Syria flexes it muscles in "the province" of Lebanon

Never count Syria out when it comes to being a power broker in Lebanon. After the Syrians were forced by public demonstrations in the aftermath of the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in Beirut, it seemed that Syrian influence was either over or on the wane.

Since then, the long arm of Damascus appears to have extended itself back into Lebanese politics. It has been coming for at least the last few months. It became readily apparent when Prime Minister Sa'ad al-Hariri reversed himself on his earlier accusations that Syria was involved in the murder of his father Rafiq. He claimed that he was mistaken in those accusations. In his words, "We made a mistake. At one point we accused Syria...that was a political accusation, and that political accusation is over." See my piece from last month, Syrian influence returning to Lebanon.

Political expediency at its finest. Whether it was Syrian military intelligence or Hizballah that conducted the actual operation against the elder al-Hariri, it had to be done with Syrian complicity. Nothing happened in Lebanon in 2005 that did not have Damascus's stamp of approval. It had been that way for almost 30 years. I remember vividly the day when Syrian tanks rumbled into downtown Beirut and established pax syriana.

All that changed with the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri. The Lebanese Christians and Sunni Muslims were finally galvanized into public demonstrations against the Syrian military presence in their country. In what became known as the "Cedar Revolution," the demonstrations forced Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to withdraw his forces from the country, ending an almost 30-year presence, or as some called it, an occupation. It appeared that Syrian influence in the country was near over.

Many Syrians regard Lebanon as a part of "greater Syria," the province of the former Ottoman Empire that ruled the area until the end of World War One. It was only in the aftermath of the war that the area was divided into countries. France was given the mandate for the Syrian area, from which they created the modern countries of Syria and Lebanon. The "Syrians" were not consulted on the creation of what was supposed to be a Christian enclave called Lebanon.

In a somewhat surprising move, a Syrian official this week said that Lebanon "must make a deep change in Lebanon. Sa'ad alHariri is the only obstacle to reconciliation between the Syrian and Lebanese people." Let me translate that into what he really meant: We are not satisfied with Sa'ad al-Hariri's progress on bringing Lebanon back into the Syrian sphere, so we'll replace him with someone who can.

The current situation in Lebanon is tense. The Lebanese expect that soon the United Nations will accuse Hizballah of the murder or Rafiq al-Hariri. That will set off recriminations throughout the country. It is serious enough that Saudi King 'Abdullah visited the country in an attempt to urge restraint. Of course, that visit was followed by a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which has more than likely added to the tension.

Who gains from all this? Syria. Bashar la-Asad will be the new power broker in the country. Hizballah will always be a consideration, but the real power will be wielded from Damascus.

Who loses? Sa'ad al-Hariri was convinced to forgo vengeance on Syria for his father's death in return for a chance to lead Lebanon. That appears to have been a major miscalculation. However, the real losers are the Lebanese people.

It would appear that Lebanon is being returned to its status as a virtual province of Syria.

Colonel David Lemon, U.S. Army (Retired) 1940-2010

Colonel David L. Lemon, U.S. Army (Retired) 70, died last Saturday. His obituary appeared in yesterday's Washington Post.

I worked with Dave Lemon when he was the defense attache at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and again when he was the defense attache at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt.

Dave accepted a short-notice assignment to Baghdad in 1987 after the Iraqis expelled the previous defense attache from the country for "actions not in keeping with his diplomatic status." That's diplo-speak for "he was doing his job too well for our tastes." Once in Baghdad, he met and married Maria Aragon, the daughter of the Argentinian ambassador.

In Baghdad, Dave was the liaison officer between the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence. When DIA officers traveled to Baghdad to meet with DMI officers and offer intelligence assistance that later was key to the Iraqi military victory over the Iranians, it was through Dave's efforts. I remember long, hot days working with Dave in Baghdad to get the project going.

I was saddened to read of his passing. My condolences go out to Maria and the Lemon family.

Excerpts from the obituary:

David L. Lemon, 70, an Army colonel who served as a defense attache in Baghdad and Cairo and in retirement worked in the Middle East and North Africa as a marketing and sales executive with ITT and Motorola, died Oct. 16 at a nursing home in Miami. Col. Lemon, who served two tours in the Vietnam War, did extensive language training in the military and became fluent in Hindi, Urdu and Arabic.

