altitude Area Defense [THAAD], and the Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3. Incidentally, the United States has agreed to sell India the Patriot PAC-2 air defense system, which would render Pakistan’s nuclear threat obsolete. Pakistan is fearful and warns against the sale.

Canada’s decision to refrain from participating in the Nuclear Missile Defense program will not cripple the program; however it does limit future options for taking advantage of Canada’s unique geographic location, according to Dr. George Lindsey, a Senior Research Fellow at the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies:

“If the US eventually does decide to deploy some form of NMD, whether with or without the support of its allies, and whether with or without an amended ABM treaty, there is no doubt that it could do so without any cooperation from Canada. But, depending on the nature of the system that they choose, Canadian geography, and the active participation of the Canadian armed forces, Canadian research agencies and Canadian industry could be of significant value.”

The decision to opt out of NMD is a reflection of Canada’s leftist internal politics. Canada has been distancing itself from the United States in matters of international politics and national defense, to the detriment of the United States’ security. China already possesses nuclear weapons capable of striking the United States, and the current slide of Russia, which also possesses the capability to strike the US, back to totalitarianism and opposition to the West should concern Canada. Future threats of nuclear proliferation and long range capabilities are real, not imagined. North Korea is working to develop nuclear weapons and missiles capable of striking the continental United States. Iran is on target as well.

On thing is clear: Canada will reap the benefits of a missile defense system whether or not she helps pay for it and allows deployment on her soil. There is no doubt the US would attempt to intercept a missile launched at our northern neighbor. This has been the American way for the past century, as our continued defense of Europe, Japan, South Korea and other nations demonstrates.

Perhaps Canada believes it can distance herself from the United States’ foreign policy, attempts to defend from nuclear threats, and the Global War on Terror. This is a naive position to take, as the radical Islamists do not differentiate between good and bad Western cultures. All are infidel to them, and Canada faces a real threat from Islamic extremists. Canada’s lax immigration and border security, flirtations with implementing Sharia law and rejection of Nuclear Missile Defense are not encouraging signs for those depending on Canada to help defend the North American continent from current and future global threats.

Update: In the official declaration of the rejection of NMD, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin states “Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security. The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility.”

The "substantial increases"? A $10.8 billion dollar increase in defense spending over the next five years. The Nuclear Missile Defense program will cost the United States over $50 billion itself during the next five years. All just part of a half-trillion dollar defense budget. Sure, Canada recognizes America's burden in the realm of internation security. The Canadians just don't want to do much to ease that burden.

The US Ambassador to Canada reinforces the fact that the United States would shoot down any missile aimed at Canada (article via NPI):

But U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters Wednesday that he was perplexed over Canada's apparent decision to allow Washington to make the decision if a missile was headed toward its territory.

"Why would you want to give up sovereignty?" he said. "We don't get it. We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."

The answer is simple, Ambassador Cellucci. The Canadian Left, which dominates the government, realizes the United States is no threat to their sovereignty and would not allow a nuclear missile to strike Canada if it can be prevented. They can get the United States, whom they despise, to defend Canada from nuclear threats at no cost. Why would they pass up the offer?  Thursday, February 24, 2005

http://billroggio.com