Brad Taylor's Blog, page 8

Tangled Webs We Weave: Hezbollah, Bin Laden, and the Arab Spring

Osama bin Laden has been gone for about a month now, bringing forth a plethora of experts analyzing exactly what his death means to the greater conflict against radical Islam.  On the one side are the doomsayers who stridently screech that his death did nothing but inflame the Muslim world, sparking the creation of a legion of new terrorists.  On the other side are predictions of the demise of Al Qaida and the subsequent fragmenting of bin Laden's bankrupt nihilistic vision because of the onslaught of the Arab Spring.

While it's ultimately unclear how great the impact will be, there is no doubt that bin Laden's death will adversely affect al Qaida.  His charisma drove the group's creation, and was a beacon call for Jihad.  Because of al Qaida's success on 9/11, along with Osama bin Laden's ability to evade the mighty United States, other terrorist groups threw away the names they had fought under for years and picked up the al Qaida slogan – such as the GSPC in Algeria which became al Qaida in the Maghreb in 2006.  Bin Laden's death has dealt al Qaida a huge blow, with the loss of a god-like icon that engendered the recruiting of both soldiers and money. 

In the end, there will be an effect, but his removal alone isn't enough to destroy radical Islam.  Clearly, the root causes that lead someone to embark on this path need to be addressed as well.  Economic stagnation, corrupt, brutal governments, and a lack of hope have all been described as the swamp that must be drained to stop people from turning to the global jihad, and in truth, that's exactly what must occur in the long-term.  In the short term, all that is needed is an alternative to al Qaida; some other outlet besides Jihad.  Fortunately, the Arab Spring we're now seeing has the potential to provide that outlet. 

The uprisings in the Middle East—in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya and a host of other places – are a direct confrontation to al Qaida's core doctrine.  Bin Laden stated that the Islamic world must first attack the "Far Enemy" of the west before attacking the "Near Enemy" of the middle-eastern regimes.  The chain reaction of the Arab Spring has short circuited that doctrine, showing that it is well within the capability of the people to take the fight to the near enemy all by themselves, without following some radical Islamic Jihadi.  There will be no way to quantify in statistics, but I can't help but wonder about the numbers of people who would have been on the road to Jihad, but are instead participating in the Arab Spring.  Bin Laden's death, coupled with the Arab Spring, make al Qaida's recruiting prospects look much, much worse than they did only four months ago.  The effect won't be instantaneous, but it will be real. 

As I reflected on the current situation in the Middle East, I was struck by the fact that it was bin Laden himself that started the domino effect that led to the current revolts and protests.  Most people attribute the beginnings of the Arab Spring to the cart-vendor who immolated himself in Tunis, Tunisia, on 17 DEC 2010.  That was certainly a large link in the chain, but the first shot was fired in Lebanon in 2005. 

On March 14th 2005, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri, was assassinated by a car bomb, most likely by Syrian and Hezbollah elements.  The act brought on an incredible response from the Lebanese population, complete with the now ubiquitous enormous rallies.  The primary demand was the removal of Syrian occupation forces and the subsequent withdrawal from Lebanese politics, something Syria had been manipulating for decades.  Within months, Syria relented, and pulled it's troops home, bringing about the first salvo of the now famous Arab Spring.  But why did Assad order his troops to leave?  After all, the strongest armed bloc in Lebanon, stronger than even the Lebanese Armed Forces, was (and is) the terrorist group Hezbollah – which was (is) Syria's ally.  In the past, Syria had crushed any such uprising with overwhelming force, such as Hama in 1982, where upwards of 20,000 civilians were killed.  Was it really just because people had taken to the streets?  What had changed?

 In a word: Iraq.  Assad had recently watched the United States invade and dismantle Saddam Hussein's government, had heard President Bush's martial speeches, and was afraid that he would be next on the list if he did anything heinous.  "I am not Saddam Hussein," Bashar al-Assad said before ordering his troops to withdraw.  "I want to cooperate." ***

 My purpose here isn't to start a debate on Iraq.  You can feel however you like about that conflict, and you'd probably be surprised in my views, but regardless of what has occurred there, it did spark the Arab Spring.  Walid Jumblatt himself – the leader of the Lebanese Druze – said, "it's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq.  I was cynical about Iraq.  But when the Iraqi people voted three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.  The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing.  The Berlin Wall has fallen."  Very prescient considering it was said in 2005. 

But what led to the invasion of Iraq?  I'm not talking about WMD or other tactical considerations.  What led to the invasion in the first place?  Well, clearly, it was 9/11.  If bin Laden hadn't attacked us, the dominoes would not have led to Iraq.  And to the Arab Spring.   The very attack that was supposed to bring the United States to its knees may quite possibly end up crippling al Qaida instead. 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not implying the Arab Spring is a panacea that will cure the world of radical Islam.  They are a thinking enemy, and are not stagnate.  Worst case, they co-opt the revolutions and get the Islamic caliphate they're striving for, much like happened in Iran in 1979 and is currently happening in Lebanon with Hezbollah,  and which I fear could happen in both Yemen and Libya.  Even without interference by radical Islam, in the end the Arab Spring is nothing more than an outlet for something better.  It's not something better in and of itself.  If, after time, the people in those countries are no better off than when they were under the hands of a dictator – if the swamp isn't drained – they'll once again look for an outlet, only this time they'll have tried democracy and popular uprising.  Maybe next time they'll turn to radical Islam.  

Even with these risks, the Arab Spring could potentially reap great rewards for the region and the world.  At the very least, in the short-term, it's a heavy blow to al Qaida, both in recruiting and in legitimacy.  With the death of bin Laden, that blow will be felt all the more.  I hope he's punching himself in the belly of a shark for pushing that domino in the first place.

***The quote from Bashar al Assad is taken from:  The Road to Fatima Gate, Michael J. Totten, Pg 209-210

Osama bin Laden is DEAD

Burn in HELL MotherF****er. 

