MSNBC - Iraqi Prison Camp Escape Tunnel

MSNBC

MSNBC Analyst and retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona and MSNBC anchor Amy Robach discussed the military's recent find of an extensive tunnel that prevented a massive escape at an Iraqi prison.

Foiled breakout a wake-up call

Francona discusses details behind near prison break in Iraq

On March 24, an informant in America's largest prison in Iraq at Camp Bucca tipped off officials at that facility that a group of prisoners had planned what would have been the largest prison break from a U.S. facility in history.

Wednesday's 'Washington Post,' reports that military guards discovered a fully completed 357-foot tunnel that included ventilation, lighting and cardboard at its exit.

According to MSNBC Analyst and Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona, both the thwarted breakout and level of expertise involved in the scheme were astonishing.

"I'm not only surprised that it happened, I'm surprised at the sophistication of this tunnel. If you look at the specifications of what these guys did basically using their hands and tools that they could craft from things that they stole from their American captors," he said. "They moved 100 tons of dirt in 60 days, they were able to hide the dirt. ... They were able to hide it under the barracks, they flushed it down the commodes, It was lighted, ventilated, very well done."

Francona, who said that the population of the prison has almost doubled to nearly 6,000 within the past year because of U.S. counter-insurgency operations, noted Iraq's history of creating architecturally impressive structures.

"The Iraqis have been engineers since time began. They've built wonderful things. If you travel through the country you can see the skill that they have. So to find a few engineers in a group of prisoners shouldn't be surprising," he said.

Since foiling the breakout by analyzing satellite imagery after the tip, Francona said U.S. officials have adjusted their policies.

"There are different procedures in place today, I can tell you that," he said.

"How did it happen? Well, the American guards were naïve when they first got there. They figured 'They're in captivity. The war's over for them.' Not quite," Francona said.

Changes are both structural and managerial.

"They've rearranged the camp now, put solid concrete foundations under all the buildings and moved the buildings so that they're under constant observation," Francona said. "No more than groups of 20 together at one time."

To watch the entire interview with Rick Francona, go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9066081/

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

Assassination - A Foreign Policy Tool?

MSNBC

On August 23, I appeared as a guest on Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss Reverend Pat Robertson's remarks calling for American covert operatives to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. I am not a South American specialist - my comments focus on the use of assassination as a foreign policy tool.

Assassination has been against U.S. policy since it was specifically prohibited in an executive order signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, again by executive order under President Jimmy Carter and then again with the current executive order in force EO 12333, singed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The law not only prohibits the United States government from conducting assassinations, it also prohibits conspiring, supporting, assisting, etc, anyone else from doing it. Oft-heard remarks such as "we'll have the Israelis do it" are nonsense.

The names that usually come up when discussing assassination in this context are Saddam Husayn and Usamah Bin Ladin.

• Saddam Husayn

During war, the leader of country is the commander in chief of the armed forces and is considered a valid military target. In peacetime, he is not. In the 1990's, it was U.S. government policy to support organizations attempting to overthrow Saddam Husayn - this became the official public position of the government when President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. How was Saddam to be treated under this act? At the time, U.S. intelligence agencies had to be careful not to cross the line - we could not support groups who were planning to kill Saddam, only those groups who agreed to take him into custody.

• Usamah Bin Ladin

After the initiation of the Global War of Terror, Usamah Bin Ladin became a military target, the leader of hostile "armed forces" in a sense.

-------------
For more on the Hardball segment:
Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9064048/
Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Iraq: Constitutional Issues

On August 22, the Iraqi committee charged with drafting a new constitution for the country presented its draft to the National Assembly. The draft, originally due on August 15, was accepted by the speaker of the assembly, Hajim Al-Hasani. Al-Hasani then made a surprise announcement that the expected vote would be delayed three days to give the assembly time to reach consensus between the three major groups - the Shi'as, Sunnis and the Kurds. The Sunnis have rejected the draft.

The Shi'as and the Kurds crafted the draft document, with some compromise between the two groups. The Sunnis claim they were not consulted in the final stages of the process. The major sticking point in the draft is the actual construct of the federal system. Other issues also remain, but the root of the problems revolve around the nature of the federal structure. It is that federal structure that will determine how much authority provinces and regions have, and more importantly, how Iraq's main source of income - oil revenue - will be managed.

The draft is in itself a compromise between the Kurds and the Shi'as. The two agreed to wording that Islam is to "a source" of the law, but not "the source," and that no laws passed an be in contravention of the tenets of Islam. The Shi'as agreed to this in return for the Kurds withdrawing their right to secede after eight years. The Kurds accepted the modified Islamic legal reference because they realize this is about as good as they are going to get, and anything less Islamic probably will not survive the referendum.

The Shi'as and Kurds have the required votes to pass the draft and trigger the October referendum. The two groups control 215 of the 275 seats - only a simple majority (138 votes) are required to call for the referendum. Doing so without at least attempting to reach some sort of consensus with the Sunnis could lead to a backlash. The Sunnis could throw their lot in with the insurgency, believing that they will get a better deal if the current interim government collapses. Alternatively, they could energize the Sunni population and hope to defeat the draft constitution in the referendum. A two thirds negative vote in three provinces defeats adoption of the constitution and requires another draft be crafted.

The next three days will be interesting. What attempts will be made to bring the Sunnis into the fold? What changes will be offered to address Sunni grievances? In the end, whether or not the Sunnis agree, the Shi'as and Kurds will vote to hold the referendum on the draft constitution on Thursday.

Of interest is the fact that there is no word in the Arabic language for compromise. They use "negotiate" and "consensus" - not quite the same. I doubt we will get to consensus.

Saddam Husayn - Martyr for Palestine?

Capture of Saddam Husayn - DOD Photos

This week, a letter from Saddam Husayn surfaced in Jordan. Here is the translated text of the letter:

My greetings to the Arab people of brotherly Jordan and to whoever asks about us in our dignified and glorified nation; my soul and my existence is to be sacrificed for our precious Palestine and our beloved, patient and suffering Iraq.

Life is meaningless without the considerations of faith, love and inherited history in our nation. It is not much for a man to support his nation with his soul and all he commands because it deserves it since it has given us life in the name of God and allowed us to inherit the best.

My brother, love your people, love Palestine, love your nation, long live Palestine.

Saddam Husayn attempting to invoke the name of God and the Palestinian cause is laughable. Saddam Husayn is the antithesis of religion, despite his repeated attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of Islam. This is not new, nor is his attempt to tie his fate to that of the Palestinians.

Soon after the American response to his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, he changed the Iraqi national flag to include the words "God is Great" (Allahu Akbar). This was a blatant attempt to portray secular, socialist Iraq - a country ruled by the Arab Socialist Renaissance (Ba'th) Party - as an Islamic state. Saddam hoped to rally the Arab and larger Muslim world to his cause. With the exception of Jordan, Yemen and Sudan, it did not work.

Likewise, his commitment to the Palestinian cause is also somewhat suspect. Prior to his invasion of Kuwait, his only commitment to Palestine was a half-hearted and virtually unnoticed contribution to the war effort against Israel. Faced with the American deployment after his invasion of Kuwait, he threatened to launch missile against Israel if he was attacked in Kuwait or Iraq. This he said he would do for the Palestinians. Again, this was an attempt to appeal to the Arab world for support against the American-led coalition.

This attempt, however, it was marginally effective. Jordanians and Palestinians supported Saddam. T-shirts in Jordan showed images of King Husayn, Yasir 'Arafat and Saddam superimposed over an image of the Dome of the Rock, near the site of Islam's third-holiest site, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Other T-shirts were emblazoned with the words, "I am an Arab - my birthday is August 2, 1990." August 2 was the date of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

True to his word, one day after the beginning of air campaign of Operation Desert Storm, Iraqi missiles were launched at Israel. By the end of the war, Saddam had ordered the launch of about 40 missiles at Israel.

Saddam Husayn is committed to the survival of Saddam Husayn. Failing that, he is committed to the legacy of Saddam Husayn. Committed to God and Palestine? Hardly.

Iraq: The Chain of Command

From an interview with an Associated Press reporter as reported in today's Washington Post:

"U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the 'worst case' in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers. Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped."

For those who might be confused as to why the Army's senior officer referred to "commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command," an explanation might be in order. Although Schoomaker is the chief of staff of the Army, he has no command responsibilities. In 1987, the Goldwater-Nichols Act became law and delineated the chain of command for the armed forces.

The President is the commander in chief. He issues orders to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn gives orders to the commander of the combatant command. Most of these commands are organized regionally, although not always (for example, Strategic Command and Transportation Command have worldwide responsibilities). In the case of Iraq, the combatant command is the United States Central Command, or CENTCOM, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida (in Tampa). The commander* of CENTCOM, General John Abizaid is responsible for conducting operations in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility, which includes Iraq. In Iraq, General Abizaid issues orders to General George Casey, commander of the Multinational Force-Iraq. All American military personnel and Defense Department civilians answer to General Casey.

Note the absence of several well-known positions. As we said before, the Army chief of staff is not in the chain of command, nor are the Air Force chief of staff, the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps. Also note that the nation's senior military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is not in the chain of command. The Chairman serves as an advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the President. The four service chiefs are responsible (and have been since 1947) for providing trained and equipped forces to the combatant commanders.

_________
* Up until the current administration, the commanders of the combatant commands were called commander in chief of that command, such as CINCCENT. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld changed this with the remark that there is only one commander in chief, the President.

Gaza Withdrawal: Mahmud 'Abbas Comments

Mahmud 'Abbas

Over the last few days, the media has covered Israel's unilateral withdrawal from its settlements in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon ordered the controversial withdrawal as part of the Middle East peace process, although some skeptics believe he is doing it more to make peace with the United States rather than the Palestinians. The American administration has put pressure on the Israelis to withdraw what many believe are illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

Most Middle East specialists are aware that the Gaza Strip was never intended to be part of Israel. It was part of the League of Nations established Palestinian Mandate established after the end of World War I in which the Ottoman Empire was defeated and dismembered. Palestine was administered by the British until the United Nations partition plan of 1947. According to the plan, two states - one Jewish and one Arab/Palestinian - were to be created in the area of the mandate. Gaza was always envisioned as part of the Arab state. After the fighting (or as the Israelis say, the "War of Independence") in 1948, it came under Egyptian governance. It has been in Israeli hands since they captured it (and the entire Sinai peninsula) in the 1967 Six Day War.

As the final stages of the withdrawal are in progress. Palestinian National Authority President Mahmud 'Abbas made some remarks at the reopening of the Gaza International Airport.

His comments, made in Arabic and obviously for local consumption, are not helpful.

Translated and excerpted:

"Today we come to visit our former president Yasser Arafat, and tomorrow we will came to the airport to travel - this airport which has been closed for years will be open for the world. This airport is the Palestinian window to the world.

This [Israeli] withdrawal is a salute to our martyrs; we are enjoying today. This step will be followed by other steps. This is a first step - we will continue in the West Bank and God willing, in Jerusalem. These steps came with the passion of our people, our martyrs and our prisoners."

It only takes a few minutes of watching news coverage of the withdrawal and Palestinian celebration to understand their perception. The Palestinian militant organizations - Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades - all feel vindicated. They believe that their guerilla and terrorist operations over the last few decades are finally paying off.

Rather than lessening the violence, the withdrawal may lead to increased violence as the Palestinians (including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades) move toward what 'Abbas has declared "the next step" - the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Al-Hadithah - again?

After the loss of two dozen Marines in combat in the Al-Hadithah area, about 1000 Marines and Iraqi special forces supported by airpower are mounting another offensive around the city that straddles the main infiltration route from Syria along the Euphrates River.

This is a necessary action - these pockets of insurgency must be eradicated. The question, though, is why this pocket continues to exist. There was an offensive earlier this year in this region. So what happened? Unfortunately, immediately after successfully conducting the operation, American forces moved to other fights, other areas. When they do this, they cede the territory to the insurgents. Why? Because then, and probably even now, there are not enough American forces to adequately maintain security, nor are there enough trained and capable Iraqi forces to do the job. That day may come, but it does not appear to be imminent.

So, after a few days of searching, arresting and fighting, the Marines will once again withdraw from Al-Hadithah, and the insurgents will return. We have to break this cycle.

A recent AP-Ipsos poll indicates that only about 38 percent of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling the war in Iraq. I am not in that number. While supportive of the effort in Iraq, I think that the President and Secretary of Defense are pursuing it the wrong way. This strategy only confirms my belief.

Saudi Arabia - Ambassador Prince Bandar Resigns

Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al Sa'ud, has submitted his resignation. Bandar is the son of Sultan bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz, the Minister of Defense and Aviation, and grandson of the current king. His father will become the crown pronce when the current king dies.

I have always liked Bandar, and I think overall he has been an effective ambassador for his country, as well providing good counsel to the royal family about things here.

Bandar has been suffering from depression for many years. There has been depression in his branch of the family. One of his half-brothers, Khalid (of Gulf War fame), has also suffered from similar depression.

From what I am told, after 9/11, he got pregressively worse and had wanted to resign and go back home. He wanted to take over as Director of General Intelligence, but for whatever reason did not get the job. He may still get the internal security portfolio.

I will always remember being in Bandar's study in McLean (just down Chain Bridge Road from the CIA back entrance) two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. My boss and I went over at Cheney's direction to Soyster to show Bandar how serious the Iraqis were. So, we took maps and satellite imagery - at the time no one was overly concerned about releasability - of the Iraqi deployments and the information on the continued flow of men and materiel to the border area. We had some large sheets, so he motioned for us to spread them out on the floor.

Here's a picture: The ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and me on our hands and knees crawling around sheets of annotated imagery with magnifying glasses. After about half an hour of this, Bandar, a military man, looked up at my boss and me and said, "This is bad, very bad. I must call His Majesty - shall I tell him they will invade?"

My boss said, "It would appear that way."

Bandar shook his head in disbelief, looked at me and said, "But Saddam said he would not."

I did the Gallic shrug, with the "what can I tell you" look.

Bandar is to be replaced by former Director of General Intelligence Prince Turki bin Faysal, currently the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom. In my opinion, he was the biggest impediment to any meaningful cooperation between American and Saudi intelligence for over 20 years.

During Desert Shield and Desert Storm, when the Saudis had a vested interest in total cooperation with the American intelligence services, the General Intelligence Directorate was evasive and unhelpful, and at times almost to the point of impeding our own efforts - I speak from personal experience. The military intelligence service was much better at working with us - they understood what was at stake. Later, when the United States sought to investigate the series of terrorist attacks against American facilities in the Kingdom, including the attacks on the Al-Khubar Towers in 1996 that killed 19 members of the U.S. Air Force, Turki stymied the investigations at every turn.

When he was appointed to be ambassador in London, many of his "fans" thought Turki had been marginalized and put out to pasture. Garnering the post of ambassador to the United States is not exactly "out to pasture."

Prince Bandar bin Sultan will be missed.

MSNBC - Looking at Saddam's first trial

MSNBC

Looking at Saddam's first trial

On July 18, I spoke with MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing about the upcoming trial, actually the first of a series of trials, of Sadddam Hussein. Here is a summary of that interview and a link to a video.
-------------

MSNBC analyst Francona analyzes the choice for initial case against Hussein

As Saddam Hussein awaits his first trial, many are left scratching their heads about the facts of the first case that will be brought against him. While the former dictator has been accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, prosecutors have decided that his first trial will involve a massacre of about 150 people. MSNBC analyst and retired Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona joined MSNBC Live’s Chris Jansing on Monday to discuss the decision.

The case itself reflects a 1982 assassination attempt that was made on Saddam Hussein’s life in the town of Dujail. “Saddam sends his henchmen to take care of the situation, and immediately, 150 people are arrested, tortured and executed, about 500 go missing and hundreds of others are banished to the Southwest desert.” Francona said describing the details of the case.

What remains in question is why this particular incident was chosen over much more horrendous crimes.

Francona notes that because world leaders have generally claimed exemption from prosecution for things they did as heads of state, this makes the prosecution’s job much harder than one might expect.

“Are you accusing Saddam Hussein, or are you accusing the president of Iraq, because if you’re accusing the president of Iraq he could say he was acting in his official capacity.” Francona said.

This simple reasoning has prosecutors initially starting small, in order to build a workable case against him.

“Why this one when you’ve got all the others, (including) the gassing of the Kurds?” Francona asked. It’s because they think they can prove this one relatively easily. They’ve got the witnesses, they’ve got a lot of documentation, there’s even U.N. documentation on this, so they believe that they can go into a court of law, win this one, and they’ve got to come out first and win, they can’t afford to lose a case.”

Though the first case is very important, this is far from the only case planned against the former dictator. “There are going to be probably 13 or 14 trials involving Saddam Hussein.” Francona said.

To watch the complete interview, go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8618365/

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

CIA Agent? Let's get the terminology straight...

Valerie Plame Wilson - CIA Agent?

How many times in the last few months, years even, have we seen media reports about the revelation of a CIA agent's name? It is against the law to knowingly reveal the name of undercover intelligence personnel and assets, be they CIA, Department of Defense or other intelligence agency. Mrs. Wilson may have fallen into that category, but is she a CIA agent?

No, she is not.

Let's get the terminology straight. Mrs. Wilson is a CIA officer, a civil servant, a civilian employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. She is not an agent.

So what is the difference? An agent is someone, usually a foreign national, recruited by American intelligence officers, sometimes called "case officers," to work on behalf of the United States. These are the true spies, they are most often betraying their own countries for the benefit of the United States.

Once again, Mrs. Wilson is not a CIA agent, she is not a spy - she is an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency.