Pakistan launches its offensive - a good sign

The long-awaited and much-anticipated Pakistani military offensive against Taliban elements in South Waziristan (blue circle on map below) kicked off on Saturday. The Pakistani leadership has finally realized that there is no negotiating with the Taliban - they have to be hunted down and killed.


Over the last few weeks, there has been a spate of violence in Pakistan as Taliban militants attempted to convince the public to force the Pakistani leadership to call off their publicized major offensive into the tribal area of South Waziristan. Actually, the plan backfired - all the militants succeeded in doing was galvanizing public opinion and the conviction of the military leadership that such an offensive was essential.

There has been a slow awakening in Pakistan since the Taliban moved closer to the non-tribal areas, such as the attacks in the Swat Valley late in 2008 and earlier this year. In that operation, the Pakistanis entered into a ceasefire with the Taliban after allowing the Taliban to impose Sharia' law in the region. The Taliban did not abide by the agreement and the Pakistanis had to launch an offensive to oust the Taliban from the area.

Swat Valley was a wake up call for the Pakistanis that the Taliban are not content to remain in the autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas - Swat is in the North West Frontier Province, which falls fully under Pakistani sovereignty. It also demonstrated to the Pakistanis that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Agreements, ceasefires, truces - these are only tactics to be used to regroup and re-arm.

The Pakistanis have committed two army divisions to this fight, with air support. It began with a three-pronged assault deep into South Waziristan, the redoubt of numerous Taliban and al-Qa'idah fighters, including chief of the Pakistani Taliban Hakimullah Mehsud and possibly al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin himself. The terrain is forbidding, and the Taliban and its Arab and Uzbek allies are tough and committed fighters.

This will be a costly fight for the Pakistan Army in terms of casualties, but a necessary fight if the central government is going to defeat this threat to its very existence. The Taliban militants don't want just to be left alone - they want to impose their own fundamentalist Islamic belief system to what already is an Islamic Republic.

Hopefully, the Pakistanis will execute this offensive to a successful completion rather than fighting for a short period of time, then entering into a ceasefire agreement that never holds. They did this in 2004, 2005 and 2008 - it just does not work. Maybe this time will be different. Maybe this time the Pakistani intelligence service - riddled with Taliban and al-Qa'idah sympathizers and supporters - will not be able to convince the leadership to negotiate.

As I have said before, you cannot negotiate with these people. You have to hunt them down and kill them.

A new NIE on Iran? It's about time....

"It's about time." I chose those words carefully. For years now, Iran has been playing the world for time, and playing it very well. Iran's foreign policy has focused on delaying the imposition of effective sanctions over its nuclear research and development program, which most analysts (me included) believe is nothing but a cover for a nuclear weapons development effort.

The Iranians have been remarkably successful in blunting and avoiding the type of sanctions that might actually work. They have done this by agreeing to talk, attending preliminary meetings and promising cooperation, combined with deeper ties with UN Security Council permanent members Russia and China. Since either of these countries can veto any Security Council action, close ties to one or the other makes the chances of the adoption of any meaningful sanctions protocol remote at best. (See an article I wrote in July, Iran's Foreign Policy Success.

A review of today's AIPAC Daily News Digest, published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - not Political Action Committee as some have charged - is illustrative of that successful Iranian foreign policy. Five of the six lead stories deal with this issue:

• 1. U.S. Considers a New Assessment of Iran Threat
• 2. U.S. Congress sends Obama Iran sanctions bill
• 4. Iranian go-slow dims deal chances at Vienna atom talks
• 5. China's links to Iran a snag for sanctions
• 6. A Hitch in Iran's Nuclear Plans?

Now the Obama Administration is considering a "re-do" of the ludicrous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate - Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. That document assessed that Iran halted its nuclear weapons effort in 2003 and had not re-started it by mid-2007. The idea is so preposterous that not only have the intelligence services of our allies - Britain, France, Germany and Israel - publicly criticized it, so too did both candidates in the 2008 U.S. Presidential race.

Please re-do the NIE - it's about time. However, we need to make sure that the NIE is in fact a real estimate of the intelligence community, not a politically-inspired tool to boost the Administration's fantasy that diplomacy - that means a sanctions protocol - is going to be effective.