And for everyone who ever questioned our resolve or methods, kiss my ass.

Thanks to all the the unsung heroes in our government who fought tirelessly to see this happen, both in the military and the intelligence community.  My only regret is I wasn't standing over his smoking body.

The Libyan Conundrum, Part III: Marx Brothers Foreign Policy

I've been hesitant to post another blog on Libya because I don't have behind-the-scenes intel and didn't want to undercut operations about which I'm no longer privy.  After a couple of weeks of research from the sidelines, I'm now pretty sure that there is no coherent U.S. policy on Libya.  Only stabs in the dark to placate this week's squeaky wheel.  On 4/21, the Obama administration decided to send armed predators to Libya, another paper escalation in the war that isn't a war.  That's an absolutely perfect decision for this administration, and I'm sure they're patting themselves on the back.  It shows our European allies that we're willing to commit our unique American technology – technology that has proven devastating to al Qaida and Taliban leadership in the Fata of Pakistan – while it alleviates any wrath from the public because no American lives will be at risk. 

This situation reminds me of President Johnson's decision to not mobilize the National Guard and Reserves for Vietnam – the theory being that doing so would cause the American public to seriously reflect on the endeavor, and possibly turn against the war.  It took a few years, but that's exactly what happened.  I'm pretty sure, if we continue with the half-assed efforts underway now in Libya, we'll have the same result again.

The armed predator sounds sexy, but in reality it's only killing capacity is the Hellfire missile, a precision strike weapon designed to destroy individual armor.  At most, since we're by God not going to target Ghadafi, this will allow us to kill a few more tanks.  In no way is this weapon system going to play a decisive role in shifting the balance of power.  Once again this begs the question:  What the hell is the desired end state in Libya?

Secretary of State Clinton, on the one hand, affirms the removal of Ghadafi as the goal, but then immediately follows up with the statement that such a removal isn't in the "mandate" from the United Nations.  This is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.  Military objectives should ALWAYS be in line with the political goal.  In Libya, we have implemented a bunch of half-assed measures that, I believe, are increasing the number of civilian deaths.  That's right; I'm asserting that the current air campaign – ostensibly in place to protect civilians – is leading to civilian deaths.  And I don't mean collateral damage as NATO mistakenly kills rebel forces.  I'm talking about genuine non-combatants.

There are two ways we could swiftly end the killing of non-combatants in Libya: 1) remove Ghadafi through military action, or 2) let Ghadafi destroy the rebel forces. 

By implementing our pissant no-fly zone, we have created a situation that prevents both.  If we hadn't intervened, this rebellion would be over and Ghadafi would remain soundly in power.  If we went in full bore, the current so-called "kinetic military action" would be over fairly rapidly, and Ghadafi would no longer be in power.  Instead, we've stated his removal is the goal, but have done nothing to ensure it, resulting in the current stalemate I warned about in my second blog on this subject.  Then we curse about Ghadafi using cluster bombs and being generally a bad guy. 

Am I saying we should take him out?  No, actually I'm not. Primarily, because I'm worried about what 'leadership' would replace him.  I'd like to think that we have some sort of secret plan in place behind-the-scenes – and that this had been thought through before committing to action. Maybe that we had found some Libyan "Thomas Jefferson" to take over.  After seeing this play out, I'm fairly sure we have no idea whether the rebels are extremists or not, and we are now blindly following a path based not on helping Libya, but simply protecting the damage to our own reputation, regardless of the cost to Libyan civilians.  We're simply throwing good money after bad so we don't look stupid.   Even General Ham, Commander of Africa Command and the person who oversaw the initial operations of Odyssey Dawn, told congress he was against arming the rebels because we don't know enough about their intentions or where the weapons would end up.  What does that say about our policy?  Why is removing Ghadafi a goal when we're unwilling to trust the very people who will replace him?  What on earth is the United States doing? 

Luckily, we're only wasting money at this stage.  If Ghadafi shoots down a predator, who cares, right?  The problem with this non-war, not playing-to-win or leaving the field strategy, is that it does have repercussions to our national security.  There are reports that al Qaida is using the disarray to funnel weapons out of Libyan armories, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets.  Rockets that may now be in the hands of real terrorists.  I would be extremely concerned, but General Ham said that, in collaboration with regional partners, the United States would "try to take action to get them out of extremist's hands."

Whew…for a minute there I was worried that this whole Libya thing wasn't well thought out.

When free speech gets deadly

A few months ago I wrote a blog about the Dove Outreach Church in Florida that wanted to burn the Quran and the potential effects that it could cause.  Well, today we saw those effects.  On September 9th I wrote,

"The bottom line is that, rightly or wrongly, the action will be viewed harshly in the Islamic world.  Millions of people now on the fence, who really have no idea what America is like and have more than likely never even met an American citizen, will now believe the al Qaida propaganda that we're out to destroy Islam.  They don't understand free speech.  They don't understand 24-hour news.  They'd be lucky to find the United States on a map.  They have no idea that this church is a fringe group and not representative of America as a whole.  They do, however, understand that burning a book they consider the word of God is an affront.  And because of it, some young punk will now get his Jihad on, killing the soldiers of the "Great Satan".

That's what happened today.  The Dove Outreach "Church" burned the Quran last week… and Afghans went nuts.  Killing nine members of the United Nations Security Team.  On the surface, everyone in the US will say, "They're insane…no way should the church be held accountable for Muslims in Afghanistan killing people." Ordinarily I would agree, except for the blatant fact that I, and anyone else who has been to any Muslim nation, KNEW what the reaction would be. 