After a stint with the Defense Intelligence Agency, he served as defense attache in Baghdad from 1987 to 1988, a period when the United States had cordial military relations with Iraq. He was then defense attache in Cairo until 1991. He retired from active duty the next year.

David Lee Lemon was born March 29, 1940, in Enid, Okla., and raised in Abilene, Tex. He was a 1962 graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, where he also received a master's degree in politics and economics in 1970. As an undergraduate, he won honors as a distinguished military student in the ROTC program. He did graduate work in engineering at Rice University in Houston and attended the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., and what is now the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk.

Survivors include his wife, the former Maria Laura Aragon, of Miami, whom he married in 1988; two daughters from his first marriage, a son from his second marriage; two sisters; and five grandchildren.

Saudi intelligence warnings - seriously?

The Saudi intelligence service has issued a warning about an al-Qa'idah threat to Europe. The warning stated that the al-Qa'idah affiliate group calling itself al-Qa'idah on the Arabian Peninsula was targeting "the European continent and in particular France."

The warning comes after a series of threat alerts over the past weeks. What is significant is that this one comes from the Saudis. Since the warning was sourced to the AQAP, it is likely reliable information. Although Saudi intelligence has a uneven reputation as a reliable intelligence service, they are good at collecting information that either threatens the ruling family or takes place in their own back yard.

Saudi Arabia's primary intelligence service is formally called the ri'asat al-istkhbarat al-'amah (رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة‎), the General Intelligence Presidency, but it more commonly referred to as the GID for General Intelligence Directorate. It is a cabinet level agency that reports to the King. As such, its primary intelligence requirement is to provide warning of, and occasionally neutralize, threats to the royal family. The head of the GID is Prince Muqran bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud, the third youngest son and youngest surviving son of the founder of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, also a brother of the King. He has been in the position since October 2005.

While deployed to Saudi Arabia during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991, I worked closely with Saudi military intelligence and the GID. For the most part, we found their reporting to be unreliable, for several reasons. At that time, and I hope the services have improved since then, they were not functioning as most professional intelligence services do.

The intelligence cycle in most services begins with a requirement, or what does a decision maker want or need to know? Collectors, be they case officers or technical systems, are then tasked to gather information against that requirement. The collected data is then collated and compared with other information if available and analyzed. The final intelligence product is then provided to the decision maker.

In my experience with the Saudis, they tended to skip the analysis step and take most raw data as truth. This caused the American intelligence agencies a lot of time and effort during the run up to the liberation of Kuwait. The Saudis would present us with a raw intelligence report from an asset in Europe or Africa, almost always dealing with a threat to the King. We would have to spend man hours and task scarce resources to collect information refuting the mostly incredible claims of the Saudi assets. This took away from collecting information on the Iraqis whom we were about to engage.

The reason I would believe threat information about AQAP from the Saudi service now is that in 2004 the Saudis had an epiphany when it comes to al-Qa'idah. As far back as 1997, Saudi intelligence was in contact with Usamah bin Ladin. In fact, CIA officers recommended that the Saudi service be considered a hostile intelligence service because of those contacts. The CIA went do far as to claim that in some instances after sharing communications intelligence on al-Qa'idah with the Saudis, the communications would disappear, suggesting that the terrorist group had been warned.

This all changed in 2004 when al-Qa'idah operatives began attacking targets in the Kingdom. The Saudis, who I believe had struck an agreement with Usamah bin Ladin that they would not pursue members of the group in Saudi Arabia, changed directions immediately and went after the terrorist group with a vengeance we could only hope to emulate. In less than three years the efficient and capable Saudi internal security forces had virtually eliminated al-Qa'idah as a viable entity in the Kingdom. Most of the survivors sought safe haven in Yemen or Somalia.

Saudi intelligence can be effective when operating on their home turf defending their royal family. It appears that the warnings were based on information developed as part of these efforts. I would be inclined to believe it.

Iranian president visits "the colony" of Lebanon

Poster with Ahmadinejad's photo reads "Welcome"
in Arabic (ahlan wa sahlan) and Farsi (khush amaded)

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made an official state visit to Lebanon on October 13 and 14. In addition to the warm reception he received in Beirut, he also was honored repeatedly as he visited towns in mostly Shi'a southern Lebanon. The area is dominated by Hizballah members and sympathizers; that was obvious by the sea of yellow Hizballah flags in the crowds.

Ahmadinejad took advantage of being close to his archenemy Israel by going to the border between Lebanon and Israel. Not only did he visit the border, he chose several significant towns on that border. Two of them, Marun al-Ra's and Bint Jubayl, were scenes of bloody fighting in the 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah.

While the Iranian president toured the area around Marun al-Ra's, Israeli helicopters patrolled over the closest Israeli town, Moshav* Avivim. Marun al-Ra's was the first village to be assaulted by Israeli ground forces in 2006; those forces staged from Avivim. I was a military analyst for MSNBC at the time. The signs in Hebrew and Arabic were easily visible during the preparations for the Israeli ground offensive.

Ahmadinejad also visited Bint Jubayl, just over two miles from the Israeli border. Bint Jubayl has always been a Hizballah stronghold. As such, it was the scene of brutal fighting in the 2006 war. In the end, it was virtually flattened by Israeli forces.

Why shouldn't the Iranian president visit southern Lebanon? After all, Iran funded much of the recovery, both to the general population and to Hizballah.

After the end of hostilities in 2006, Iran immediately resupplied Hizballah in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Hizballah claims, and Israeli intelligence agencies agree, that they have more and better weapons than prior to the fighting in 2006. These weapons include rockets and missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv. There have been press reports, likely leaked by Israeli military intelligence, that Syria is training Hizballah personnel on the Scud missile system. This would represent a major increase in the Hizballah capabilities. See my earlier piece, Hizballah and Scuds - an Israeli red line.

Not only did Iran provide weapons to Hizballah, they provided millions of dollars to the devastated villages and towns of southern Lebanon and the Shi'a sections of west and south Beirut. While western aid agencies were trying to get organized, Iranian aid officials took advantage of Hizballah's existing social network in the area and provided much needed, and appreciated, aid quickly and effectively. The Shi'a of southern Lebanon regard both Hizballah and Iran as their protectors and rescuers. It is no wonder that large crowds of cheering Shi'a turned out to welcome Ahmadinejad.

I am not naive enough to think that Iran's assistance is totally altruistic. It is true that the Iranians share a common heritage through the Shi'a sect of Islam. It was Lebanese Shi'a who brought that branch of the faith to Iran centuries ago. However, it goes beyond that. Iran now has a proxy armed force on Israel's northern border, one that responds to its tasking. After all, they provide virtually all the money, weapons and training necessary for the group's existence.

Iran's ties to Hizballah date back to 1982; it was elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Syria and Lebanon contingent** that created Hizballah as a resistance group targeted against the Israeli occupation of the southern part of Lebanon. Over the intervening years, Hizballah has received hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran, not to mention an impressive arsenal of weapons, including long-range rockets, that it has used continuously against Israel.

Using Iranian money, Hizballah has been able to become one, if not the, most powerful political forces in the country. The group has won a large number of seats in the country's legislature and has even secured veto power over virtually all actions of the Lebanese government. Iran can call this a success; Ahmadinejad was here to take a victory lap.

The U.S. State Department has made the usual statements that the visit was "a provocation that undermines Lebanon's sovereignty." At that fearsome tirade, I am reminded of the axiom, "Money talks." The Iranians have again outmaneuvered the rest of the world by providing a needed service. The United States provides platitudes, while the Iranians rebuild schools and medical clinics, and handout cash to displaced residents. Ahmadinejad embodies that assistance.

Western-backed parties in Lebanon (that normally means Christians) warned that Ahmadinejad is seeking to transform Lebanon into "an Iranian base on the Mediterranean."

News flash: They already have.

The Israelis, who live in the region, were much more cogent in their analysis. Their spokesman said that Iran "has turned Lebanon into an Iranian satellite and made Lebanon a hub for regional terror and instability."

That about sums it up.

______________
* A moshav is a type of cooperative that is less communal than a kibbutz. In a moshav, people own their own homes and work their own land. They are popular among American Jews exercising aliyah (Jews returning to live in Israel).More here.

** This force later became the nucleus of the IRGC special operations group known as The Qods Force.

Iraq - the consequences of another term for al-Maliki

It appears likely that incumbent Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki will retain his position, much to the dismay of myself and other observers who favor Dr. Iyad 'Alawi. Although 'Alawi's secular 'Iraqiyah slate won a few more seats in the elections held seven months ago, 'Alawi has not been able to form a government. With recent Kurdish support for al-Maliki, it appears that the Iraqis (and the United States) will be saddled with al-Maliki for another term.

Why the Kurdish support?

Before I go into this, I should declare my background with the Kurds. I was part of a CIA operation that provided support to the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1995 and 1996. During that time, I worked closely with both the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) under Mas'ud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) under Jalal Talabani. Talabani is the current president of Iraq, and Barzani is the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, an autonomus region as provided in the Iraqi constitution. I also worked with another senior Kurdish official, Hoshyar Zebari, now Iraq's foreign minister.

I believe that the Kurds have legitimate concerns that should be addressed. That said, I am not pleased with the decision to support al-Maliki over 'Alawi. I think 'Alawi is the better choice to unify the Iraqis, be they Sunnis, Shi'a or Kurds. Al-Maliki will simply continue the policies that most Sunnis believe are exclusionary to them. Unfortunately, the Kurdish support will easily give al-Maliki the seats he needs to form a new government.

To gain Kurdish support, al-Maliki has committed in turn to support the Kurds' demands for the return of lands they were forcibly removed from during Saddam Husayn's "Arabization" (t'arib) campaign of the 1980's. In this campaign, entire Kurdish villages were relocated to the deserts of southern Iraq and replaced with ethnic Arabs. The most notable loss for the Kurds was what they believe is the Kurdish city of Kirkuk. The Kurds consider Kirkuk to be their true capital city.

Such an arrangement between al-Maliki's political bloc and the Kurds is sure to inflame the Sunnis all over Iraq and the Turkmens residing in Kirkuk. The Turkmens consider Kirkuk to be a Turkmen city, and are supported in this claim by the Turkish government. The Sunnis will continue to feel disenfranchised, believing that the Shi'a and Kurds, both of whom were repressed under Sunni-majority Ba'th Party rule, have joined forces against them.

The cooperation between the Kurds and al-Maliki is not a unifying strategy for the country, but the Kurds are more interested in their own future than that of Iraq. While most Kurds favor the creation of an independent Kurdistan, most also realize the chances of that happening are virtually non-existent. They are making the best of the situation. It is hard to blame them. As is often said to describe the Kurds, "no friends but the mountains."

Not only will another term for Nuri al-Miliki continue the rifts between the Sunni and Shi'a, and between the Sunnis and Kurds, but it also raises concerns about Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs. Political pundits in Baghdad have referred to al-Maliki as al-maliki al-irani, "al-Maliki the Iranian," and to his office as "the Persian carpet."

It gets better. Al-Maliki is also supported by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr's followers are committed to a close and cooperative relationship with Iran. At one point, the Iranian government declared al-Sadr as the "emir" (prince) of Iraq and their chosen leader for the country. Al-Sadr is currently in Qom, Iran, studying to become an ayatollah, hoping that the prestigious religious credentials will gain him more credibility and support among Iraq's Shi'a majority. Al-Sadr has not hidden his desire to be the key player in Iraqi politics.

So, with Kurdish and Sadrist support, Nuri al-Maliki will likely continue to be the prime minister of Iraq. It remains to be seen how he handles the Kirkuk situation and if he can convince the Sunnis to cooperate with his government. More critical to American national interests is the amount of influence wielded by Iran externally and the Sadrists internally.

Al-Maliki is not a friend of the United States. As long as he is in power, the United States will need to keep one eye on Baghdad and one eye on Tehran.

Naiveté, thy address is 1600 Pennsylvania

Ahmadinejad at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility

In keeping with Iran's strategy to deal with world concerns over its nuclear program, Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki declared that Iran is ready to hold talks with six major powers over its nuclear program "in late October or early November." Those six powers are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany, often referred to as the P5+1.

It is important to remember that Russia and especially China have deep and longstanding economic ties to the regime in Tehran. The latest round of sanctions imposed by the United Nations was watered down to gain Chinese and Russian acquiescence. Surprisingly, Russia is somewhat abiding by them, although China is basically ignoring them. There were so many back room deals between the United States and the two nations, one has to suspect that the United States has agreed to turn a blind eye to Chinese violations. (See my earlier piece, Iran sanctions and the backroom deals.... On a positive note, however, the Russians did cancel the sale of the S-300 air defense system to Iran.

The Iranian foreign minister's announcement is typical. The Iranians constantly offer to hold talks over their nuclear program. The P5+1 constantly agree, and a date for talks is set. The talks constantly fail, followed by the Iranians agreeing to continue talks about having more talks. All the while they are talking or agreeing to talk about talking, centrifuges at who knows how many facilities continue to enrich uranium, and research and development continues on longer range missiles.

This latest Iranian "offer" carries conditions. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants more and varied countries (Iran-speak for friendly to them) involved, and these countries must declare whether they seek friendship or hostility with Iran (yes, nonsensical), and they must clarify a position on Israeli nuclear capabilities.

The reaction from the United States to the latest Iranian offer to talk? State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley says, "If Iran is ready to hold talks, all they need to do is pick up the phone and set a date."

Pitiful, but not unexpected.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed to make any impact on the Iranian nuclear program. For years, anyone with a modicum of expertise on, experience in, the Middle East has realized that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons, despite the ridiculous National Intelligence Estimate issued in 2007 that the Iranians had halted their weapons program. The Iranians are resolute in their efforts and have outmaneuvered both this and the previous administration at every turn. Promises of talk seems to mollify the diplomats.

The Obama Administration continues to repeatedly fall into the Iranian trap. Every time the Iranians need more time to work on their program, they offer talks to the west. They are doing it again, and if Crowley is to be believed, the Administration is falling for it again. How many times is this President and his national security team going to fail to take meaningful action on Iran's nuclear ambitions? Do we have to wait until Ahmadinejad declares "fission accomplished?"

Naiveté is alive and well, and resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Hizballah and Scuds - an Israeli red line

An article in Haaretz, a leading Israeli daily newspaper, was published under the title "Hezbollah militants training in Syria missile base, satellite images show - Google Earth photos reveal Scuds at base near Damascus."

First of all, the title and first paragraph of the article are misleading.

"The Syrian army has a Scud missile base near Damascus, according to recent satellite photos. The photos also suggest that Hezbollah activists are being trained in the Scuds' use at the base."

Taken at face value, it gives the impression that satellite images indicate that Hizballah militants are training at a Syrian base. In my former career as an intelligence officer, I have seen thousands of much better satellite imagery than that available on Google Earth. To say that it is difficult to assign identity to a particular group is an understatement. From the above image, it is impossible. The second part of the title is probably more accurate. It is possible to detect ballistic missiles with Google Earth.

If anyone is interested to take a look a the imagery to which this article refers, go to Google Earth and navigate to the coordinates 33 37 15N/36 25 38E. The facility at this location is the Scud missile base across the Damascus-Hims highway from the city of Adra. Adra is also noted for its huge customs facility, cement factory, military parachute training drop zone and a notorious prison. It takes about 40 minutes to drive to Adra from Damascus; I used to pass by it frequently when I traveled north from the capital city.

There were reports earlier this year that Syria had supplied Hizballah with the Scud ballistic missile system. (See my earlier piece, No Scuds for Hizballah - just "the usual rockets") This missile system has the range to strike anywhere in Israel and would represent a serious upgrade in Hizballah capabilities.

More importantly, Scuds in the Hizballah arsenal would represent an unacceptable change in the already tense situation between Israel and the militant group. Israel has conducted military strikes in Lebanon in the past over less threatening weapon systems. In September 2007, it proved that it was willing to strike targets in Syria itself if it regarded them as too great a threat, destroying a suspected North Korean supplied nuclear reactor in the northwest part of the country.

I suspect that what we are witnessing is an Israeli information operation. The resurfacing of this information now raises questions. Senior Israeli intelligence officers have already commented on the story, claiming that Hizballah now has thousands of rockets and missiles in its inventory. The numbers are greater than prior to the war between Israel and Hizballah in 2006, despite United Nations' resolutions that the militant group would not be resupplied.

I also suspect the specificity of the claims based on Google Earth imagery. It would be impossible to draw the conclusions presented in the Haaretz article. Most likely, the Israeli military intelligence service used other intelligence sources to determine what is happening and "leaked" it to the paper and suggested the use of the imagery as cover.

In any case, Israel is attempting to portray Hizballah as in increasing threat to the Jewish state, possibly paving the way for a pre-emptive military strike. I agree with the Israeli assessment that Hizballah is more of a threat that at anytime in the past. While I do not wish yet another war on the Lebanese people, I would find it hard to fault Israel for defending itself against a terrorist group armed with ballistic missiles that put the entire country at risk.

The Taliban and Pakistani intelligence - longtime allies

Here's a bit of non-news: the Pakistani intelligence service is actively supporting the Taliban. That includes urging the radical Islamist militant group to attack American forces in Afghanistan. The recent attacks on NATO supply convoys in Pakistan are part of that effort.

Why is anyone surprised by this?

The Pakistan Army Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, more commonly referred to as ISI, is Pakistan's primary intelligence agency. It has responsibility for both internal and external operations, including covert operations. These covert operations included assisting the United States Central Intelligence Agency in its support of the Afghan mujahidin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

The cooperation between CIA and ISI was not without controversy. All weapons and supplies for the mujahidin were required to be funneled through ISI. Since Pakistan is arguably one of the most corrupt countries on the planet, it stands to reason that some of the money and/or weapons were diverted to serve ISI's pet projects elsewhere, or more likely, to enrich ISI's senior officers.

For example, in the latter years of American support for the mujahidin, the U.S. Navy seized an Iranian ship in the Persian Gulf suspected of laying mines. Sailors found on that ship a battery pack for an American-made Stinger air defense missile. The serial numbers indicated that the battery was part of a shipment sent to the ISI but destined for the mujahidin.

The ISI is manned primarily by members of the Pushtun ethnic group. Keep in mind that Pakistan is yet another artificial country created by the British as their empire shrank. Just as the British created the countries of Iraq and Jordan in the aftermath of World War One, they created Pakistan from their Indian colony. Pakistan is made up of several disparate ethnic groups that vie for power in the country. Pushtuns are often found in the military and intelligence ranks.

The ISI was instrumental in the creation of the Taliban in the early 1990's. The ISI had easy access to Afghan refugees in the camps near Peshawar; it was from these camps that the Taliban drew its first recruits. Pakistan, via the ISI, supported the Taliban takeover of the government in Afghanistan, and was one of only a handful of nations that formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of the country.

After al-Qa'idah's attacks on the United States in September 2001, Pakistan allied with the United States and allowed American forces to use its airspace in its operations against the Taliban and al-Qa'idah. There was considerable American pressure put on then-President Pervez Musharraf to drop support for the Taliban and assist the United States. Many of Pakistan's senior military and intelligence officers did not support that decision. The Pushtuns in these services have always been sympathetic with the Taliban, and by extension, al-Qa'idah.

Sympathy is one thing; actively urging the Taliban to attack American targets is quite another. There is an internal struggle in Pakistan over how much the government in Islamabad should continue to provide support to American efforts in Afghanistan. The United States has repeatedly put pressure on Pakistan to step up its efforts against militants in the tribal areas (read: Pushtun areas) along the Afghan border. These efforts are aimed at what many ethnic Pushtuns in the military and ISI regard as their tribal homeland. It is not surprising that they do not support their government's efforts to move against their tribal brethren.

It is also not surprising, but nonetheless alarming, that members of the ISI are actively encouraging their Taliban allies to attack American targets. What we need to know is what the Pakistani government is prepared to do about it.

NATO supply lines are now under pressure. Taliban militants are attacking them, setting fire to scores of fuel tankers. They are doing so with either the acquiescence or even support of the ISI. If the Pakistani government is not willing to stop these attacks and take action against its own treasonous intelligence officers, the United States needs to rethink its financial support, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, to Islamabad and seek other ways to resupply its forces in Afghanistan.

If that happens, the United States should also wreak havoc on the Taliban and al-Qa'idah forces using the Pushtun tribal areas as safe havens. Drone attacks can only do so much. Might concentrated American air power be a better alternative?

The Ron Insana Show - comments

On Friday morning (October 1), I was a guest on the Ron Insana radio show. Ron is a former anchor at CNBC, and he and I worked together when I was a CNBC Middle East military analyst during the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. I have been on his radio show periodically over the last few years.

Ron asked that I come on the show to discuss the elevated terrorist threat, given the recent arrests in Europe of a group of European nationals trained by al-Qa'idah to launch "Mumbai-style" attacks against Americans and other Westerners. This is in reference to the November 2008 attacks by members of the al-Qa'idah affiliated Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e Taiba in Mumbai. During the three day killing spree, a group of 10 terrorists who had infiltrated into India by inflatable boats were able to kill almost 175 people and wound over 300 others. Most of these attacks were aimed at hotels and tourist locations that cater to Westerners.

In response to Ron's questions, I made the point that this phenomenon of "home-grown" terrorists is an al-Qa'idah adaptation to our fairly successful military and intelligence operations against terrorist organizations. However, as bureaucracies are wont to fight the last war, to solve the last problem, American law enforcement and intelligence agencies had focused on Middle Eastern and South Asian nationals as potential terrorists.

Soon after the Bush Administration created the Department of Homeland Security, al-Qa'idah instructed its members to start recruiting "non-alerting" potential jihadis. They have been successful. They have recruited British-born and American-born Muslims to join the organization and to travel to Pakistan's Waziristan provinces for indoctrination and training on "martyrdom operations," which is jihadi-speak for suicide bombings.

The poster child for this effort is arguably American citizen Najibullah Zazi. Zazi is labeled as an naturalized citizen born in Afghanistan, but more importantly he is an American citizen of Pushtun descent. Pushtuns are the ethnic group that comprise the majority of the Taliban and who provide protection and support the the Arabs of al-Qa'idah in the Afghan tribal areas. "Tribal areas" is a euphemism for what I'll call Pushtunistan.

Zazi's status as an American citizen allowed him to move easily in and out of the United States, not drawing much attention. His American citizen status also protected him from many surveillance and investigative techniques that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies have used effectively against foreigners. We should not underestimate al-Qa'idah's ability to recognize such weaknesses and adapt to exploit those weaknesses.

Another case in point is the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-'Awlaqi, now believed to be resident in Yemen. The ACLU has mounted a legal challenge to the government's plans to kill al-'Awlaqi if possible. Although I think killing al-Awlaqi would be a good thing, the legal restrictions need to be addressed, not just for him, but for other and future American-citizen jihadis overseas as well. We all remember John Walker Lindh, or "Taliban John," who was accorded all rights of an American citizen despite the fact that he was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan.

There was also an American-born Saudi member of al-Qa'idah who had to be transferred from Guantanamo to a Navy detention facility to allow him all the rights of an American citizen. If you take up arms against the United States, I do not agree that they are still American citizens, but then I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a retired intelligence operations officer who had to deal with such scum. As for Lindh, I'd have left him on a battlefield in Afghanistan; he would have not needed an attorney.

All that said, what do we do?

We need to allow our intelligence agencies to collect information on potential jihadis, regardless of their citizenship. I have no problem with getting warrants, but at least set up a system that works. If I was in charge, there would be no Department of Homeland Security. As far as I can tell, all they do is get in the way, that is, when they are not looking at former military members as potential terrorists. I cannot find any incident that was prevented in which DHS was the lead agency. Most of our successes have been the result of good old fashioned law enforcement or classic intelligence work, not the bloated bureaucracy that is DHS. Give the FBI the lead for this vital mission.

We also need to cooperate more closely with our European and Middle Eastern allies to track potential recruits as the travel for training and indoctrination. Right now the common denominator for the travel and training is Pakistan, specifically the Waziristan provinces.

Ron asked me the obvious question: why don't we pressure the Pakistanis to have their army move into the Waziristans and wipe all these guys out. We have, but the answer is not that simple. Pakistan was created out of British India and includes several ethnic minorities. One of these is the Pusthuns who inhabit both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. Their loyatly is not to Pakistan or Afghanistan, it is to their fellow Pushtuns. Their law is Pustunwali, the unwritten code of the Pushtuns.

There are also many Pusthuns in the Pakistan Army, which is a good military force. The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), the country's major intelligence agency, is also heavily-populated by Pushtuns. Many of these officers are sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa'idah, and are certainly not in favor of mounting extensive, bloody military operations against their fellow tribesmen.

The government in Islamabad maintains an uneasy balance of the ethnic groups. Upsetting that balance is a risk not to be taken lightly, for Pakistan or the United States. What we do not need is the fall of the Pakistani government and the rise of a radical Islamic state with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the missiles and aircraft with which to deliver them. Take that one step further and imagine these weapons transferred to al-Qa'idah.

It is a difficult problem, but one we have to address. We need real homeland security run by proffesionals who will not dismiss every al-Qa'idah plot as "lone wolf" operations as they did with Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan, Christmas-day "underwar bomber" 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalab, failed New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi and failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shazad.

We've been lucky. That won't last. We need effective leadership.

Release a traitor in exchange for a settlement freeze?

I am going to start this with one of my favorite observations: You cannot make this stuff up.


In the latest international episode of Let's Make a Deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to extend a moratorium on the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank in exchange for the release of confessed and convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. This is the very definition of chutzpah.

In the first face-to-face talks between the Israelis and Palestinians in two years, Netanyahu attempts to extort the United States into releasing one of the most notorious spies in American history in return for what would undoubtedly be a temporary halt to settlement activity in the Israeli occupied West Bank of the Jordan River? Shameful.

The Obama Administration should not even grace this offer with a response for a variety of reasons, not the least of which would be the uproar it would generate throughout the defense and intelligence communities. Pollard may be regarded as a national hero in Israel, but to most American military and intelligence officials, he is traitor who sold out his country with little regard for the long-term consequences of his actions. The full extent of the damage done by Pollard's treachery has never been made public. Much of it may still be unknown since the only source of what Pollard gave to his Israeli handlers is Pollard himself.

Many apologists for Pollard claim that spying for Israel is not really spying since Israel is an ally of the United States. One has to consider that blanket statement that Israel is an ally of the United States with some reticence. Israel used the information provided by Pollard as "trade material" with the Russians in return for the release of Jews detained in Russia. That is hardly the action of an ally.

There is speculation that American agents, people the U.S. intelligence agencies had recruited to collect information for us a great risk, were uncovered and executed because of the information the Israelis provided to the Russians. If so, Pollard should have been executed instead of being sentenced to "life" in prison.

Pollard's sentence of life imprisonment is a misnomer. Because of the laws in existence at the time of his sentencing, he will be paroled after serving 30 years. That means he will be free on November 21, 2015, unless he is pardoned by the new president in 2013. No doubt that when he is released, Pollard will immediately move to Israel where he will be welcomed with open arms.

Requests for Pollard's release are nothing new. (See my 2008 piece, Israelis ask for release of Jonathan Pollard - again.) Since finally admitting that Pollard was a sanctioned, recruited asset for Israeli intelligence, they have mounted a steady campaign for his release. If the Israeli government does not do so directly, it orchestrates a bevy of right-wing organizations to mount publicity campaigns hoping that someday these efforts will pay off.

The documented requests for Pollard's release by Israeli prime ministers to American presidents include:
- 1995 Yitzhak Rabin to Bill Clinton
- 1998 Benjamin Netanyahu to Bill Clinton
- 2005 Ariel Sharon to George Bush
- 2008 Ehud Olmert to Geoge Bush
- 2010 Benjamin Netanyahu to Barack Obama

The Israelis approach each new American Administration hoping that at some point there will be a president so naive as to agree to the release. Once a new president asks his intelligence chiefs for their assessment of the Pollard case, he quickly realizes that Pollard should rot in prison. After hearing the extent of his betrayal, most presidents probably wonder why he is allowed to be incarcerated in a rather cushy situation under medium security at the Butner Federal Correction Institution (FCI Butner) in North Carolina.

FCI Butner is located near the Research Triangle area of Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill, and more resembles a campus than a prison. Notables who are incarcerated at the same facility include Bernie Madoff and Sheik Abdel-Rahman (the "blind sheik"). There are reports that Madoff and Pollard have struck up a friendship.

According to comments on Internet forums by former inmates, if you have to be in prison, Butner is the place to be. It is described as having a good Federal Prison Industries program, in case Pollard wants to build office furniture when he relocates to Tel Aviv. The prison is also non-smoking, so we don't have to worry about Jonathan being subjected to the dangers of second-hand smoke, although that might be a problem when he moves to Israel.

Butner also has excellent physical fitness facilities, including an outdoor track, although by the photos of Pollard I have seen it does not look like he has been using them. Perhaps he'll want to get in shape for the beach in Netanya in 2015. Perhaps he's improved his job prospects with some education. This is from a prison life forum: "My man describes Butner like 'dorm life.' He's had great educational opportunities there. He's already received his bachelors degree and he's well on his way to getting his MBA."

If you'd like to tell Jonathan Pollard what you think of him, write him at:

Jonathan Jay Pollard #09185-016
FCI Butner Medium I
Federal Correction Institution
P.O. Box 1000
Butner, NC 27509

Seriously, though, the Israelis do him no favors by continually asking for his release. Every time they bring this up, it only reminds Americans of Pollard's treachery and betrayal of this country. It only strengthens Americans' resolve to keep him behind bars as long as legally possible.