US again fails to restart Middle East peace talks

In a rather surprising turn of events - given the fact that President Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - special Middle East envoy George Mitchell left the region without a commitment for the Israelis and Palestinians to resume talks.

This is not a failure of an initiative, it is the failure to even begin an initiative. The best Mitchell could get was a promise for two low-level Israeli diplomats to travel to Washington later this week for "further discussions." The Palestinians have declined to participate.

Unfortunately, the President has had few - actually zero - successes in his "change" or "reset" foreign policies, especially in the Middle East. His overtures to Iran have been soundly rebuffed at every turn - the talks earlier this month about the Iranian nuclear program yielded nothing but a promise for more talks. Likewise, the Administration efforts to engage Syria have failed - Bashar al-Asad and his Ba'th regime remain firmly allied to Iran.

Attempts to help mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians over Gaza have gone nowhere. American allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia have refused to engage in any kind of comprehensive talks about Israel. Lebanon has come increasingly under the thumb of Hizballah.

In Israel, almost always on the other side of Obama's initiatives, the leadership is not inclined to acquiesce to American demands that will move the peace process forward. They need to agree to a return of the Golan Heights and agree to some curtailment of the expansion of settlements on the West Bank. At some point they will, but not anytime soon, given the perceived slant of this Administration to side with the Iranians, Syrians and Palestinians - at their expense.

To many observers of the Middle East, it would appear that the Nobel Peace Prize was premature, given the failure of the Administration on virtually every front of peace in the region. Then, what do we expect from the legislature of a country that has been a mediocre NATO ally at best? These are the same people that granted this award to the likes of Yasir 'Arafat, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan....

Maybe I should be patient and wait for the news from Oslo to reach Damascus, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Tehran, Riyadh, and Amman that the Nobel committee has spoken and they are to fall in line.

After all, has it not been ordained that Obama will bring peace to the Middle East?

Afghanistan and the White House - can you spell V-I-E-T-N-A-M?

Reading the press accounts and watching the media coverage of the ongoing debate in the Obama Administration over just what our strategy is and will be in Afghanistan unfortunately reminds of the late 1960's and a similar debate on what to do in Vietnam. Do we give the mission to the generals and properly resource their strategy and tactics to execute that mission, or does the White House micromanage the war from the West Wing?

If you recall the meddling from the White House in Vietnam - down to the actual daily targets to be bombed - you can see it starting again. When you have Vice President Joe Biden - whose only military expertise is listening to stories that his Army National Guard son might have overheard while serving as a military lawyer in Iraq - offering strategies that conflict with General Stanley McChrystal, the general on the ground with decades of experience, you have to wonder. When Senator Carl Levin - whose military experience pales in comparison to Joe Biden's - downplays General McChrystal as just someone down chain of command, you have to worry. Military strategy formulated in the Vice President's office and the Senate does not inspire confidence.

The only person in the inner circle with any meaningful military experience is national security advisor, retired Marine general James Jones, and he has not ventured his own opinion. If his stance on Afghanistan policy is anything like his stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions, don't expect anything other than the administration's nebulous line. Jones must be one of the few people left that are not convinced that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon.

So, who is President Obama going to trust? His political cronies who might be superb at organizing activists in inner city Chicago, or a professional military staff with years of training and experience? President George Bush listened to his generals and let them execute the mission of removing Saddam Husayn - a major sccess. Then, however, he changed the mission to one of occupation and nation building based on misguided advice of his political counselors. Now we appear to be watching the same mistake that President Johnson made in the 1960's, that President Bush made after successfully removing Saddam - listening to politicians instead of soldiers.

As I have said and written on numerous occasions, we need to re-evaluate what the mission is in Afghanistan. That debate needs to include politicians to be sure, but not in the formulation of actual strategy and tactics. The White House - which includes Biden - should define the mission and order Secretary of Defense Gates to determine the strategy and tactics, as well as the resources required to accomplish the task.