Twenty years ago, this wouldn't have mattered, as the only people who would have seen the burning would have been the people associated with the church.  In today's world, with the internet and all other social media, such actions by a few have repercussions way beyond the people who perpetuate it.  I guess having the Pope, the President of the United States, and the United States Secretary of Defense telling the church there would be harsh repercussions wasn't good enough.  A lot of comments I have seen have defended this action as free speech, but as I said in the September blog, I don't think this measures up as protected speech.  It's fine to have an opinion, but when your opinion will cause the death of innocents abroad, then you should think long and hard about whether your expression is worth the results. Which is why screaming "fire" in a crowded theater isn't protected speech.  People are saying "Don't blame the pastor – blame the Muslims who did the murder."  I agree with half of this.  The Muslims, of course, bear ultimate responsibility for the deaths, but this is like saying, "Don't blame the guy who screamed 'fire', blame the idiots who stampeded because of it."  If I had it my way, the church would be held criminally accountable. 

While I knew what the reaction would be, and do hold the church at least partially responsible, the actions in Afghanistan also hit squarely on the Islamophobia blog I wrote in October.  Can the Council on American-Islamic Relations really wonder why the average American is skittish about Islam?  Come on.  Someone burns the Quran and riots erupt throughout the Afghanistan/Pakistan region?  A Danish newspaper publishes an unflattering picture of Mohammed and embassies all over the world are attacked?  Am I the only one who thinks the reaction is a little on the extreme side?  This is just one more clown suit in the closet.  Do I really want a neighbor who might lose his mind the next time he opens the Op/Ed page?  I'm being facetious, of course, but I can certainly see why Joe Six-pack is concerned.  If CAIR really wants to stamp out such thoughts, the road leads through their own religion, not through supposed narrow minded Americans.  They should work to foster understanding of the concepts of free speech in their own constituents instead of spending all of their time trying to justify what the average person sees on the news.  I support peaceful coexistence 100 percent, but the operative letters are CO-existence, as in two parties.  If I'm required to understand what you hold dear, you are just as required to understand the principles under which I live, and we as a collective western society hold dear.

The Libyan Conundrum, Part II: What now?

I guess my blog isn't as well read as it should be, since everyone involved in the attack against Libya is acting surprised at the initial results.  The Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone without realizing it meant attacking Libya, and the Obama administration is desperately trying to keep from choosing sides when the coalition in the fight has already chosen.

Today the Arab League, after watching 112 tomahawk cruise missiles slam into Libya, started getting a little antsy, saying, "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians."

What the hell did they think was going to happen?  We'd simply tell Ghadafi not to fly anywhere?   So now they're re-thinking their support for the whole endeavor, which will definitely make us look like crusading marauders if they pull out.  Then what will we do?  Continue to strike?  Or tell Ghadafi, "Sorry about that.  It's your show now". 

Well, I guess that really depends on what Operation Odyssey Dawn's end state is supposed to be.  Does anyone know?  In a valiant attempt at staying neutral, the Obama administration has stated that the sole purpose of the military action is to keep Ghadafi from harming civilians.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has even stated that the entire thing could end in a quagmire stalemate, with Ghadafi still in power.  Senator Kerry went further, saying that removing Ghadafi wasn't "licensed" by the UN (like we went to the UN for permission to sell beer), and thus is not the objective.  Is that what we wanted?  A perpetual no-fly zone for the foreseeable future?  Do we want the eastern part of Libya to become an autonomous region, a la Kurdistan, with coalition air power protecting them in perpetuity?  Not if you talk to our valued coalition partners, France and Britain, who unequivocally stated that the objective is Ghadafi's removal,and apparently have started targeting Ghadafi's residences with missile strikes.  So which is it? Secure the civilian population or remove Ghadafi?  I don't think even the members of the coalition know.

How is this is going to play out?  Let's say the Arab League pulls its support.  Will the United States continue to back the coalition, with a stated goal of removing Ghadafi – after we said that wasn't an objective?   What do we do if he throws up his hands and says "You win…Unilateral ceasefire from me"?  Are we going to start offensively hitting targets?  In effect, becoming the air support for the rebel forces?  If so, how is the U.S. going to do that, when it has overtly stated that it only wants to remain for a few days, and has no interest whatsoever in introducing ground troops.  Just what the hell does the United States expect from this action, beyond the stated goal of "not letting Libyan air power fly"?  That's not a policy goal, it's a tactical measure.  This half way, want to throw some missiles but don't have the stomach for the fight, crap is precisely what we did in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, and it got the U.S. nowhere.

This 'adventure' into Libya is one of the most ill-conceived, poorly coordinated efforts that has ever come out of the United Nations, a body famous for ill-conceived, poorly-coordinated policy.  Especially when other leaders in the region are committing the same type of atrocities, such as Saleh, the president of Yemen, who just killed 56 civilians with sniper fire.  Are we going to attack Yemen next?  While France and others are screaming for Ghadafi's removal, I haven't heard a single statement about whom or what sort of government would replace him.  Does anyone have any idea at all?  Does anyone care?

One thing's for sure – I was wrong about the Obama administration understanding we can't simply walk away after causing Ghadafi's fall.  Apparently we can – and will.

The Libyan Conundrum, Part II: What now?

I guess my blog isn't as well read as it should be, since everyone involved in the attack against Libya is acting surprised at the initial results.  The Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone without realizing it meant attacking Libya, and the Obama administration is desperately trying to keep from choosing sides when the coalition in the fight has already chosen.

Today the Arab League, after watching 112 tomahawk cruise missiles slam into Libya, started getting a little antsy, saying, "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians."

What the hell did they think was going to happen?  We'd simply tell Ghadafi not to fly anywhere?   So now they're re-thinking their support for the whole endeavor, which will definitely make us look like crusading marauders if they pull out.  Then what will we do?  Continue to strike?  Or tell Ghadafi, "Sorry about that.  It's your show now". 

