Syria - we're not even "leading from behind"

Two bombs killed 55 and wounded over 300 in Damascus (SANA)

Despite America's ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice's protestations to the contrary, the Kofi Annan ceasefire plan for Syria has failed. It was doomed to fail from the start - Bashar al-Asad has no reason to step down. He has effectively used his military, intelligence and security forces to suppress the opposition, and is doing so with impunity because he has correctly assessed that foreign military intervention is highly unlikely.

The world is watching to see what happens next. Will there be a Libya-style operation to protect Syrian civilians from the military onslaught being waged in several cities? Will a coalition of Arab and Western nations begin to provide effective covert support to the opposition, providing the three things needed for a successful insurgency - money, weapons and training? Or will there be a series of increasingly harsh economic sanctions imposed on the country - I mean real sanctions, not the laughable European Union cutoff of luxury goods to the al-Asad family? (See my earlier article, EU luxury sanctions against Syria - is the best you can do?) I am not sanguine that anything is in works.

Why not? Simple. The Russians and the Chinese will not support real action against Syria, and the Obama Administration is too focused on its upcoming tight re-election campaign. It has adopted a very passive observer role, hoping that others will solve the problem, much like the role we have seen this Administration take in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue. Ignore it and hope it either goes away when Tehran announces its nuclear weapons capability, or condemn the Israelis when they attempt to destroy the program.

In the case of Syria, the Administration has put its stock in several "other people's solutions." There is the doomed-from-the-start Annan initiative that virtually no one who knows anything about Syria (and I do not include Kofi Annan in that group) thought would succeed. Under that plan, about a third of the 300 unarmed UN military observers are in Syria.

Since the beginning of the Annan "ceasefire," over 1000 Syrians have died, including 55 in a car bomb attack in a section of Damascus that is home to a major intelligence facility. The facility in the al-Qazzaz neighborhood, located at the intersection of the Airport Road and the Southern Bypass, is pretty heavily guarded - I could never get near it. Now we see Syrian crowds demonstrating against the UN observers.

Then there is the hope that at some point new-again Russian President Vladimir Putin will renounce his staunch support for Bashar al-Asad and support tough United Nations measures. It does not appear this is going to happen. Putin just announced that he will forgo the U.S.-hosted Group of Eight meetings - not exactly an indicator of impending cooperation with the leading nations of the world.

If the Administration is hoping that NATO or European nations are about to form a coalition and militarily intervene in Syria, they are going to be disappointed. France, who took the lead in forming a coalition for last year's military operations against Libya's armed forces, has undergone a major political change. A new president, a socialist, will take office in mid-May and has already announced plans to withdraw French troops two years early from its NATO commitment in Afghanistan. To think a President Hollande is going to commit French forces to Syria is a bit naive.

If the Administration is hoping that the Syrian opposition will somehow gel into an organization with the capability to stand up to the al-Asad regime backed by tanks, artillery and air power, I assess that without external assistance, it is only a matter of time before the government forces prevail. That's a polite way of saying that there will be a bloodbath - the Syrian regime is not known for restraint when it comes to its own survival in power.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that the Pentagon has a series of contingency plans to intervene if ordered to do so by the President. The plans reportedly include establishment of safe areas as well as an air assault on Syrian military forces. That's all well and good, but the planning is useless to the Syrian opposition if the President does not give the orders.

The Gulf States, the Europeans and most importantly, the Syrian people are looking for some kind of American leadership. In Libya, we adopted the nonsensical "leading from behind" construct. It Syria, we are not leading at all.

CIA penetration of al-Qa'idah - how about "need to know?"

Bombmaker Ibrahim Hasan al-Asiri

The news channels are touting the Central Intelligence Agency's recent success in penetrating al-Qa'idah in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and preventing a potential devastating attack on a commercial passenger flight bound for the United States.

An agency asset was not only able to stop a bomb plot but fingered one of the key planners of the operation. That is what led to last Sunday's (May 6) drone-launched missile attack on Fahd al-Qus'u. (See my article on that operation, Wanted Al-Qa'idah leader killed in Yemen.)

This represents stellar work by the American intelligence service and good news in the war on terrorism - I assume that war is still going on despite Obama Administration claims to the contrary.