If the mission is to hunt down and destroy the remnants of al-Qa'idah, then Afghanistan is probably not the best venue for that operation. If that is in fact the mission, then the President better start looking at operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. There has been little al-Qa'idah presence in Afghanistan since late 2001. In the last few years, thanks to the CIA drone operations and Pakistani military incursions in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border tribal areas, al-Qa'idah has largely moved from Pakistan as wel, although some remain. Others initially moved to Saudi Arabia, but after being decimated by Saudi security forces, most have moved to Yemen and Somalia.

If the mission in Afghanistan is to defeat the Taliban and provide security so that Afghanistan can stand up as a country, fine, but say so. To continue claiming that the presence of almost 70,000 American troops plus scores of thousands of Afghan and NATO forces is to defeat al-Qa'idah is somewhere between disingenuous and misleading, or perhaps just naive. Some pundits have gone further - Council of Foreign Relations president Richard Haass has stated that with the departure of al-Qa'idah, Afghanistan is no longer a war of necessity, but Obama's war of choice.

Whatever the decision, it needs to be made now. The longer the President and Secretary Gates publicly discuss the various options and strategies, the more disoriented and confused we appear. That sends a signal to our enemies that now is the time to create what insurgents term a "significant emotional event." A significant emotional event - a classic insurgent tactic - is one that galvanizes your enemy's public opinion, resulting in a demand that the targeted government end its involvement in the war.

Knowing they cannot defeat American and allied forces in the field, the insurgents will try to shift the battle to public opinion in the United States. It was the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968 that was the significant emotional event of that war, despite the fact that the actual combat virtually destroyed the Viet Cong as a viable fighting force. This weekend's mass attacks on two remote outposts in Nuristan province are just such operations.

The President needs to make a decision, then get out of his generals' way. Either that, or repeat the mistakes of Johnson and Vietnam.

Whispering in the wind - talking to Iran

France's Sarkozy, America's Obama and the UK's Brown

The much-awaited P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) talks with Iran are set to begin in Geneva on Thursday, October 1. I note that the Obama Administration is already attempting to lower expectations before the talks start. That's probably a smart thing to do - the chances of anything positive coming out of these talks is remote.

In a press conference, Obama's spokesman reiterated that although the Iranians have said their nuclear enrichment program is not a topic of discussion for these talks, the United States intends to raise it. A State Department spokesman went on to say that the President was not in a hurry to impose further sanctions on Iran, that the Administration was not going to make a "snap judgment" in the wake of Thursday's talks.

Not make a snap judgment? How much time are we willing to give the Iranians before at the minimum imposing some real sanctions? This looks very much like our earlier approach to North Korea - talk, negotiate, impose ineffective sanctions, verbally threaten, etc. Then act surprised when either the Iranians detonate a nuclear device or Iranian President Ahmadinejad announces that they have developed a deliverable warhead for their medium range ballistic missiles? Then there's no reason to negotiate - just watch the unavoidable proliferation as nations in the region seek their own capability, realizing that the United States is no longer going to protect them.

Iran's Shahab-3 is capable of striking targets in Israel or American military bases in the Middle East. They are the world's major supporter and practitioner of terrorism. They are supplying, funding and training groups that are killing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. How much longer are we going to wait until we actually do something?

The Iranians continue their demonstrably successful nuclear policy. Despite being under three rounds of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, the centrifuges at Natanz and who knows where else continue to spin, continuing to enrich uranium unimpeded. They have accurately assessed the international coalition against them as weak and feckless - they know full well that Russia and China are not likely to allow the imposition of serious sanctions against them, just as they know the Obama Administration is so confrontation-averse that - rhetoric to the contrary - there is no military option on the table.

The Iranians are having a bit of sport with this. It fits into their strategy of delay, appear to talk, delay, agree to talk some more, all the while continuing to enrich uranium. Ahmadinejad said that the upcoming talks will be a "test" of the group's "respect for Iran's rights." He also said the talks give an "exceptional opportunity for US and a few European countries to correct the way they interact with other world nations." Are we to thank them for this unique opportunity?

At the same time, according to British and Israeli intelligence, the Iranians are refining the design of a warhead for their missiles. U.S. intelligence still clings to the ridiculous assessment that Iran stopped its weapons program about five years ago and has not restarted it. I don't know of anyone - President Obama included - that believes the U.S. assessment.

Until Russia and China agree to tough sanctions on Iran's energy sector, any other sanctions will be as ineffective as the current sanctions regime. Neither of the two countries are likely to agree to tougher sanctions - Russia has lucrative energy and military contracts with Iran, while China is a major consumer of Iranian oil and a major supplier of Iran's refined gasoline and diesel.

So where are these talks taking us? The Iranians have outmaneuvered us. Our choices now:

- a. accept the fact that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon and plan for that eventuality, including the new arms race in the region, or

- b. take military action, or support Israeli military action. That's not going to happen with this White House and Pentagon.

I guess it's Plan A.

Brzezinski and Talabani comments on Iraqi airspace

As the debate over the Iranian nuclear program gains more attention, the possibility of an Israeli military strike is more in the news. A look at a map of the region indicates that Israel will have to fly over a great distance, some or all of it - depending on the route they take - in hostile airspace.

Several of the possible attack routes involve the use of Iraqi airspace. Any military planner would find that a useful option.

You can fly to Iraqi airspace via Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Of the three, Turkey is probably the least confrontational - Turkey and Israel have a defense cooperation treaty - but does add some distance. Distance, of course, complicates the mission and would require more aerial refueling. Using Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia risks having to engage the military defenses of those countries. None really possess the ability to defeat the Israeli air force, but could cause a mission abort. For the Israelis to fly all the way to the target successfully, they cannot risk an engagement along they way.

If I was an Israeli air force officer planning an operation to strike targets in Iran, I would get my aircraft into Iraqi airspace as soon as feasible. Why? Who controls Iraqi airspace? We - the United States - do.

That realization prompted some interesting comments from former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski served under Jimmy Carter and was instrumental in several policy debacles - Iran's 1979 takeover of the U.S.Embassy in Tehran, the botched rescue attempt at Desert One and the virtual dismantling of the Central Intelligence Agency's Clandestine Service. We have yet to recover from the damage done to our human intelligence capability.

Brzezinski's reaction to a possible Israeli overflight of Iraqi as part of a military strike on Iran? He implied that American fighter aircraft should intercept the Israeli aircraft.

His words: "We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?"

Several comments. It's Iraqi airspace, not ours. Yes, we control it, but in the end, it is Iraqi airspace. Does he really expect the United States to engage Israeli aircraft, which in effect puts us in the position of defending Iran? Amazing - let's have a military confrontation with an ally and defend the world's premier sponsor and practitioner of terrorism who is intent on developing (and maybe actually using) nuclear weapons.

Israel's possible use of Iraqi airspace also drew comments from Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Jalal Talabani and the author in northern Iraq - 1995

Talabani issued a warning that Iraq will not allow Israel to use its airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. I like "Mam Jalal," as I respectfully call him. He is an astute politician - this warning is purely for domestic consumption in Iraq and probably in Iran as well. He also knows full well that Iraq's airspace is under the total control of the American military.

Talabani also suggested that the six major powers that will meet with Iranian negotiators this week conduct "a real negotiation" with Iran and guarantee Tehran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He also said he believes that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon because of inherent Islamic values. Has he heard of Pakistan, more accurately the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

Iran has already made up its mind to pursue a nuclear weapon. All the talks are a delaying tactic as the centrifuges continue to enrich uranium. Sanctions are unlikely to work.

As I have said before, we need to address this issue now.

Iran - the stakes go up

One day after one of the strangest United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sessions, Iran admitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it has been operating an undeclared nuclear facility. The revelation was prompted by the fact that the Iranians had discovered that their secret was a secret no more, that American and French intelligence services had been monitoring the site for over a year.

That begs the obvious question - why didn't President Obama reveal this little gem when either addressing the General Assembly or chairing the Security Council meeting on, of all things, nuclear proliferation? That would have been a perfect opportunity to put the Iranians on the spot, on the defensive. For whatever reason, the President opted to keep the information to himself.

Fearing that the information was about to be released, the Iranians decided to take control of the release and notify the IAEA. This prompted a three way announcement from President Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, condemning Iran's failure to abide by international agreements and Security Council resolutions.

Iran is already under economic sanctions, ineffective though they may be. There are talks scheduled for October 1 between the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany on one side and Iran on the other. Iran had provided a rambling document on what it has agreed to discuss, insisting that the nuclear program was not up for negotiation. The revelation of the new, undeclared nuclear facility may change that.

France came to the United Nations meeting not in favor of tougher sanctions on Iran. After the Iranian acknowledgement of its failure to abide by the rules, the French may go along with an American and British call for the new sanctions. The most effective sanctions will be a cut off of Iran's imports of refined gasoline.

The key to effective sanctions will be Russia and China. Russia is now favorably disposed toward the United States after President Obama's surprise cancellation of the ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. There may have been a quid pro quo - we dismantle the missile defenses and Russia supports sanctions on Iran.

That leaves China. China has recently begun shipping gasoline to Iran. China has been against any increased sanctions on Iran. At best they will not support tougher sanctions, at worst they will veto the attempt. In any case, sanctions are not likely to be effective.

This is not happening in a vacuum. The Iranian oppossition group Mujahidin-e Khalq (MEK) claims that Iran is working on detonators for nuclear devices. Once regarded as alarmists with no credibility, the MEK was the first group to provide accurate information on the Iranian nuclear program. If this information is equally accurate, it shows that the Iranian program is nearing the weapons design stage. Once they have enriched enough uranium to the level required for weaponization, they will be able to construct a crude device.

The Israelis are of course aware of all this information. They have been uncharacteristically vocal about their intentions to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. If there is no effective United Nations or other international action that prevents Iran from developing a weapon, the Israelis will attempt a difficult, complex military operation.

The consequences of military action against Iran will reverberate around the world. Iran is not only positioned between two deployed American forces - Iraq and Afghanistan - they are providing weaponry to both sets of enemies. Additionally, they are the world's premier supporters and practitioners of terrorism. Expect increased activity on all these fronts.

Sanctions are unlikely to deter Iran, so military action - most likely from Israel since the current American administration seems unwilling to really "engage" Iran - seems unavoidable.

The stakes have gone up. Now is the time to address the Iranian problem - it has been festering since 1979. I hope President Obama is up to the task. Given his track record thus far, I am unconvinced.

Druze cross Syrian-Israeli border - that's change

In a surprising turn of events, given the current state of relations between Syria and Israel, over 500 Druze men and women from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights were permitted to cross the de facto border into Syria for a five-day visit. The Druze crossed the line of demarcation drawn in 1974 following negotiations after the Yom Kippur War of 1973.


The point of crossing was the United Nations checkpoint in the city of al-Qunaytirah, the same checkpoint through which hundreds of Druze brides have passed over the years, never to return to their families in the Golan Heights.


Once the young women entered Syria, there was no return permitted. This practice was made famous in the movie "The Syrian Bride."

This recent crossing represents a major change in both Israel's and Syria's positions. For many Druze trapped on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line, this is the first chance they have had to visit family on the Syrian side since Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six Day War of June 1967.


Many of the Druze will make a pilgrimage to the tomb of Habil (Abel), considered by the Druze to be one of their prophets. This is the only picture I was able to take of it, as it sits on the other side of a Syrian air defense radar site at Zabadani, about 30 miles from Damascus. The guards hold all cameras (well, almost all) at a checkpoint while you visit the shrine.

Recently, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad spurned American attempts to restart peace talks between Syria and Israel. Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated that he had no intention of returning the Golan Heights to Syria.

Why the two sides were able to put aside the tense relations between them and arrange this crossing and visit is a mystery, but it certainly is a positive step. Who knows where it might lead?

Saudi Arabia's first coed university - really?

With much publicity and fanfare, Saudi Arabia opened its first coeducational university, the King 'Abdallah Science and Technology University (KAUST). The king declared that the school will be a "beacon of tolerance."

That would be a welcome change in a kingdom that is known for its intolerance of things not Islamic. Hopefully, this is one of the reforms ordered by the monarch earlier this year - see my article, Saudi king orders long overdue reforms.

I was excited when I saw the headline, "Saudi Arabia inaugurates its first coed university." This would represent a major change in attitude toward post-pubescent mixing of the genders. As they say, however, the devil is in the details.

First, the campus is located in a remote seaside location about 50 miles north of the major port city of Jiddah. Jiddah is one of the least conservative areas of the kingdom - conservative, yes, but not nearly as repressive as the more traditional capital of Riyadh. Locating it away from a major metropolitan area keeps it from the public eye. Having men and women - reportedly unveiled - attending the same classes will surely raise eyebrows in the kingdom that houses the two holiest sites in Islam. It is important to note that in Arabic, the king is not referred to as the king, but as the "Custodian of the Two Holy Sites."

Second, the great majority of the students and faculty are foreigners. The initial 800 students are from more than 60 countries - the enrollment is expected to increase to 2000 in the next decade. Of the 800 students enrolled this year, only about 100 are Saudis. It would be interesting to know how many of the Saudi students are women. That little but critical detail was missing from the reporting.

If any of the female students at KAUST are Saudis, that would be an almost revolutionary change. It has not been that many years since women were permitted to attend school, let alone study certain subjects. If they are allowed to sit in the same classroom with men and not be veiled and covered, I will be shocked. I suspect that the female students at this institution will be foreigners.

Saudis are slow to change, especially when it comes to women's rights. Women can work only under strict rules. Most female workers in the Kingdom are foreigners - it's just easier. All of the female flight attendants for Saudia, the national airline, are from other Arab or Muslim countries. I remember being on a Saudia flight from Riyadh to Cairo when one Saudi passenger was irate that the flight attendant, a young Turkish woman, could not speak Arabic.

Third, Saudi curricula in any of its institutions is strictly controlled by the government. Repeated American attempts to convince the Saudi government to change its virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Christian lesson plans have failed. It will be interesting to see if this new institution with its highly-paid foreign faculty actually practices academic freedom. That freedom includes contact with educational institutions around the world, something Saudi schools have up until now prohibited. Since KAUST has a relationship with the University of California (Berkeley), it will be interesting to see if there is a free exchange of ideas.

If the Saudis have changed, it is welcome news. I suspect, however, that this will be an isolated show campus that portends no real change in Saudi academic circles, certainly not in its curricula.

Syria - confusing reports and regime stability

Syrian security forces in action

There are some confusing - and surprising - reports emanating from Syria that raise questions. According to an opposition web site, 30 senior members of the Iraqi jaysh al-mahdi (JAM) residing in Damascus were killed by unknown gunmen. The JAM is a Shi'a militia led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Interestingly, there appears to be no coverage of the alleged incident in the Syrian press, Arabic or English. This is not surprising since all the media in Syria is government controlled and/or regulated. This is not the type of story that the regime of Bashar al-Asad would want made public.

Syria prides itself on excellent internal security. I lived there for almost three years, and they do have excellent internal security. There is little crime and the only public disturbances are either orchestrated by the regime or punished severely. As in Saudi Arabia, the low crime rate comes at a price - all you have to do is forgo freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.

Back to this incident. Why are members of the Iraqi Shi'a JAM living in Damascus? Syria is one of Iran's only allies, and its only Arab ally. The JAM is funded, equipped and trained by the Iranians. Senior members of the JAM seeking refuge in Syria is not surprising.

What is surprising is the murder of 30 of their number in Damascus. Given the relationship between Iran and Syria, it is highly unlikely that the Syrian security or intelligence services were involved. This immediately focuses suspicion in the illegal Muslim Brotherhood or affiliated fundamentalist Sunni groups who have mounted opposition to the secular Ba'th government for decades.

When I was in Damascus, there were incidents involving the Brotherhood. None were of this magnitude - there was just too much security and pervasive surveillance for this large of an operation. Normally the incidents involved a small group - eight to 10 men, who inalmost all cases had to be killed since they would not give up.

If the Brotherhood or some other anti-government group mounted this operation, it may indicate that the government is not the fearsome entity it once was. This also cannot help Iraqi-Syrian relations, already strained since Syria recently refused to hand over Iraqis suspected of funneling lethal aid to the remnants of al-Qa'idah in Iraq and the Saddamist Ba'th Party.

In any case, the coordinated murder of 30 people in Damascus raises a lot of questions, not the least of which is - who is in charge?