Well, I guess that really depends on what Operation Odyssey Dawn's end state is supposed to be.  Does anyone know?  In a valiant attempt at staying neutral, the Obama administration has stated that the sole purpose of the military action is to keep Ghadafi from harming civilians.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has even stated that the entire thing could end in a quagmire stalemate, with Ghadafi still in power.  Senator Kerry went further, saying that removing Ghadafi wasn't "licensed" by the UN (like we went to the UN for permission to sell beer), and thus is not the objective.  Is that what we wanted?  A perpetual no-fly zone for the foreseeable future?  Do we want the eastern part of Libya to become an autonomous region, a la Kurdistan, with coalition air power protecting them in perpetuity?  Not if you talk to our valued coalition partners, France and Britain, who unequivocally stated that the objective is Ghadafi's removal, and apparently have started targeting Ghadafi's residences with missile strikes.  So which is it? Secure the civilian population or remove Ghadafi?  I don't think even the members of the coalition know.

How is this is going to play out?  Let's say the Arab League pulls its support.  Will the United States continue to back the coalition, with a stated goal of removing Ghadafi – after we said that wasn't an objective?   What do we do if he throws up his hands and says "You win…Unilateral ceasefire from me"?  Are we going to start offensively hitting targets?  In effect, becoming the air support for the rebel forces?  If so, how is the U.S. going to do that, when it has overtly stated that it only wants to remain for a few days, and has no interest whatsoever in introducing ground troops.  Just what the hell does the United States expect from this action, beyond the stated goal of "not letting Libyan air power fly"?  That's not a policy goal, it's a tactical measure.  This half way, want to throw some missiles but don't have the stomach for the fight, crap is precisely what we did in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, and it got the U.S. nowhere.

This 'adventure' into Libya is one of the most ill-conceived, poorly coordinated efforts that has ever come out of the United Nations, a body famous for ill-conceived, poorly-coordinated policy.  Especially when other leaders in the region are committing the same types of atrocities, such as Saleh, the president of Yemen, who just killed 56 civilians with sniper fire.  Are we going to attack Yemen next?  While France and others are screaming for Ghadafi's removal, I haven't heard a single statement about whom or what sort of government would replace him.  Does anyone have any idea at all?  Does anyone care?

One thing's for sure – I was wrong about the Obama administration understanding we can't simply walk away after causing Ghadafi's fall.  Apparently we can – and will.

The Libyan Conundrum

On March 10, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was castigated for stating that Moammar Gadhafi's regime, if left to its own devices, would eventually prevail.   Clapper has made some ridiculous statements in the past, but this isn't one of them.  Only in Washington would telling the truth be deemed irresponsible.   Fast forward to today, and Gadhafi has retaken critical cities and an oil refinery lost to the rebels, and shows no signs of backing down.  Looks like Clapper was right on this one.

During my book tour a few weeks ago, I was asked what I thought would happen in Libya.  I predicted that within five days Gadhafi would flee, most likely to Venezuela.  At the time, I knew he had two choices:  1) run like a scalded ape and take all the money he could with him, or 2) fight back.  Historically, despots like Ghadafi have chosen option two.  In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood took over the town of Hama in Syria, proclaiming it an "Islamic state".  Assad the elder solved that problem by obliterating the entire city, killing upwards of 40,000 people.  Needless to say, Syria didn't have a Muslim Brotherhood problem after that.  I figured Ghadafi would want to choose option two, but given events in Tunisia, Egypt, and the unrest elsewhere, odds were that he'd run.  I was wrong – and so was the Obama administration.  President Obama, like me, sensed Ghadafi's inevitable defeat, and decided to overtly state he must go.  Then Ghadafi chose option two, which has put the US in a quandary, and is exactly why nobody liked Clapper's statement.  It didn't jive with what they wanted to believe. 

We've been in this situation many times in the past, wanting a specific outcome, but unable to predict if we can control the fallout.  People are now clamoring for a no-fly zone, but it's instructive to remember the genesis of that term, because it's eerily similar to today's Libya discussion.    

In 1991, we defeated Saddam Hussein in Desert Storm.  One of the principle reasons we didn't drive on to Baghdad was that we couldn't predict what would happen in Hussein's absence.  The country might fragment into a cesspool of competing violence between Shia, Sunni, and Kurd – leading to a long-term U.S. commitment.  Emotionally, we wanted him gone, but pragmatically, we couldn't control the fallout, so we let him stay.  Even so, President Bush senior called for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam.  They complied, thinking we would help.  We did nothing, and they were slaughtered.  Finally, after getting pummeled for days, the United States was shamed into stepping in and creating a "no-fly" zone to prevent Saddam from using his air platforms. 

Now, people are proclaiming we should do the same with Ghadafi without, I believe, looking past his removal to the fallout beyond.  Make no mistake; if we implement a no-fly zone, two things will happen:

1)      We will have attacked a sovereign country, with all the baggage that implies.  We will have to destroy or dismantle all of Libya's anti-aircraft measures, which will mean real bombs, real death and destruction. 

2)      We will be choosing sides.  I find it humorous when someone says we're doing it for humanitarian reasons.  Even the Arab League, which just asked the United Nations for a no-fly zone, stated they only want it in place for as long as it takes to resolve the situation.  Read between those lines.  Do they mean we'll keep it in place until either Ghadafi or the rebels win?  Of course not.  They mean it will stay in place until the rebel's win.  The rebel's themselves say, "We don't want foreign intervention, all we want is an air exclusion zone and our boys will do the rest".

So, no matter what happens, we'll be seen as siding with the rebels for the sole purpose of overthrowing Ghadafi.  The biggest risk with this is being viewed as imperial crusaders and engendering hatred in the Arab world.  Yeah, the Arab League has called for action, but that may or may not translate when the only thing flying is western jets.  Which is likely a primary reason Secretary of Defense Gates is leery of overt action.  Even with Arab league backing, there will be repercussions.  As an example, here's a comment a reader made about the story on the no-fly zone from al arabiya, an Arabic news agency:    "…now they want that the NATO Christian military alliance to kill Muslim on the pretext of protecting civilians. One has to be crazy to support this wacky proposition."  Or this one on the same story:  "Here's the real deal about USreali (stet) expansion to dominate Africa as well as entire 'middle east' in its world war for global domination."  The Arab League proposal is a large step forward, but not a panacea.

How about something covert (yes, true covert action)?  We could supply the rebels with intelligence, training, lethal and non-lethal aid.  Then, maybe they can overtake Ghadafi without apparent U.S. help, getting the U.S what it wants, without the repercussions.  The vaunted Special Air Service and MI6 of the United Kingdom attempted this very thing on March 3rd, launching a covert team into Libya.  They were "arrested" by the rebels and expelled.  Really.   

And therein lies the rub.  The problem with doing anything at all in Libya is that we cannot predict what the rebels truly want – or even if there is a unified rebel command.  People state that getting rid of Ghadafi is the answer, but that's only part of the equation.  What comes after will be the true test, and we can't accurately predict what that will be.  Today a top ranking Libyan commander of al Qaida, currently serving in Afghanistan, has called for Islamic rule in Libya.  Who knows how many of the rebels side with him. 

It's not enough to simply oust one bad guy, no matter how much that would make us feel good.  An alternative must be in place before the removal.   History has shown us plenty of "revolutions" for the greater good that ended in disaster.  France had one and got the Reign of Terror.  Russia overthrew the Tsar, and Stalin was the result.  We created a coup in Guatemala in 1953 to prevent a communist takeover, and engendered a thirty-six year civil war, with countless dead civilians.  More to the point, the last revolution in the Middle East was Iran.  I think we can agree that didn't turn out so great for the west. 

Gates has been castigated recently for saying a no-fly zone would potentially cause us to enter into a third war in the Middle East.  He's ridiculed by people looking at half the equation, thinking our involvement will end when Ghadafi is gone.  He knows it's more, and that just getting Ghadafi out doesn't mean victory.  Once again, he's telling a hard truth that most don't want to hear.   If the U.S. chooses sides it needs to be prepared to deal with the fallout.  The U.S. can't just walk away like we did in Afghanistan in the '80s after the Soviets left.  Well, we could, but that would be foolish.  Something the administration understands.  Which leads us back to the original question: do we choose sides or not? 

I don't envy the person making the decision, because the repercussions will reverberate for our lifetime.

Covert Action and Special Operations: Fact and Fantasy

In 2009, right after I finished One Rough Man, legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh claimed that George W. Bush had run an "executive assassination ring" reporting directly to Dick Cheney, which might be continuing to this day under a new administration.  I couldn't believe it.  The story sounded remarkably like the fictional unit I'd created for my novel.  Given my background, I suppose what I should do is wink and nod, neither confirming nor denying his allegations.  After all, that would be the best for book sales.  "No, the book is fiction," wink, "and I can't really talk about what I did…"  What I'm going to do instead is show just how false his reporting is, because it does a disservice to everyone who wears the uniform, and it breeds distrust in both our population and our government.  Hersh dropped his bombshell at an engagement with Walter Mondale at the University of Minnesota.  Speaking with "great confidence", he said, in part,

"Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.  That's been going on, in the name of all of us.  It's complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder.  It's a very complicated issue.  Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces.  The Delta Forces you've heard about.  Navy Seal teams.  Highly specialized."

I've already shown in my last blog, Lethal Truth, that self defense isn't assassination – or murder – but what about this?  Are special operations forces running around the world conducting covert operations without any oversight?

In a word, no.  Not only does it not happen, it would be just about impossible for it to happen, even if the president wanted such an organization.  The story doesn't surprise me, though, since it isn't the first time I've run afoul of Hersh's "reporting".

On October 19, 2001, a special operations force conducted the first ground combat action inside Afghanistan.  Shortly thereafter, Hersh wrote an article entitled "Escape and Evasion" published in the New Yorker, claiming that the entire mission was a fiasco and the forces involved were boiling mad about the Pentagon's "mismanagement".  Having a passing familiarity with that operation, I can state unequivocally that the only two accurate items in the story were the fact that Americans were involved and the country was Afghanistan.  The rest is absolute fantasy.  What wasn't fantasy was the number of people in DC who chose to believe Hersh instead of the military chain of command. 

Since then, Hersh has made a cottage industry of slamming special operations forces, making all sorts of outrageous claims that generate a plethora of blogs, like this one.  These bloggers are convinced that U.S. Special Forces are running all over the globe breaking the law, when the bloggers don't even know which U.S. law they're discussing.  Instead of getting into a he-said/she-said debate, since I could be viewed as simply putting out propaganda, I think it would be instructive to discuss the authorities inherent in United States law that allow our forces to conduct operations.  Not conjecture or hyperbole–fact. 

Mention the term "covert", and one usually thinks about something secret, which is generally how the press uses the term.  They think that the Department of Defense is conducting a "covert operation" if it secretly sends a team to a foreign country to train their military.  Or the CIA is conducting "covert action" when case officers secretly recruit spies in a foreign country.  Legally, neither one of these are covert, regardless of how secret they are.  Unlike "assassination", the term "covert action" is spelled out in our laws, with a distinct meaning – and distinct legal ramifications. 

The same committees that looked into assassination in the 1970s also looked into other intelligence community activities like the Bay of Pigs.  Unlike assassination, they did manage to pass legislation on the matter, which has morphed through the years.  In 1991, as a result of the Iran-Contra scandal, covert action was finally codified in Title 50 of United States Code, the section that regulates Intelligence Activities:

"an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly."

If you look closely, you'll see the definition has two parts:  1. US participation will not be acknowledged, and 2. The operation affects large, state systems.  The "economic, political or military conditions abroad." 