A disclaimer before I continue - I was a case officer trained by the CIA. Having done this for a living, I know first hand the danger and difficulty in working against these terrorist organizations. This operation shows that it can be done.

Regardless of the criticisms levied against the CIA and overall U.S. intelligence community, American intelligence services remain among the best trained, best-equipped, focused and operationally capable organizations in the world. If there is any doubt, captured documents from Usamah bin Ladin's Abbottabad compound reveal a respect for the decimation of the al-Qa'idah organization at American hands.

This operation is just another success story. My concern - why are we reading about it in such detail? This is similar to the "data dump" of operational details that followed the raid that killed bin Ladin a year ago. Rather than "spiking the football in the end zone" again, perhaps a little reticence would have better served the greater good.

This is not the first time we have unwittingly assisted our enemies through our zeal to tout our successes. When so-called "underwear bomber" Nigerian-born 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalib failed to detonate a bomb secreted in his underwear aboard a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, 2009, the Obama Administration chose to release specific information about why the device malfunctioned.

That device used the explosive compound PETN, the major ingredient of Semtex - the terrorists' preferred plastic explosive. The amount was more than enough required to destroy an airliner in flight. However, the acid-based detonator was not powerful enough to ignite the PETN which had gotten damp from perspiration during the flight.

PETN requires the use of a strong detonator and dry PETN. I have lit Semtex with a match (don't ask) - it burns very hot but does not explode. In effect, by releasing such details, we told al-Qa'idah's principal bomb maker, Saudi national Ibrahim Hasan al-Asiri, how to correct his design flaws. I hope we are not going to release similar details of the second generation bomb acquired by the CIA asset.

Then there are problems created by openly acknowledging that the would-be bomber was a CIA asset. Now AQAP is certain that they had been penetrated. A better way to handle this would have been to stop the operation in a way that preserved the secrecy of that critical fact.

It would have been far better to have a security service or airport screener "discover" the bomb and make an arrest. AQAP might then have believed that their "bomber" was simply caught and that their bomb design was subject to detection by current screening techniques and scanners. Maybe they would suspect that their bomber was a double agent but they could not be certain, Instead, we have eliminated that uncertainty and called into question our ability to detect this type of explosive device.

In the end, AQAP or another al-Qa'idah affiliate will attempt another attack, most likely using this type of device. The best defense we have against this is to continue the excellent intelligence work as was done in this penetration of the terrorist organization, identify key leaders and operations personnel, kill them before they can mount an attack, and then not release operational details about it.

I applaud the CIA's intelligence efforts on this case and I applaud the President's decision to expand the use of drone-launched missile attacks on al-Qa'idah operatives. However, the Administration needs to remember that when it publicly acknowledges these victories and reveals significant operational details, it only helps al-Qa'idah refine its offensive capabilities.

When White House officials such as counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan make arrogant statements like, "We had confidence that we had control, that that [bomb] was not a threat, was not an active threat at that time," it only aids al-Qa'idah - it does not make us safer.

Stop talking.

Wanted Al-Qa'idah leader killed in Yemen

FBI Wanted Poster - Fahd al-Qus'u - فهد القصع  

Message to terrorists who kill American service members, diplomats and citizens: It may take years, even a decade or more, but the military and intelligence services of the United States will hunt you down and kill you.

In Yemen on Sunday, May 6, an airstrike killed wanted al-Qa'idah leader Fahd Muhammad Ahmad al-Qus'u (also rendered as al-Quso). Al-Qus'u was one on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Terrorists for his role in the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole while in the port of Aden, Yemen, in which 17 American sailors were killed.

Although neither the Yemenis nor the Americans have confirmed that the strike was carried out by an American drone, Al Jazeera reported it as an American attack which killed al-Qus'u and an accompanying al-Qa'idah official, as well as wounding six others. This has all the indicators of an attack by a drone-launched Hellfire missile. Of note, the report in Arabic on Al Jazeera stated that al-Qus'u had been "martyred" - any question who's side they are on?

Al-Qus'u had been assigned by al-Qa'idah to videotape the 1998 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, but he fell asleep. To their credit, the Yemenis arrested him and imprisoned him for more than five years. Following his release in 2007, he rejoined al-Qa'idah and became a much more influential member of the organization.

