Iran again outmaneuvering the West

Iran continues its relatively successful foreign policy into the new year. On the second day of the new decade, the Islamic Republic issued an ultimatum to the group of nations that are demanding Iran stop its uranium enrichment activities. The Iranian ultimatum gives the groups of nations one month to accept an Iranian counter offer to a proposal to export Iran's enriched uranium exchange for nuclear fuel rods that cannot be weaponized.

This is just more of Iran's tactic to delay any consequences for failing to meet any United Nations, European Union or American deadlines for halting their nuclear program. Every time there is the threat of some form of action - usually sanctions are mentioned - the Iranians either offer to resume talks or issue threats.

It seems to be working. The Italian foreign minister recently stated that the world should not seek to isolate - in other words, no sanctions - Iran because of its human rights abuses and continuing nuclear program. The minister cited Iran's ties to Hizballah, Hams and Syria as the reasons we should look to Tehran as a possible intermediary. Che cosa ha detto, signore? Those are exactly the reasons we should be isolating Iran....

Iran's ultimatum - that's the exact word used by Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki - and Italy's unusual statement was followed by the typical response by the United States. The headline read that the United States was going to "consider" sanctions focused on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Someone must have thought that was too harsh, because one day later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States was still open to talks with Iran.

Once again, no one is holding the Iranians responsible. For some reason the West is afraid to take action against them. The Iranians have figured it out - no one has the stomach for harsh effective sanctions, including the Americans.

The Iranian leadership believes - rightly so, apparently - that they are winning the diplomatic battle over their nuclear program. The rest of the world sets deadlines, all of which are ignored by Tehran. There are no consequences. In fact, Iranian intransigence seems to be rewarded with concessions that the world will wait just a little longer, then sanctions will be imposed. The problem with these threats is that no one takes them seriously.

Whether you agree with the Iranians or not, you have to admire their ability to diplomatically outmaneuver virtually the entire world.

Jordan loses a soldier in Afghanistan

The Jordanian government surprisingly acknowledged today that a Jordanian military officer had been killed in Afghanistan. This is the first official confirmation that Jordan has sent members of its armed forces to Afghanistan. The soldier, Captain 'Ali bin Zayd, was killed on Wednesday. There were no other details of what the captain was doing in the country, nor of the circumstances of his death other than the official announcement that he died "as a martyr while performing the sacred duty of the Jordanian forces in Afghanistan."

Given the timing of the death - the same day that seven CIA officers were killed in an attack on the Agency base in Khowst province - it is very likely that the captain was participating in a CIA operation.

This would not be uncommon. The United States intelligence community has had long and strong ties connections with the Jordanian intelligence services, both military and civilian. The Jordanians bring to the table skills that are in short supply in our intelligence agencies - local language skills, area knowledge, ability to operate undetected in Middle East populations, etc. I have often worked with both the Jordan's Directorate of Military Intelligence and the General Intelligence Directorate. Their officers are skilled professionals and I would work them again with no hesitation whatsoever.

The cooperation of the Jordanians - and this would have to have been approved by King 'Abdullah II himself - is a testament to the unheralded alliance between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the United States. With the notable, but not overly surprising, support of Iraq by King Husayn following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the relationship between the two countries has been close for at least three decades. Assisting the Americans in Afghanistan is a continuation of the that relationship - and a welcome one.

Jordan's assistance has usually been kept very quiet, especially in Jordan. King 'Abdullah II walks a fine line in the region. There is a large population of Palestinians, many of whom are, or are the children of, refugees from the wars with Israel since Israel became a state in 1948. There has been a steady growth in Islamic fundamentalism in the kingdom as well. If a poll was taken in Jordan about the relationship between the kingdom and the United States, I suspect that the numbers in support would be low, however, among the military and professional ranks, support would be higher.

The Jordanians have supported us, often at the expense of their relationships with other countries in the region, especially among their Arab brothers. In this case, one of their officers gave his life in a fight that many might consider not his own. We should give a nod of gratitude to our allies in the Hashemite Kingdom.

Israeli withdrawal from al-Ghajar - no impact

Israel has announced that it will soon withdraw its forces from the Lebanese half of a village that is located astride the Lebanese-Syrian border. Israeli troops have occupied and administered the city since the area was seized during the Six Day War in June 1967. The northern half of the city is in Lebanon, and the southern half is in Syria adjacent to the Golan Heights.

Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation. As part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, Lebanese militias were to disarm once all foreign (read Israeli but not Syrian) forces had pulled out of the country. All of Lebanese various armed factions abided by the agreement with the notable exception of Hizballah. Hizballah maintained that Israel's continued occupation of the northern half of al-Ghajar, clearly in Lebanon, and an area nearby called the Shaba' Farms, constituted a violation of UNSCR 1559 and thus provided legal justification for the Iranian and Syrian-backed Shi'a group to maintain its militia.

The Shaba' Farms claim is ludicrous, but allows Hizballah the myth that Israeli forces are still occupying portions of Lebanon. On virtually any credible map, the Shaba' Farms are clearly part of Syria - occupied since 1967 by Israeli troops, but still part of Syria. Even the United Nations agrees that the Farms are part of Syria.

Syria claims to have ceded the Farms area to Lebanon years ago, yet no reliable documentation exists. In fact, Syrian military maps clearly show the area to be in Syria. The assertion that the area is Lebanese is a charade that allows Hizballah to claim that Israeli troops are still in Lebanon. It's Hizballah's fig leaf - see my earlier article, The Shaba' Farms - Hizballah's Fig Leaf.

The situation with the Shaba' Farms does not change with the Israeli withdrawal from al-Ghajar, but it removes one more excuse that Hizballah uses to maintain its militia. The Lebanese government recently officially authorized Hizballah to use its militia - they use the term "resistance" - against the continued "Israeli occupation" of Lebanese land. Israel should have withdrawn from the Lebanese side of al-Ghajar years ago, as I urged - Hey Israel, give Ghajar back to Lebanon.

Israel's withdrawal also brings them into compliance with UNSCR 1701 (see my earlier article UNSCR 1701 - Deferment of the Problem) which ended the fighting between Hizballah and Israeli forces in 2006. Under that agreement, Lebanese forces were to take up positions in southern Lebanon, and Hizballah was to be disarmed. Neither has happened.

Despite American and UN beliefs that Israel's withdrawal from al-Ghajar will ease tensions between Israel and Lebanon, it will have no real impact. As long as Lebanon and Syria perpetuate the myth that the Israeli-occupied Shaba' Farms are part of Lebanon and not part of Syria, Hizballah will maintain its militia.

Anyone who believes that Hizballah is going to voluntarily disarm does not understand Lebanon. Israel is making a meaningless gesture.

It's time to wake up and profile

I was asked by Basil & Spice director (and friend) Kelly Ja'don for my thoughts on profiling, in the aftermath of the Christmas terrorist incident.


Click here to read the article at Basil & Spice.

Al-Qa'idah members - criminals or combatants?

The recent case of the 23-year old Nigerian who attempted to blow up an American airliner on a flight from Europe to the United States on Christmas highlights a continuing problem that goes back at least as far as the presidency of Bill Clinton. Clinton believed that persons who conduct acts of terrorism are basically criminals and should be handled by the judicial system.

President Obama initially referred to 'Umar al-Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalib as a lone extremist and an "alleged bomber." In fact - as later acknowledged by the President and his confused Secretary of Homeland Security - 'Abd al-Mutalib was trained in Yemen by al-Qa'idah. The poster above is part of a press kit released by al-Malahim, the media branch of the al-Qa'idah in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Note that al-malahim is Arabic for "fierce battles, slaughters."

My translation of the Arabic on the poster:

----The Al-Qa'idah Jihad Organization in the Arabian Peninsula
----The operation of Brother Holy Warrior
----'Umar al-Faruq al-Nijiri

The use of the honorific name 'Umar al-Faruq al-Nijiri, translated as 'Umar al-Faruq the Nigerian, is a common style among al-Qa'idah militants. Often they will use a kunya - Abu ____ is the most common - followed by a geographic designator. That is why you read about many militants with final names al-Masri (the Egyptian), al-Libi (the Libyan), al-Maghrabi (the Moroccan), etc. A good example is Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi (Father of Mus'ab, of Zarqa' - a city in Jordan).

It appears that President Obama is reverting to the same Clinton policies that failed to prevent al-Qa'idah from mounting attacks on the two American embassies in Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 and the World Trade Center in 2001. Following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, President Bush attempted to have captured al-Qa'idah militants labeled as "unlawful combatants" with no legal rights under the Constitution, nor eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions. This has been successfully and unfortunately challenged in U.S. courts.

The court did however agree that al-Qa'idah detainees can be tried by U.S. military tribunals, which seemed like a workable compromise. However, in its attempts to put the previous administration (and some of our intelligence officers) on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try at least four of the senior al-Qa'idah leadership in federal courts in New York City. With that decision comes the attachment of all legal rights of American citizen - right to remain silent, right to counsel, rules of evidence, etc.

The Obama Administration is treating committed enemy combatants as common criminals. The poster above belies that mistaken theory. These people are not common criminals - they are warriors. Misguided by a perverted interpretation of Islam, yes, but warriors nonetheless. They have an organization, a hierarchy, resources, plans and a fervent commitment that far exceeds criminal enterprise. Criminals have a profit motive - these mujahidin (holy warriors) have a political and religious ideology.

These photos show 'Abd al-Mutalib's underwear and the explosives hidden inside. This is not the work of a criminal - this is the work of a committed mujahid, a holy warrior, a terrorist.




This amount of the explosive PETN (a major ingredient of the terrorists' preferred explosive Semtex) is more than enough to destroy an airliner in flight - it is more than used by the "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid. Fortunately, PETN requires the use of a strong detonator - the acid used by this terrorist was not sufficient to cause a detonation and only started the PETN on fire. I have lit Semtex with a match (don't ask) - it burns hotly but does not explode.

What is critical in the Clinton/Obama approach is how we can treat people like 'Abd al-Mutalib. Both Clinton and Obama are lawyers and view the world from that particular optic. Evidence, arguments, rules, procedures - and civility. None of those apply to this war in which we find ourselves.

Once we attach citizen's rights to these terrorists, we lose the ability to effectively interrogate them for useful intelligence. Does the President not believe that 'Abd al-Mutalib may be able to provide information on al-Qa'idah personalities, plans, training, capabilities, contacts, procedures, etc.? We need to extract and exploit all we information can from these captured combatants, not allow them to "lawyer up" and deny us the intelligence we need to better defend ourselves.

These militants are not criminals, they are combatants - start treating them like it. 'Abd al-Mutalib should be in an interrogation cell in Guantanamo, not a jail in Michigan.

Yemen - the new front in the war against al-Qa'idah

Yemen is emerging as the new front in the war against al-Qa'idah at the same time the Obama Administration is sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.

As President Obama himself has stated on more than one occasion, the mission of American forces in Afghanistan is to defeat al-Qa'idah. The President does not appear to be reading his intelligence reports - there are virtually no al-Qa'idah militants remaining in Afghanistan. They have moved - initially to Pakistan to escape American forces in late 2001, then to Iraq in 2003 to fight American forces there, then to Saudi Arabia as Iraq became a losing proposition, and now in Yemen after Saudi security forces ruthlessly pursued them in the kingdom.

If the real aim of the U.S. war on terror is to defeat al-Qa'idah, we are sending troops to the wrong place. The bad guys are in Yemen.

The image below is illustrative of the danger posed by al-Qa'idah in Yemen. This group is organized and apparently well-funded. This is their stationery - click on the image for larger view. Here is my translation of this particular bulletin, which gives some insight into who we are fighting.

The Al-Qa'idah Jihad Organization of the Arabian Peninsula
Soldiers of Yemen Brigade*
Expelling the Infidels** from the Arabian Peninsula
Bulletin Number 11
(photo)
Martyred Heroes Abu Dijanah al-Hadurmi and
Ahmad bin Sa'id bin 'Umar al-Mushajari
May Allah receive them in martyrdom
____
* literally: battalions, but used by these groups to mean brigade
** literally: polytheists

The December 25 failed attack on an airliner by a Nigerian militant appears to have a Yemen connection - it is believed that 'Umar Faruq 'Abd al-Mutalib was trained in Yemen. This follows two incidents earlier this year with connections to Yemen. In November, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood. Hasan was being counseled by Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, an American of Yemeni descent now resident in Yemen. Al-Awlaki may have also been involved in the recruitment and training of 'Abd al-Mutalib as well. In July, a convert to Islam murdered an American soldier in Little Rock - that individual had received training in Yemen.

Yemen has a spotty record of dealing with terrorists. It appears that only when al-Qa'idah poses a threat to the government of 'Ali 'Abdallah Salih is any action taken against the group. Numerous detainees that have been repatriated to Yemen from the detention facility at Guantanamo have either escaped and remain at large or have rejoined the fight. Hopefully this latest incident will cause the Obama Administration to rethink its misguided policy about sending many of the Guantanamo detainees to Yemen in its haste to close the facility.

If the United States and the Obama Administration are serious about defeating al-Qa'idah, they need to focus more efforts on Yemen. The recent U.S. cruise missile strike is a good start, as are increased CIA operations in the country. As I have said before, the only way to deal with al-Qa'idah is to hunt them down and kill them. That means going after them where they are - and it's not Afghanistan. It's Yemen.

___________________
My earlier articles on Yemen:

• U.S. Air Strike in Yemen - kudos to President Obama (December 2009)


• Perspective on Yemen's recent violence (November 2009)


• Al-Qa'idah on the run - again (June 2009)


• Yemen's unique counterterrorism tool (February 2009)


• Yemen and the Guantanamo 245 (January 2009)


• Yemen - State sponsor of terrorism? (February 2008)


• Yemen Acquits Al-Qa'idah Members - A Surprise? (July 2006)


• Yemen - Ally in the War on Terror? (February 2006)


• The USS Cole - A Victim of Bad Policy? (December 2005 – reprint)
  
  

U.S. Air Strike in Yemen - kudos to President Obama

Anyone who reads Middle East Perspectives is aware of my critical view of President Obama's policies on the nuclear issue in Iran, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think he is making some serious errors in his prosecution of the wars and his constant willingness to ignore the fact that Iran is not interested in serious negotiations that will end its quest to develop a nuclear weapon.

That said, he has made some excellent decisions about attacking al-Qa'idah wherever we find them. I wrote an earlier piece in support of the President's decision not only to continue but escalate the Bush-era drone-launched missile attacks against al-Qa'idah targets in Pakistan (A sound Obama policy - missile strikes in Pakistan). On December 18, the President ordered air-launched cruise missile strikes against two al-Qa'idah targets in Yemen.

The strike was conducted in cooperation with the Yemeni government. This in itself is interesting. Up until just recently, the Yemeni government has had little interest in confronting al-Qa'idah, almost to the point of complicity. (See my 2008 article, Yemen - state sponsor of terrorism?). However, once it became clear that the new influx of al-Qa'idah militants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were a threat to one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, President 'Ali 'Abdallah Salih decided that action was necessary.

The change of heart is a repeat of what happened in Saudi Arabia. Prior to 2004, the Saudi government turned a blind eye to the al-Qa'idah presence in the Kingdom - remember that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. After a few lethal jihadist attacks on foreign workers and more importantly, the Kingdom's oil infrastructure, Saudi security forces more than decimated al-Qa'idah, forcing the surviving members to flee to Yemen. Now it's Yemen's turn to take on the jihadists. Whereas Saudi security forces are very capable, Yemeni security forces are not - thus the request for American assistance.


The two targets hit by American missiles were described as a suspected al-Qa'idah training camp north of Sana' and a "location where an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." Unfortunately, one of the intended victims, al-Qa'idah in Yemen commander Qasm al-Raymi (above), escaped. One has to wonder whether the targets were identified by Yemeni intelligence, or by U.S. intelligence. Yemeni intelligence has not been reliable, especially when it comes to al-Qa'idah. These targets are located in areas that are virtually under al-Qa'idah control and the Yemeni military is loath to operate.


The choice of weapon is also interesting. Air launched cruise missiles - like the one pictured above - are much larger and lethal than the smaller Hellfire missiles carried on CIA and USAF unmanned aerial vehicles. The smaller Hellfires were used at least once in Yemen in a CIA operation to kill al-Qa'idah leaders in late 2002. The use of the cruise missiles, normally carried by Air Force bombers, represents a welcome escalation in the war against al-Qa'idah.

These strikes are exactly what we should be doing to attack and eliminate al-Qa'idah, wherever they are. They are not in Afghanistan, nor are they likely to return there. There are remnants in Pakistan, who are being dealt with cooperatively by Pakistani forces and targeted CIA missile attacks. The remnants that were in Saudi Arabia have either fled or are being hunted down by Saudi security forces. Survivors have fewer places to run - it used to be Yemen and Somalia. If we continue to work with the Yemenis, we can deny them safe haven there, almost forcing them to relocate to Somalia.

Somalia may well be the next front on the war against al-Qa'idah. In any case, it's not Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad - another deft move at Copenhagen?

WARNING: DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THIS MAN. He has thus far out-politicked two American administrations, the United Nations and the European Union.


While in Copenhagen for the climate change conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - besides bashing the United States for all the world's ills - continued his successful strategy for dealing with the issue of his country's nuclear weapons program. Yes, a nuclear weapons program - I am not aware of anyone who seriously believes the Iranian regime's claims that their nuclear program is for the development of electric power generation capability.

As I predicted when the Iranians "agreed" in October to export their low-enriched uranium to be processed in Russia and France into fuel rods - and not by the Iranians into weapons grade fissile material - the "done deal" fell apart. There never was a deal - there was only an Iranian statement. As soon as the talks ended, the Iranian government rejected the proposal, making the parties on the other side of the table look impotent. That group consisted of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia and China) plus Germany, called the P5+1.

Making the rejection appear to be an internal Iranian government debate was a clever ruse. There are only two people that count in Iranian politics - Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmound Ahmadinejad, and in that order. Iran would not have a nuclear program without the direct involvement of these two officials. It is a key priority for them to elevate Iran to the status of a nuclear armed nation. They have no intention of abandoning that goal.

To that end, Ahmadinejad will say whatever is necessary to advance the program. Advancing the program now means staving off effective sanctions on Iran. That involves seeming to agree to talks with the P5+1 or the EU, all the while delaying the imposition of sanctions. Ahmadinejad is also trying (successfully) to cultivate a special relationship with China. China is the key to effective sanctions, and thus far the Chinese have been reluctant to abandon diplomacy (basically that is talking) in favor of action.

Just when we approach another artificial American deadline of the end of the year, and an EU artificial deadline next month, Ahmadinejad once again raised the possibility of an agreement if only the United States and the West "respect the Islamic Republic and stop making threats." It is important to note that if these conditions are met, Iran is willing to, yes, talk about an agreement. That agreement will not include exporting Iran's low-enriched uranium.

This all sounds ludicrous, but Ahmadinejad has successfully evaded effective, coordinated sanctions for years. All the while, he talks about agreements, yet there is never anything more to these agreements than an agreement to future talks.

I wonder how long the Obama administration is going to be outsmarted by this guy. Obviously, Ahmadinejad has no intention of striking an agreement that curbs his nuclear ambition, so why are we continuing this kabuki dance?

If I were president...

I would publicly state to Ahmadinejad that the United States will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. If that sounds a bit imperialistic, so be it. We cannot live with Iran in possession of nuclear weapons. Not only are we unsure of what they will do with that capability, but it is not certain they would not supply a weapon to its client terrorist groups - Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad to name a few.

Do not think this is too far-fetched. Ahmadinejad has often spoken of hastening the return of the Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shi'a Islam - in other words, Armageddon. This is not rhetoric - Ahmadinejad is a true believer, and true believers can be dangerous.

We should not underestimate this man. We should be seeking his - and Khamenei's - demise.

Date certain withdrawal - always a mistake

This death and devastation is what you get when you tell the enemy the date when you will withdraw your troops. It was a mistake in Iraq - 127 dead in one day - and it is a mistake in Afghanistan. Setting a date certain for leaving the fight is a bad idea - it almost guarantees an outcome less than victory.

This concept is not new, nor is it rocket science. It is, however, irresponsible and dangerous. Expect the scene above to continue in Iraq, and expect it to begin in about 18 months in Afghanistan.

I don't know who the President is listening to for military advice, but I suspect that it is some political hack that has never worn a uniform or heard a shot fired in anger. I keep wondering where is General Jim Jones, the alleged national security advisor - surely he knows better. The former commandant of the Marine Corps should be telling the President that his seemingly unwavering commitment to begin the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan in June of 2011 is a bad idea.

Withdrawal of troops should begin only when the mission has been accomplished. Of course, much of that depends on how you define mission accomplishment. For those of us who have worn a uniform and heard a shot fired in anger, it means victory. I used to believe that the President had trouble using the word victory, however, I am starting to believe that he has trouble with the actual concept of victory.

The President has taken the first step - he made the decision to augment American forces in Afghanistan. Personally, I question the wisdom of a counterinsurgency strategy versus counterterrorism, but in any case, he has made the decision. We can debate whether his stated goal of defeating al-Qa'idah is reasonable, given the fact that most of al-Qa'idah is no longer in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is not a threat to American interests.

Obama's acceptance speech at the Nobel ceremony was another good step. I am sure he ruffled the feathers of the pacifist Europeans - another good step. One might get the impression that the President was on the road to recovery and actually becoming the commander in chief in more than just name. Then, he fell off the wagon and reiterated his commitment to the 18-month timetable for withdrawal.

If the President continues with this policy, we are setting up Afghanistan for the type of continuing internecine violence we see now in Iraq. Al-Qa'idah in Iraq waited patiently until the more-capable American forces withdrew from the cities and turned over security duties over to Iraqi units, then began a series of attacks hoping to restart the civil war with the Shi'a majority. Thus far, they have failed, but have killed thousands of Iraqis and highlighted the fragility of the Iraqi government.

The Taliban understands the concept as well. They will wait out the Americans, just as the Afghans have waited out invaders before. At least this time, they know exactly how long they have to wait. In June 2011, this latest set of invaders will declare victory and start to return home.

Come on, General, explain to the President what a bad idea this is.

"A Night with Saddam" - a unique perspective

I don't normally endorse books - unless they favorably reference me....

I am making an exception here for two reasons. I was intimately involved in the reportage at NBC News (NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC) of Saddam's capture, subsequent trial and execution.

Who can forget The Today Show segment with Matt Lauer and I in the mock up of the spider-hole from which Saddam was pulled six years ago this weekend - December 13, 2003? (See also my recent piece, Execution of Saddam - in hindsight a good thing.)

The other reason is that the author, Dr. Mark Green, will donate a portion of the proceeds to my favorite charity - the Wounded Warrior Project, as well as to the Night Stalker Association and the Bay Medical Foundation. Dr. Green, before becoming a physician, commanded a rifle company in the 82nd Airborne Division. As an Army physician, he was the American medical officer who examined and spoke with Saddam Husayn that night.

The book is A Night with Saddam - A Special Ops Flight Surgeon's Interview With Saddam Hussein On The Night Of His Capture And The Missions Which Led To Their Meeting. Read more at Dr. Green's website.

An excerpt from the book:

"There was very little interrogating going on at this late hour in the battlefield interrogation facility (BIF). Most of the intelligence people wanted Saddam to rest prior to their intense questioning. The dignitaries and senior commanders had visited him and were now gone.

About this time, around midnight, the physician assigned to the BIF left. One of the senior intelligence officers recognized me standing outside the cell speaking with the interpreters and told me that the admiral wanted a medical officer with Saddam constantly. He asked if I would go in and stay the first night with him. I said yes and gathered my thoughts. The shear excitement of the moment was balanced by the realization of the terror and evil this man had produced in his lifetime.

I grabbed a worn-out copy of the Stars and Stripes newspaper and walked into his makeshift cell to share in the first night of captivity with the captured King of Babylon."