That's the legal framework, and no matter what the NY Times or Seymour Hersh reports, simply saying the military is conducting covert action doesn't make it so.  While many in the media attempt to re-define what the statute means, using dictionary definitions or their own beliefs, the intent of the law, like all laws, is delineated by the very actions which spawned its creation:  attempts to alter democratic elections in Chile, arming Contra opposition groups in Nicaragua, lethal aid to insurgents against the communist government of Angola, and supporting the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.  All were efforts at affecting a government hostile to United States interests. 

Thus, if the military – or the CIA for that matter – were to capture a terrorist overseas, and that terrorist were simply living there, without any connection to the state, his removal would not be a covert action, regardless of whether the US acknowledged his capture or not.  In no way would his removal affect the military, economic, or political conditions abroad.  This isn't to say the action would be perfectly legal.  Just that it's not an illegal breach of Title 50, which is where the press spends their time.  On the other hand, if this terrorist were also acting as the finance minister of the country, it would fall under the legal definition.  His removal would alter the political and economic conditions in that country – regardless of the intent.  The unintended repercussions fall within the greater definition of the law. 

Title 50 goes further, not only describing what covert action is, but also what it is not.  Specifically excluded in the statute are:

"Activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence…"
"Traditional… military activities or routine support to such activities."

Read that closely:  traditional military activities, by law, are not covert action.  But what does that mean?  Unfortunately, like assassination, the term wasn't defined.  What is a traditional military activity?  Is it the method, or the intent?  For instance, in preparation for an upcoming operation, is a soldier in civilian clothes, who's renting warehouses and trucks in a foreign city – without stating he works for the U.S. government – doing a traditional military activity?  Some would say no, he's acting like a spy and thus subject to Title 50.  I'd say the opposite.  His methods have changed, but his intent has not.  He's doing the same thing his uniformed counterpart is doing in Kuwait when he sets up tents and mess halls – infrastructure support.  To use the method to describe what is or is not an intelligence activity is to ask for an infinite list of what those methods are, and that, in and of itself creates friction. 

Say a U.S. embassy has been taken over by terrorists, and the only way for the military rescue force to glean intelligence is by posing as a telephone repair crew.  Have they now crossed the line into "covert action", and started breaking the law embodied in Title 50?  Of course not.  But wait?  Why not?  They're using the same methods as the other example. It's not a trivial discussion, because if it is a covert activity, there are specific regulatory requirements.

If the executive branch determines a covert action is necessary, Title 50 dictates that the President must present, in writing, what's known as a finding to the house and senate intelligence committees, before the activity.  This finding must spell out the foreign policy objective to be obtained, and the method of accomplishment.  It also stipulates that the finding cannot violate the constitution or any statute of the United States.  It's important to note that congress has no approval authority over the finding.  They can't say no.  The law simply states they must be informed.  Even so, the requirement is potent, as no covert action has continued in the absence of congressional support.  Every covert action has inherent risks, and no president wants to be standing alone if it ends up a debacle.

This finding requirement is what has led many to report that President Bush, and now President Obama, have decided to use the military for covert action because they aren't part of the intelligence community, and thus not regulated by Title 50.  It's a way to circumvent US law.  They are wrong.  The military can conduct covert action, but if they do, they fall under the same proscriptions as the CIA.  The law is based on the activity, not the organization.  A finding must be presented, and congress must be continually updated as to the status of the activity.  The key, though, is the definition embodied in the law itself.  Are activities against terrorism as currently conducted "covert action" as defined by Title 50?  Both Bush and Obama clearly think not.  They're simply military activities not affecting the political, military, or economic conditions abroad, and thus not subject to congressional oversight.  One can argue they should be, but it's impossible to argue that current law is being circumvented or broken.  In fact, the definition embodied in Title 50 has been looked at by lawmakers since 9/11, and been upheld.  In the 2004 intelligence authorization law, conferees reaffirmed the "functional definition of covert action".

If they're not breaking the law embodied by Title 50, are they breaking other laws or directives?  Hersh alleges there's at least one element that, "is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently.  They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office.  They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him…" 

Wow.  Sounds like a kickass Mission Impossible force, but does it really exist? 

Hell no.  The very notion is ridiculous.  Like the intelligence community, the military falls under United States Code, this time Title 10, which dictates what the military can and can't do.  Inherent in Title 10 is the concept of a chain of command.  JSOC, and every element within it, falls within that chain of command.  The notion that any military element would not answer to the joint chiefs or the secretary of defense is flat out ludicrous. 

In order for any military element to deploy anywhere outside of the United States, a thing called a deployment order – or DEPORD – is written.  It doesn't matter if it's a single doctor flying to a natural disaster, or a team of commandos on a super-secret mission, you're not leaving US soil without a DEPORD.  And that document is signed by the Secretary of Defense. Every Air Force aircraft, every Navy boat, and every infantry battalion that leaves the continental United States does so under a DEPORD signed by the SECDEF.  Every single one.  And that includes every Special Forces team, troop, battalion or squadron.   That's just the way it is.  I don't care how top secret you think you are – and I've seen the tippy-top – you'll go nowhere until the DEPORD is approved. 

This notion of direct reporting, outside the chain of command, shows a complete lack of understanding about what would be required to accomplish the very mission Hersh alleges.  Before getting to that, though, the first question would be "why?"  Why would such an organization be created?  So nobody could "see" what they were doing?  Okay, just for a second, let's assume that the commander in chief decided that his vice president alone knew better than anyone else about what military action was necessary around the globe, and also knew that the entire defense establishment disagreed with this assessment (this would have to be the case or there wouldn't be any reason to hide the mission from the chain of command).

Given that stretch of the imagination, how is this little assassination cell capable of conducting the mission in the absence of the support from the intelligence community and greater DoD?  How are they going to find targets?  Who's giving them intelligence?  A super-secret intelligence battalion that also reports to the VP?  Who's creating the infrastructure necessary in the targeted country?  A super-secret logistics unit?  How are they getting there?  Air Force One?  How are they getting weapons, communications equipment, and everything else needed into the country?  How are they extracting the terrorist after capture?  Oh, wait, that's right, we simply kill them, because we get promoted based on body counts.  I forgot we were talking about fantasy.  Well, anyway, all of the other actions require robust support, and all of that support, unless also "reporting directly to the vice president" would require a DEPORD to deploy – signed by the SECDEF.  And he's not given to signing blank checks.  He'd want to know why the unit had to deploy.  The truth is that we have a system in place, and the system works.  Trust me, it's frustrating as hell when operating within it, but it's built for a reason.  While we might have grumbled about it, we understood it.  And supported it.

This would all just be semantics if everyone within the US Government understood how such operations are executed under United States law, but they don't, and, unfortunately, that gap in knowledge is filled by articles such as Hersh's.  My old world was secret out of necessity, but it wasn't evil or subversive.  Articles such as Hersh's feed the flame of conspiracy, and directly affect United States national security.  In the first example, about the mission in Afghanistan, members of congress actually demanded to know "what really happened."  This, after getting the classified after-action review.  No matter how much they were briefed, there was a sneaking suspicion that something was being hidden.  Such doubts are harmful in a system where military power is controlled by civilian authorities.  The civilians need to trust in the advice and reporting of their military members.  Hersh's gross distortions short circuit that faith, with concrete repercussions. 

When Hersh alleges that military forces are executing operations inside foreign countries without coordinating with the CIA or the Ambassador of that country, it's more than simply words on a page.  It literally affects ongoing operations, because the ambassador believes it. 

The ambassador is the president's personal representative in a given country.  He is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the president.  (This once again begs the question: If the president wanted to conduct an operation in a foreign country, why would he need to keep it secret from the ambassador?  Why not just call him on the phone and tell him to facilitate, or get his ass home?)  The ambassador outranks any military person who comes to his domain.  When he talks, he's speaking for the President of the United States.  He is the ultimate arbitrator of United States policy in the country.

Because of this, far from trying to do any secret missions outside the purview of the president's personal representative, the military goes out of its way to ensure the ambassador, and by extension, the chief of station, are informed of all actions.  Unfortunately, because the ambassador is no more witting of my world than people like Hersh, he chooses to believe that the press is telling the truth – and by extension, I'm telling a lie. 

There have been several instances where special operations forces on benign training missions have been denied country clearance by an ambassador with no reason given.  At other times, the force was allowed in, briefed the ambassador, and then received a cold stare and the question, "What are you really going to do here?"  You wonder why so many counter-terrorist actions occur in Somalia?  It's simple:  There's no ambassador there to tell the Department of Defense no.

I'm all about exposing illegal, evil secret assassination squads, but allegations alone, without a trace of proof, do nothing but seed distrust throughout our government and our population.  And that distrust directly harms the United States, actively thwarting the very coordination process the military works hard to achieve.

I guess Seymour Hersh could say I'm just spouting the party line, and there's really no way I can prove him wrong – because I can't prove a negative.  On the other hand, other than allegations, there's no proof from him that any of this occurred.  You'd think there'd be something.  Last year a leader of Hamas was killed in Dubai, most likely by Mossad.  One targeted killing made world-wide news for weeks.  If Hersh's allegations are true, where are all of the dead guys killed by the Bush "assassination" team?  Why hasn't there been a single story on a killing – anywhere?  Especially if it's still ongoing?

It must be because the world-wide press reports to the White House as well.

Lethal Truth

We're one month from the book launch, and in the three years since I started writing my novel about a fictional counter-terrorist unit called the Taskforce, I've been amazed at the number of news stories that have basically stated  a unit like the one I've created really exists.  They've asserted that the CIA has "assassination squads" planning to kill terrorists without any congressional oversight, in defiance of the assassination ban in Executive Order 12333.  That Special Forces have been running amok in foreign lands, ignoring all aspects of international law.  Even the  Phoenix Program from Vietnam is alive and well, with killing going on that rivals the Mexican drug war, all done in secret by shadowy hit teams.  No less than Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, has broken a story that Special Mission Units of the Department of Defense have been working as an "Executive Assassination Ring" that reports directly to the vice president of the United States.  He claims these teams are entering countries and "assassinating" terrorists without any coordination with the Department of State or the CIA, much less the country in question. 

I'll get to Hersh's inflammatory allegations in a separate blog, but before I do, I'd like to set the parameters of the discussion.  All of those actions could have occurred –although they didn't – but are they assassination?  What does that term really mean?  If in fact there were some sort of "24 – Jack Bauer" conspiracy going on, would it be illegal assassination?  I'm not trying to parse words to prove that Seymour Hersh is wrong just because he used the wrong term.  I'll get to him, but even if Hersh were correct and the claims he's made were valid is what he alleges illegal?  More precisely, is it assassination? 

It's not an easy question, really.  In fact, it's so hard to quantify that there is no recognized legal definition of the term.  Sure, the dictionary has one.  But there's no international definition – which means there's no international legal prohibition against it – and no codified United States definition.   Although there is a prohibition.

In November of 1975, the U.S. Senate investigated alleged U.S. assassination plots.  The committee, called the Church Committee, found U.S. involvement in five assassination attempts since 1960.  At the conclusion of the investigation, the committee recommended legislation banning assassination.  Although there were three different proposals placed before Congress, the legislation was never passed.

Seeing Congress was unwilling to act, President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11905, which read in part "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."  This prohibition is now embodied in Executive Order 12333, signed by every president since President Carter.  Unfortunately, the term assassination was not defined in the order (or anywhere else).  Some say this was done intentionally to allow leeway for action.  What has actually occurred is the opposite.  Anything smacking of assassination results in the operation's immediate termination.