Being from the same tribe as the late (as in also killed by an American missile strike) American-born radical cleric and al-Qa'idah leader Anwar al-'Awlaqi, al-Qus'u was involved in plot by Nigerian-born 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalib to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, 2009. In 2010, he achieved what is considered a benchmark for al-Qa'idah leaders: the U.S. State Department designated him as a "global terrorist."

I have been critical of many aspects of President Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East in general and his prosecution of the wars there in particular. His "leading from behind" style and the constant telegraphing of our plans and strategies to our antagonists is dangerous. That said, his willingness to order drone-launched missile strikes on al-Qa'idah terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen is to be lauded.

Hunting down al-Qa'idah leaders in the countries where they have sought refuge is much preferable and more effective than nation building efforts in countries in which al-Qa'idah is no longer a threat.

Syria's chemical weapons and the uprising

Syrian chemical munitions manufacturing facility at al-Safir

Despite Kofi Annan's wishful thinking that his cease-fire plan is "on track," the security situation in Syria continues to deteriorate. Many of the world's major powers, including the United States, have called for Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to step down.

As this process plays out, there is concern about what might happen to Syria's large stockpile of chemical weapons stored in several locations around the country. The worst case scenario, of course, is that these weapons end up in the hands of a non-state actor such as Hizballah or al-Qa'idah.

Technically, Syria is within its rights to have chemical weapons. The country is a signatory of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits first use of chemical or biological weapons, but does not prohibit the manufacture or possession of them.

More significantly, Syria is not a signatory of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention which goes further and does outlaw the production, stockpiling and any - not just "first" - use of chemical munitions. As such, Syria is under no international obligation to declare its chemical weapons, destroy them or even allow international inspectors to monitor them. By not signing the convention, Syria is in company with only Angola, North Korea, Egypt, Somalia and South Sudan.

Syria has not admitted that it possesses chemical weapons, but it is hardly a secret. It is believed to have the largest stockpile of undeclared chemical weapons in the world, including the most lethal chemical warfare agent ever developed, the persistent nerve agent VX.

The Director of National Intelligence, in an unclassified report to Congress in 2006, provided this assessment of Syria's chemical and biological weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver them. It does not address Syrian air force fighter-bombers that can also carry chemical weapons.
_________

Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January to 31 December 2006. (Read the entire report).

UNCLASSIFIED
Chemical and Biological. Syria continued to seek dual-use technology from foreign sources during the reporting period. Syria has had a chemical weapons program for many years and already has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, which can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missile. In addition, Syria is developing the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. We assess that Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its CW program, including precursor chemicals.

Syria's biotechnical infrastructure is capable of supporting limited biological agent development. We do not assess the Syrians have achieved a capability to put biological agents into effective weapons, however.

Ballistic Missile. Syria's ballistic missile program is a key component to its strategy to deter external threats and is a priority in defense planning and spending. Syria possesses one of the largest ballistic missile forces in the Middle East—composed of Scud-class liquid propellant short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), including Soviet—and North Korean—origin Scud missiles. Additionally, Syria fields the SS-21 Mod 2 SRBM. We judge that Syria's operational missile force can employ chemical as well as conventional warheads. Syria is developing a version of its Scud-D missile with greater accuracy and that is more difficult to intercept.
__________

Syria maintains its chemical weapons arsenal and delivery systems to provide a deterrent against an attack by the vastly-superior (and nuclear-equipped) Israeli armed forces. Its ballistic missiles and squadron of SU-24 (NATO: FENCER) fighter-bombers can deliver chemical weapons virtually anywhere in Israel.

That fact mitigates Israel's oft-cited argument that it needs to retain control of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in the Six Day War of 1967. Syrian artillery positions on the heights at one time posed a threat to northern Israel, but with the advances in weapons technology, the Syrians no longer need the high ground to put weapons on Israeli targets. Syrian missiles based in protected launch positions in northern Syria can strike targets anywhere in Israel.

Syria's chemical weapons are - and should be - of concern. As the world determines its next steps in confronting the bloodbath in Syria, it needs to take into consideration the status and disposition of Syria's chemical munitions. Although handling of the weapons requires specialized training, having them fall into the hands of Hizballah via the Syrian regime, or into the hands of al-Qa'idah via the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated opposition, is a frightening thought.

Obama's Night Trip to the War Zone

President Obama arrives in Afghanistan in the dark

I just read a reporter's account of his short trip to Afghanistan with President Barack Obama on Air Force One. Ostensibly, this was a trip to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, but everyone knows this was merely a "spiking the ball in the end-zone" campaign trip exploiting the one-year anniversary of the killing of Usamah bin Ladin by U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six. To read the reporter's account, this trip was something to be proud of.

I look at it in a different way. I am going to use the reporter's own words to demonstrate the absolute hypocrisy of this presidential campaign trip. I won't identify the reporter in case he ever wants to redeem his self respect on a U.S. military installation in the future. Of course, in newsrooms across America, he may be heralded as "journalist." Having spent five years as a military analyst with a major U.S. news network, I recognize the type - it's either the "news coverage is about me," or "I am a tool for the Obama Administration."

That said, the reportage is instructive - and damning.

"It was a scene from a spy novel. A little after 9:30pm, I arrived at a back gate of Joint Base Andrews. No guard or intercom, I just drove up and it opened. I was in. The security guards verified my identity and I made my way to the rendezvous point. Typically, I would meet traveling White House press aides at the base passenger terminal, but not tonight. Very few people knew what we were doing there, so we met in a dimly lit parking lot."

Having been an intelligence officer, specifically a case officer, one who recruits spies and what most novelists would inaccurately label a "spy," I can tell you that this is a security issue, not an intelligence operation. The young journalist was probably impressed, but this is not cloak and dagger, it's merely database work. Spy novel? Yeah, right.

"We rode a bus onto the tarmac where Air Force One was in shadow. No lights on, inside or out. We boarded. Just before midnight, President Obama arrived. We didn't see him, but more Secret Service agents boarded, the door was closed, and we were off. No lights on in the cabin for takeoff and the initial ascent. All window shades remained down.

"In fact, we would not see daylight for more than 24 hours. The plan was to arrive in Afghanistan after dark and leave before daybreak. As we descended steeply to the runway at Bagram Airfield, again, all inside cabin lights were turned off. We landed at the base at 10:20pm local time and got onto Chinook helicopters that were waiting with rotors spinning. The short flight to Kabul was also in blackout - use of flashlights or phones was prohibited due to their back-lit screens. Pilots and gunners used night vision goggles to navigate.

"After landing at the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters, we took a short motorcade to the Presidential Palace. In the ornate atrium of the King's Residence, Presidents Obama and Hamid Karzai signed the Strategic Partnership Agreement. We hopped back in the motorcade for the drive back to ISAF and the helicopter lift to Bagram. Again, in blackout conditions.

"In a hangar at the U.S. base, General John Allen, ISAF commander, gave a rousing warm up talk to about 3000 service members, most of them Army from the 1st Infantry Division. The President then spoke to troops, thanking them for their service and making sure they knew that the entire nation is behind them. Obama then spent 45 minutes shaking hands and taking photos with as many troops as possible. During a visit to the hospital on base here, the President gave out ten purple hearts. At 4:00am local time, the President addressed the nation from Afghanistan."

Now aren't we proud? The President slinks into Afghanistan in the dark, holds a night meeting with the Afghan president, gives a nighttime for U.S. troops (who serve there in the daytime as well) and then takes off in the dark before anyone knows he was there. During his address to the troops, he said, "We can see the light of a new day," and that after years of sacrifice the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is winding down.

Really? Just hours after the sun came up in Kabul, the Taliban attacked foreign targets in Kabul killing at least six people. They claimed it was in response to the Obama visit.

You might ask, "So, how's that 'light of a new day' coming along?" Given the fact that the President of the United States, arguably the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces on the planet, has to arrive in a third world country after dark and depart before sunrise, I wonder just how well he is prosecuting the war that is leading to that "light of a new day."

I am guessing, but I have to say, it's not going so well.

Egypt: Moussa declares Camp David Accords dead - some context, please

Amr Moussa campaign poster

According to a major Israeli newspaper, Amr Moussa (more properly 'Amru Muhammad Musa - عمرو محمد موسى), possibly the next President of Egypt, has declared the Camp David Accords dead." Haaretz headlined the story, "Leading candidate in Egypt presidential race calls Israel peace accord 'dead and buried'." While he did say that, the headline is a bit misleading and requires some context. For more on Moussa's chances of becoming the next president, see my earlier article, Egypt - the kingmakers speak....

In various speeches over the last few weeks, Moussa chose his words very carefully - after all, he is a professional politician. In his own words, "the Camp David Accords are a historical document whose place is on the shelves of history, as its articles talk about the fact that the aim of the agreement is to establish an independent Palestinian state. This agreement is dead and buried." The candidate described the accords as "ink on paper" (hibr 'ala waraq) - an Arabic idiom that corresponds closely to the English "not worth the paper it's printed on."

What the Haaretz headline does is conflate the Camp David Accords with the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, when in reality these are two separate documents. The Camp David Accords, signed in in 1978, did set the framework for the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in 1979 - the two are often confused as the same agreement. The 1978 accords included a commitment to grant the Palestinians "full autonomy" within five years, a phrase many believe to be a guarantee of statehood. You would be hard-pressed to find Egyptians who view the two as separate agreements.

Moussa, again choosing his words precisely, states, "There is an agreement between Israel and Egypt that we will honor as long as Israel honors it." This is a welcome statement. While some of the Islamist candidates have called for the abrogation of the 1979 treaty, cooler heads in the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), the group currently in charge of the country pending election of a president, have prevailed - most of the Islamist candidates have been disqualified by the SCAF-appointed Supreme Presidential Electoral Commission.

There is a reason for Moussa's statement and the SCAF's disqualifications of the Islamist candidates. Moussa is trying to appear as the voice of reason to rational Egyptian voters in the first instance. In the second instance, no senior Egyptian military officer in his right mind wants to abrogate a peace treaty with the Israelis. While the Israelis have been able to devote less of its military resources to its western flank and concentrate on what it believes to be its primary enemies - Iran, Syria, Hizballah and HAMAS - it still maintains enough capability aimed at Cairo to hand the Egyptian military a serious defeat.

Amr Moussa is a brilliant politician and an able statesman. We need to listen to his words carefully and appreciate his handling of the Egyptian electorate. Camp David may be dead, but the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty lives. Perhaps Haaretz should have headlined the article, "Moussa reaffirms Egypt-Israel peace treaty."

EU luxury sanctions against Syria - is the best you can do?

Syria's First Lady - Asma al-Asad

On April 23, the European Union announced that it would ban the export of luxury goods to Syria as part of new sanctions to punish the regime's continued attacks on its citizens. Are you serious? This is the EU response to the continued Syrian regime's assaults on its own people? This is the best the world can do - cut off Asma al-Asad's access to European fashion and high-end luxury items?

Even members of the Syrian opposition find it ridiculous. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.

These photographs were taken at a demonstration in the city of Kafr Nabal on April 24, a day after the luxury goods sanctions were imposed. Kafr Nabal is located in northern Syria between Hamah and Aleppo (Halab); the area has seen a lot of violence over the last year. The signs both carry the date of 4/24/2012 and the location as "Occupied Kafr Nabal."

The sign on the left reads:
The killing in Syria has stopped after the prohibition on exporting perfume to the al-Asad family.

The sign on the right reads:
The Syrian regime is in a true crisis because of the decrease in caviar for the al-Asad family.

It is comical to read some of the comments that accompanied the cutoff of caviar and perfume (yes, I am being sarcastic). The EU ministers stated, "The EU will continue its policy of imposing additional measures targeting the regime..as long as repression continues." British Foreign Secretary William Hague added, "It is very important for us to keep up that pressure, step up that pressure. They are not in full compliance of the ceasefire requirements of the Annan plan."

You can't make this up. Do they honestly believe that halting exports of European luxury goods will change the behavior of regime of Bashar al-Asad? The Syrian president is the son of one of the most repressive dictators in modern Middle East history, and now he is a tyrant in his own right - as many as 10,000 of his own citizens have died in the last year.

The words of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton: "We call on the government to withdraw troops from towns and cities." Add to that the words of German Minister of State Michael Link, "The luxury ban constitutes a loss of prestige for leading circles of the regime."

Yeah, the loss of prestige and the lack of perfume and caviar is going to make the regime alter its behavior. Reality check. Bashar al-Asad is the president of a country; his wife is British born and educated. Asma al-Asad has a degree computer science and French literature, and worked as an investment banker, and holds a British passport. I would think she is smart enough to acquire whatever she wants from wherever she wants. These sanctions are ludicrous.

This farcical sanction protocol, combined with the deployment of a handful of unarmed United Nations observers with no mandate or authority. They are being played - quite effectively - by the Syrian government. The French are demanding that the numbers of observers be increased to 300 within the next two weeks.

That's all well and good, but for them to be effective, they must have the cooperation of the Syrian government. That means real cooperation, not the lip service at which the Syrians excel. I do not believe the Syrians have any interest in facilitating the operations of yet another United Nations observer group. When I was the Air Attache at the American embassy in Damascus, I had to make some arrangements that were part of a UN agreement - the level of cooperation was minimum at best.

If the United Nations, the European Union and yes, the United States, are serious about changing the behavior of the Syrian regime, it will require more than sending the perennially ineffective Kofi Annan to Damascus to negotiate a meaningless agreement, and more than weak sanctions.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that it is time to talk about a no-fly/no-drive zone in parts of the country.

The President, the Secret Service and me....

The author in front of Air Force One

The recent scandal involving members of the U.S. Secret Service in Colombia brings back memories of the only dealings I have ever had with the agency charged with the protection of the President.

In late 1994, I was the Air Attache to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria. Part of the training for all air attaches is how to handle a presidential visit - the Air Attache is responsible for the arrangements for the presidential aircraft, in most cases a U.S. Air Force VC-25, a modified ultra-VIP version of the Boeing 747.

I was excused from this particular training because, as the officer in charge of the presidential visit training asked, "What are the chances that a U.S. president is going to visit Syria?" In his defense, I had to agree with him. I was of the opinion that no sitting American president would conduct a visit to Syria thus lending legitimacy to country closely allied with Iran and Lebanese Hizballah, and who certainly had U.S. blood on its hands.

I was wrong.

In mid-October 1994, the embassy received a cable from State Department that President Bill Clinton was planning to make a visit to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad. The was going to be a burden for the small embassy staff, especially as the Secret Service, White House Communications Agency and the Presidential Pilot's Office (PPO), the Air Force pilots who fly Air Force One* all sent large advance teams to make security, communications and transportation arrangements for the visit.

My first introduction to the visit was surprisingly not the PPO as I had assumed - that would come later. Almost immediately after the classified notification of the impending announcement of the visit, I received a message from U.S. Transportation Command headquarters at Scott AFB, Illinois, requesting me (as Air Attache) to secure diplomatic flight clearances for four C-5A Galaxy transport aircraft carrying hundreds of tons of cargo (mostly communications gear), a fleet of Presidential vehicles and Secret Service SUVs, and a U.S. Marine Corps VH-60N White Hawk presidential helicopter (plus a squad of Marines to man it). There were also requests for clearances for a variety of smaller aircraft (C-130 tactical transports and Gulfstream IV business jets).

Thankfully the message also included a fund cite to pay for all the cargo handling - aircraft unloaders, trucks and storage hangars. I waited as the first two aircraft were supposed to land. They did not show up. I had to drive back to the embassy and call Scott AFB.

Once back in my office, I spoke to a colonel at Scott who imperiously informed me that if I had bothered to check the Air Mobility Command online database (I think he called it the "am-cod"), I would have known that the aircraft had been delayed at the President's last stop and that I would have rescheduled the trucks awaiting the two transports. Silly me. I explained, as politely as I could, that I was at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria - we barely had working telephones and on good days maybe a fax machine, let alone any kind of online access. To my pleasant surprise, he laughed and said he understood and committed to sending actual message traffic in the future.

My next dealings were with two Secret Service officers and two Air Force majors from the PPO. Overall, these four individuals were highly arrogant and as far as I was concerned, barely competent to deal with their Syrian counterparts at the Damascus international airport. Their constant use of the phrase "leader of the free world" soon began to wear thin. Finally, I reminded them that although they lived in Washington, I, on the other hand, lived in Syria, and at last check, Syria was not a part of "the free world."

The visit happened - it was uneventful, and as far as our foreign policy objectives go, a failure. See an article I wrote years ago about the visit, The Arrogance of Power - A Presidential Visit.

After the President departed, I spent days reversing the previous process, this time dispatching the same aircraft to the next destination. I had to deal with Syrianair (the national airline) to cover the enormous bills we had run up at the airport. While I was settling the accounts, I was summoned by the chief of airport security, a Syrian Air Force brigadier (Damascus international airport is also a Syrian air base). I went to his office, a place I had visited many times in my efforts to develop a relationship with Brigadier Wafiq al-Halabi. After all, he could provide useful information or generally be helpful if he wished.

Brigadier Wafiq greeted me with the usual Arabic pronunciation of Rick as "RIKI," shook his head, motioned me to a chair, opened one of his desk drawers and took out a bottle of Johnny Walker Black scotch and two glasses. He poured each of us a rather large drink, leaned back and began to recount his impressions of the visit. Although Wafiq could speak fair English, he preferred that we speak Arabic - after all, it was his office, his airport and his country.

I was struck by his final remarks. He told me that he and his staff felt belittled by the PPO representatives and the Secret Service agents. His words were to the effect of, "We know we are a third world country - you did not need to keep reminding us of it. You and I, Riki, are officers of our respective air forces, and you have always treated me with respect as a fellow officer and as a brigadier. Your colleagues did not."

Normally, Wafiq would end the conversation by saying, ila l-liqah, riki (until our next meeting, Rick). On this occassion, he chose to conclude his remarks in English with a curt, "Good night, Major."

Big difference. Over two years of painstakingly slow work trying to develop good working relationships with the airport and air force officers were all for naught, thanks to the arrogance of power displayed by two U.S. Secret Service agents and two U.S. Air Force officers.

_____________
* Despite popular usage, "Air Force One" is not an aircraft, but rather the radio call sign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States. When the President is aboard a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter, its call sign is "Marine One."

Chasing Demons - My Hunt for War Criminals in Bosnia

Although not a Middle East issue, this is my memoir of a five-month mission to hunt down and detain war criminals in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It is available in Kindle format for the next 90 days, then a variety of electronic formats - or now as a PDF file. Click here for more.

The ICC and Sayf al-Islam al-Qadhafi - not so fast!

Sayf al-Islam al-Qadhafi before and after the Libyan revolution

A legal battle is shaping up between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Libyan National Transitional Council over the future of Sayf al-Islam al-Qadhafi*, son of the late Libyan dictator Mu'amar al-Qadhafi. The question is not if he will be put on trial, but where. The ICC wants him extradited to its headquarters in The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity levied in an ICC indictment of last year. Libya has insisted he should be tried by a Libyan court.

The ICC believes it has the authority to try Sayf al-Islam based on United Nations Security Council 1970, which imposed sanctions on the al-Qadhafi regime, gave the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed in Libya, and required the Libyan government to comply with ICC demands. The two sides are working on a compromise where Sayf al-Islam will be tried in Libya with ICC supervision (the ICC charter allows for it to hold proceedings anywhere it wishes). That's probably what will happen.

That said, this could be a slippery slope for the future. Should the United Nations or the ICC be able to dictate to sovereign nations where their citizens will be tried? How would we react if either organization attempted to order the United States to extradite an American citizen for trial at The Hague? For example, if the ICC indicted an American soldier for what it believed to be a war crime, would the United States feel compelled to extradite him or her?

The ICC was established as a permanent tribunal in 2002 to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It has limited jurisdiction - it can exercise jurisdiction only in three cases: if the accused is a national of a state party, if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or if a situation is referred by the United Nations. The last instance is in play with Libya. Libya is not a signatory to the ICC. Neither is the United States.

The ICC is supposedly has jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute the crimes. Libya has stated a willingness to try Sayf al-Islam and claims that it can do so. What then gives the ICC the authority to impose its jurisdiction on Libya? Of course, UNSCR 1970 provides the required referral, but the ICC should only prosecute when the local nation cannot.

If I had to make the call, I'd say the ICC was overreaching its authority. They should allow Libya to exercise justice in this case. Otherwise, it appears to be just another case of European arrogance.
________________
* The name translates as "The Sword of Islam"