Since nobody else will define it, I'll give it a go.  What does assassination really mean?  It's murder up front, but what else distinguishes it from other homicides?  The first thing that comes to mind when anyone hears the term is that the killer knew the person he or she was killing.  It wasn't random; you sought him or her out and killed them.  That's certainly an element, but can't be the total definition.  If it were, then almost every homicide that occurs is an assassination.  The only ones that aren't are random drive-bys and robberies gone wrong.  The truth is we already have a word for that.  It's murder, plain and simple. 

Assassination implies something more.  The murder was done for a purpose, beyond greed or a lover's quarrel.  So, at first blush, I'd say you need to specifically target an individual, but the targeting has to be for a greater purpose than your individual satisfaction. 

But is that enough?  Is the definition limited to that?  Suppose I'm in a tank platoon in World War II and I tell my men to focus all of their efforts at the tank with three antennae, because I know it's the company commander's vehicle.  I've singled out a man, knowing who he is, and it's for a greater purpose, namely the loss of command and control, giving me leverage in the battle.  Am I now an assassin?  Or what if I see my neighbor, whom I know, beating his wife to death and step in to stop it.  In the ensuing fight, I kill him.  Am I an assassin?   I think most everyone would say no.  Neither example is murder.  So something else is needed in the definition.  A killing that is not initiated to defensively protect someone from harm or offensively win a battle.  And that something is political. 

The term assassination implies a targeted killing for political purposes.  Which is why the Church Committee came about in the first place, namely because of US attempts at Castro and others.  They were political murders in the absence of overt hostilities, designed to engender a political solution which was favorable to the United States.  So where is the line drawn?  When is it political and when is it a conflict falling under the Law of War?  In the deliberations, the committee drew a line at self defense against a belligerent organization seeking to harm the United States.  The draft legislation read that assassination would be prohibited against a foreign country with which the United States was not at war pursuant to a declaration of war, or engaged in hostilities pursuant to the War Powers resolution.  Senator Church himself stated he was "not talking about Adolf Hitler or anything of that character."  In short, the genesis of the EO 12333 was not designed to prevent self defense.  It was designed to prevent  political murder – which, in and of itself is a detestable act and worthy of the executive order.  The term, and the prohibition, have a distinct definition that is not applicable to terrorists hell-bent on harming United States interests. 

To the point, assassination means more than murder, and less than the weight the press gives it.  In a legal piece that's better than most that I've read, Tyler J. Harder postulates that an assassination has three components:  1. An intentional killing.  2. Of a targeted person.  3. For political purposes. 

I think that's just about right. 

So, in the end, is killing a terrorist assassination?  Hell no.  It's just self defense.  There are no political ramifications in the act.  It's no different than killing a man in a recognized war-zone who's hell bent on killing you, personally.  The battlefield has changed, but the intent has not.  That's international law–which gives every sovereign state the right to self defense. 

Yeah, I'm a knuckle dragger and that's exactly what you would expect me to say, but respected jurists have been saying it since BEFORE 9-11.  Since 12333 was so contentious, and could have repercussions on soldiers in wartime (If I tell my men to kill the company commander, have I breached 12333, etc.) the Department of Defense did a review in 1989.  Yes, that's 1989.  In a Memorandum of Law, a remarkably short legal essay, Hays Parks distinctly showed that targeting anyone who's a combatant preparing to physically harm United States citizens or interests are fair game for targeting and does not break the proscriptions inherent in 12333.  Since 9/11, other legal scholars have echoed that opinion; namely, that self-defense isn't assassination, and thus not illegal. 

The confusion is so great that many have postulated that we should repeal 12333 to give us an edge in the war on terror – that the prohibition is tying our hands when we want to kill a terrorist before he harms the United States, because such killings cross the executive order.  Those people are wrong.  Assassination is political murder, and is wrong no matter what the justification.  In fact, as Tyler proves, it's already illegal.  Repeal isn't necessary simply because self defense is not assassination.  Period. 

Think about that the next time you see the term "assassination".  As soon as that word is used in a news story, you have a pejorative sense that something's wrong.  "Assassination" has a ring that "homicide" does not, but using the term, as so often is the case in the press, doesn't make it true.  Capturing or killing anyone out to harm the United States isn't assassination by any application of domestic or international law. 

On the other hand, how we go about the mission, especially as suggested by Seymour Hersh, could in fact be illegal.  I'll get to his allegations next.

Notes on the Church Committee came from the book "Regulatiing Covert Action" by Michael Reisman and James Baker, Yale Univ. Press, 1992.

American Christmas Spirit

With the holiday season upon us, I wanted to take a moment to highlight what makes the United States great:  The indomitable spirit of the average American.  Whether conquering the frontier or the beaches at Normandy, you can count on Americans to never give in.  Never quit.  Take this guy for instance—no matter what obstacles are placed in his way, or obstacles not in his way that he chooses to find, he will not stop on the way to his objective.  It's pure American can-do attitude at its finest. 

Okay, truth be told, with the holiday season upon us, coupled with consulting commitments, I haven't had time to write anything incisive.  I figured, what the heck, it's Christmas.  Throw out some humor.

I will say that this guy's frequent need to urinate, coupled with his  uncanny ability to take a head-strike, reminds me of someone I know, although I'm used to seeing him in a different uniform.  You know who you are. 

Check out the boyfriend who pile drives poor Santa, then yanks his girlfriend behind him like he's fleeing the hounds of hell.   True bravery at its finest. 

Notice that, no matter the indignity suffered, Santa carefully places his hat back on his head.  He truly cares about the image he's presenting and understands the gravity of his job.  I only regret that there wasn't a camera available when the elevator doors opened at the top to display Santa's bare butt-cheeks to a throng of shoppers on the mall's upper levels.

I'm looking forward to the real Santa Claus showing up at my house.  In the meantime, I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas!