W. Thomas Smith Jr. : Beyond the DropZone : World Defense Review of military affairs and foreign policy news

BEYOND THE DROPZONE

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 3 May 2009 at 5:07 pm UTC

In a May 2 article (published in the New York Post and elsewhere), Kenneth Bandler, communications director for the American Jewish Committee, writes, “The case of ‘Hizballah’s man in New York’ offers a compelling glimpse into the expansive world of 21st-century terrorism, where democratic free-speech rights are exploited by terror groups as part of their war against the West.”

Hizballah’s “man in New York,” as Bandler is referring to, is convicted terrorist-enabler Javed Iqbal, who is presently serving a six year prison sentence after having pled “guilty to aiding terrorists through his activity in America” in December 2008.

Iqbal, based in Brooklyn, was being paid to help facilitate the broadcasting of Al Manar, Hizballah’s satellite-television network.

We know Al Manar has satellite-subscribers estimated in the tens-to-hundreds of millions (numbers vary widely from one source to the next). Al Manar was at one time being broadcast over much of Europe, Africa, and the Far East until the U.S. government and others shut down much of its overseas operations. And the U.S. government listed Al Manar a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity” in March 2006.

The problem is Hizballah has deep pockets: The terrorist group is heavily funded by Iran, and operationally supported by Iran and Syria. And for some reason – which continues to confound and frustrate the pro-democracy World Council of the Cedars Revolution – far too-many Western journalists are putting their heads in the sand regarding several dark albeit glaringly obvious realities about Hizballah beyond its satellite TV operations:

First – and though a no-brainer, sometimes we need to be reminded – Hizballah is a bloody organization: As Bandler points out: “Hizballah’s raison d’etre is to further Iran’s radical Islamist agenda through violence.” Hizballah is responsible for murdering more Americans than any other terrorist organization prior to 9/11, including the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Former U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says, Hizballah “makes al Qaeda look like a minor league team.” And retired British Army Col. Richard Kemp, terrorism advisor to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, says, “Hizballah is probably the world’s most effective terrorist organization, and that includes Al Qaeda.”

Second, powerful political concessions were granted Hizballah after the group (and its allies like Amal, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and others) turned their weapons on the Lebanese government and innocent men, women, and children in May 2008.

For its bloody behavior, Hizballah was granted veto power over Lebanese government decisions, additional cabinet seats, permission to keep its previously covert telecommunications system operational, and so much more. Yet for some bizarre reason, world leaders seemed to tip their hats at Hizballah’s strategic gains (after Hizballah’s burning and killing spree to achieve those gains) as some sort of just and equitable step in the right direction for Lebanon.

Moreover, in Lebanon’s present corrupt political environment, Hizballah and its cronies stand a good chance of winning the most parliamentary seats in next month’s elections, slated for June 7. Keep in mind Hizballah is the only so-called political party (that’s how the group likes to present itself) in possession of huge stockpiles of military grade weapons staged all over the country. The possession of those weapons is not being challenged, which violates both United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701.

Hizballah sympathizers and apologists – as well as corrupt journalists and others who pretend to be opposed to Hizballah (typical propaganda ploy), but who deceptively downplay the group’s strength and activities – continue to soft-soap Hizballah. Hizballah has been directly involved – both financially and operationally – in terrorist attacks or in support of terrorist operations on five continents.

Worse, for Americans: There are Hizballah cells and supporters currently operating throughout the Western Hemisphere, and our sources are telling us there are many more Javed Iqbals where he came from. As Bandler concludes, “Iqbal’s sentencing for aiding Hizballah sets a precedent, but he is only one individual in a single locale. Vigilance will be essential to prevent other satellite providers from willingly or naively aiding Hizballah in America.”

But a deeper vigilance – beyond just who’s broadcasting what – as well as proactive counterterrorism measures are essential to shutting down this heavily funded and increasingly politically leveraged terrorist group. Hizballah is operating asymmetrically, expanding globally, and will stop at nothing to achieve its objectives. Meanwhile, the rest of the world (much of it in denial or confused by Hizballah propaganda) is just watching, waiting, and hoping for the best.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Military Milestones from the female Paul Revere to Nixon’s Drive into Cambodia

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 29 April 2009 at 4:37 pm UTC

This Week in American Military History:

Apr. 26, 1777: Just after 9:00 p.m., 16-year-old Sybil (also Sibbell) Ludington – “the female Paul Revere” – begins her 40-mile, all-night ride (much of it in the rain) across an isolated circuit of New York–Connecticut backcountry, warning villagers of a British attack on nearby Danbury, Connecticut.

The daughter of a militia colonel, Ludington will be recognized for her bravery and patriotism by Gen. George Washington.

Apr. 26, 1865: Just over two weeks after Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrenders his Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston surrenders the once-vaunted Army of Tennessee to U.S. Army Gen. William T. Sherman near Durham Station, N.C.

Apr. 27, 1805: Following an extremely difficult march across a 500-to-700-mile stretch of North African desert; U.S. Army officer and Naval agent to the Barbary regents William Eaton, U.S. Marine Lt. Presley Neville O’Bannon and seven American leathernecks – leading an unlikely and often near-mutinying Christian-Muslim army of Arabs, Western European adventurers, and Greek mercenaries – attack and seize the fortress at Derna commanded by the ruling pasha Yusuf Karamanli, on “the shores of Tripoli” (Yes, that’s where the line comes from in the Marine Corps Hymn.)

Supported by the offshore guns of USS Argus (the first of two so-named U.S. Navy vessels), USS Hornet (the third of eight so-named U.S. Navy vessels), and USS Nautilus (the first of six so-named U.S. Navy vessels), O’Bannon’s men storm the enemy’s works in fierce hand-to-hand fighting, turn the enemy’s guns on the pasha’s palace, and ultimately raise the stars and stripes over the “Old World” for the first time.

So-impressed with O’Bannon’s leadership and heroics, newly installed pasha Hamet Karamanli (Yusuf’s pro-American brother), will present O’Bannon with a Mameluke sword. U.S. Marine officers today still carry the Mameluke sword, whereas Marine NCOs carry the traditional Naval infantry saber.

Apr. 28, 1965: Almost 160 years to the day after the storming of Derna, U.S. Marines land in the Dominican Republic.

Apr. 30, 1798: The U.S. Navy Department – parent company of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps – is established.

Apr. 30, 1945: German leader Adolf Hitler and his new bride, Eva Braun, commit suicide in Hitler’s Berlin Bunker. German Army forces will surrender to the Allies within days.

Apr. 30, 1970: Pres. Richard M. Nixon announces, “In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border. … This is not an invasion of Cambodia. The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by North Vietnamese forces. Our purpose is not to occupy the areas. Once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries and once their military supplies are destroyed, we will withdraw.”

May. 1, 1898: The Battle of Manila Bay opens when U.S. Navy Commodore George Dewey utters his now-famous words, “You may fire when ready, Mr. Gridley [speaking to Capt. Charles Vernon Gridley, commanding Dewey’s flagship USS Olympia].”

Within a few hours, Dewey’s Asiatic Squadron – several cruisers including Olympia (the first of two so-named U.S. Navy vessels), gunboats, and supporting vessels – will destroy the Spanish fleet in the Philippines.

May. 1, 1960: Francis Gary Powers, a former U.S. Air Force officer now flying high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance aircraft for the CIA, is shot down over the Soviet Union and captured.

May. 2, 1863: During day-two of the Battle of Chancellorsville, Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s Confederates appear out of nowhere, smashing into Union Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker’s right flank and literally rolling up the encamped Federal force. But the Confederate victory proves bittersweet, as Jackson will be wounded – his left arm shattered – that night in a friendly fire incident during a leaders-recon mission.

Following the amputation of Jackson’s arm, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee will remark, “He has lost his left arm, but I have lost my right arm.” Worse for Lee, Jackson will develop pneumonia and die within eight days.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: “This Week in American Military History,” appears every week as a feature of HUMAN EVENTS.

Let’s increase awareness of American military tradition and honor America’s greatest heroes by supporting the Medal of Honor Society’s 2010 Convention to be held in Charleston, S.C., Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2010 (for more information, click here).

Official Dialogue with Terrorists?

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 8 March 2009 at 4:01 pm UTC

Former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey D. Feltman and Daniel Shapiro, a National Security Council senior director, met Sunday in Beirut with Lebanon’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani and Shia Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan: This after meeting with Syrian officials, Saturday.

A High-level meeting with any state-sponsor of terrorism is bad enough. But according to Naharnet – and I’ve yet to see it reported elsewhere – Qabalan not only “welcomed the U.S. administration’s steps to open dialogue with Syria,” but the senior Shia official called on the White House to “open communication channels with Hizballah and Hamas,” two of the world’s most infamous terrorist organizations.

Surely not.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Military Milestones from the Alamo to Mount Suribachi

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 24 February 2009 at 8:26 pm UTC

This Week in American Military History:

Feb. 22, 1909: One-hundred years ago today, Pres. Theodore Roosevelt’s “Great White Fleet” –a four-squadron armada of white-painted warships manned by some 14,000 sailors and Marines – returns to Hampton Roads, Virginia after sailing around the world in a grand show of American Naval power. According to the Naval Historical Center, an anonymous sailor may have said it best: “We just wanted to let the world know we were prepared for anything they wanted to kick up. We wanted to show the world what we could do.”

Feb. 22, 1967: The U.S. Army’s 173^rd Airborne Brigade conducts the first and only mass parachute jump of the Vietnam War. The jump is but one element of the much broader airborne (primarily heliborne assault) and infantry “search and destroy” operation, Junction City. The operation will continue through May.

Feb. 22, 1974: Lt. J.G. Barbara Ann Allen Rainey becomes the first female Naval aviator. In 1982, she will be killed in a crash while training a student pilot.

Feb. 23, 1778: Baron Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian Army officer – arguably the father of American drill instructors – arrives at Valley Forge with the task of whipping the Continental Army into shape.

Feb. 23, 1836: The advance elements of a 4,000-plus-man Mexican army under the command of Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna begin the siege of the isolated Texas Army garrison at the Alamo mission near (now part of present-day) San Antonio, Texas, during the Texas War of Independence.

The following day, South Carolina-born Lt. Col. William Barret Travis, the garrison commander, dispatches a letter “to the People of Texas and all the Americans in the World” a portion of which reads:

“… The enemy has demanded the surrender; at discretion, otherwise the garrison is to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the summons with cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. … I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible, and die like a soldier who never forfeits what is due to his own honor and that of his country. Victory or death!”

The Alamo’s approximately 200-man garrison – including Travis, Kentucky knife-fighter Col. Jim Bowie, and Tennessee’s legendary frontiersman and legislator Davy Crockett – will be wiped out nearly to a man when the Mexicans storm the mission on March 6. But the drama which plays out over the two-week period as well as the courage and against-all-hope tenacity of the Alamo’s little force, will make heroes of the defenders. And the battle will become as much a part of American military history and tradition as it is Texas lore.

Feb. 23, 1847: Eleven years after the Alamo – during the Mexican-American War – a Mexican army under Santa Anna launches a series of attacks against a numerically inferior U.S. Army force under the command of Gen. (and future president) Zachary Taylor near Buena Vista. Though Taylor is surprised and outnumbered (Santa Anna fielding at least 15,000 men to Taylor’s 4,800), the Americans – fighting on good defensible ground – are well-disciplined, and that combined with superbly employed artillery beat back the Mexicans who are forced to withdraw with heavy losses.

Feb. 23, 1945: After several days of savage fighting, U.S. Marines capture the summit of Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima.

Just after 10:30 a.m., a small flag is raised on Suribachi. But an officer orders a larger flag be hoisted so that it might be seen from the far end of the island. A large flag is found and brought back to the top.

Then, in what will become one of the most dramatic scenes of the war, five Marines and one Navy hospital corpsman raise the American flag over Iwo Jima. Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal captures the moment on film. Rosenthal will win the Pulitzer Prize for the picture, and the famous Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Virginia will be based on the same.

Only two of the five Marines will survive the battle. The sailor will be wounded.

Interestingly, the sailor – Petty Officer John “Doc” Bradley – is the man in the center of the picture, illustrating the extremely close bond between sailors and Marines in combat.

Feb. 24, 1813: The sloop-of-war USS Hornet (the third of eight so-named American warships) under the command of Capt. James Lawrence sinks the Royal Navy brig HMS Peacock in a swift action in which Peacock’s skipper, Capt. William Peake, is killed.

The following June, Lawrence also will be killed in action: His dying words becoming the famous American battle cry: “Don’t give up the ship!”

Feb 24, 1991: U.S. Army Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf gives his subordinate Army and Marine commanders the green light during Operation Desert Storm, and at 4:00 a.m. the lead elements of the enormous coalition ground force begin surging forward into Iraq and Kuwait aimed at ousting Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait.

Coalition forces having defeated the Iraqi Army in Kuwait and destroyed much of Hussein’s air and ground forces in Iraq, President George H.W. Bush will order a ceasefire on the 28^th. The 42-day “mother of all battles” (38 days for the initial air campaign and four days for the ground campaign) will end.

Feb. 25, 1779: Following an arduous campaign through freezing floodwaters, a joint American-French force under Virginia militia Lt. Col. George Rogers Clark captures British-held Fort Sackville at Vincennes in the Illinois backcountry.

Feb. 26, 1949: Lucky Lady II, a U.S. Air Force B-50 bomber flown by Capt. James Gallagher and his 13-man crew, begins the first leg of the first-ever nonstop flight around the world. The flight, requiring nearly four days and four in-flight refuelings, will be successful, and it will prove to the world that U.S. aircraft are capable of flying from their North American bases and striking any city on earth. But the flight will not be without loss. One of the refueling tankers will crash upon returning to the Philippines, killing the entire crew.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: “This Week in American Military History,” appears this week in WORLD DEFENSE REVIEW and every week as a feature of HUMAN EVENTS.

Let’s increase awareness of American military tradition and honor America’s greatest heroes by supporting the Medal of Honor Society’s 2010 Convention to be held in Charleston, S.C., Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2010 (for more information, click here).

America’s Lord Nelson to an Earth-orbiting Marine

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 17 February 2009 at 5:55 pm UTC

THIS WEEK IN AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY:

Feb. 15, 1898: A terrific explosion rips through the bow of USS Maine anchored in Havana Harbor, Cuba. Almost everyone in the forward third of the vessel is instantly killed. Black smoke and seawater begin pouring into the remaining spaces. The dying ship, its bulkheads groaning under the stress of collapse, is then rocked by a series of jarring secondary explosions. Capt. Charles Sigsbee, the Maine’s skipper, orders “Abandon ship!” Within minutes, 260 U.S. sailors and Marines are dead.

Convinced that the explosion (the cause of which is still being debated) is the result of a mine or the work of Spanish saboteurs, American newspapers will demand vengeance. America will soon be at war with Spain.

Maine is the first of three so-named American battleships and one submarine.

Feb 16, 1804: U.S. Navy Lt. (future commodore) Stephen Decatur sails a captured Tripolitan ketch he renames USS Intrepid into the harbor at Tripoli. There, Decatur and a volunteer force of sailors and Marines board the frigate USS Philadelphia (the second of six so-named American warships), which had been previously captured by Tripolitan pirates. After a brief but violent close-quarters struggle – in which several pirates but no Americans are killed – Decatur orders the Philadelphia burned.

In time, Decatur will be referred to as “America’s Lord Nelson,” an affectionate comparison to Britain’s legendary Admiral Horatio Nelson. In fact, when Nelson himself learns of Decatur’s action at Tripoli, he says it is “the most bold and daring act of the age.” And contemporary British historian John Keegan will describe Decatur as “the most dashing of the frigate captains whom the Corsair and 1812 Wars produced.”

Destined to be killed in a duel with fellow Naval officer Commodore James Barron in 1820, Decatur is author of the famous aphorism, “Our country, right or wrong.”

Decatur has had five American warships and numerous American towns and counties named in his honor.

Feb 16, 1945: American paratroopers – members of the U.S. Army’s famed 503^rd Regimental Combat Team – jump over the Philippines’ “fortress Corregidor” (also known as “the Rock”) in one of the most difficult airborne operations of the war. Jumping in relatively high winds, the paratroopers hit the ground hard, fighting Japanese soldiers who had been ordered to fight to the death. For the next 11 days, the Americans will root out the enemy (deeply burrowed in a labyrinth of caves and tunnels) and beat back multiple banzai attacks before wiping out almost all of the 6,500-man enemy garrison.

Feb. 17, 1864: The Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley – a pioneering vessel designed to help break the Union Navy’s blockade of Southern ports – sinks the Federal sloop-of-war USS Housatonic in Charleston (S.C.) harbor, becoming the first submarine in history to sink an enemy warship in action. It is a pyrrhic victory however: the submarine also sinking – either with its victim or soon after the attack – with the loss of all hands.

The submarine is named for its designer and builder, Tennessee-born engineer Horace Lawson Hunley, who incidentally was killed during one of the submarine’s test dives.

Feb. 17, 1865: Exactly one year to the day after Hunley’s famous attack in South Carolina waters, S.C.’s capital, Columbia – site of the first secession convention – falls to Union Army forces under the command of Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman. Columbia is subsequently burned. Both sides blame the other for the destruction of the city, fueling a controversy that continues into the 21^st century. Sherman will withdraw from Columbia within three days, and continue his march up through the Palmetto state. He will write in his memoirs, “Having utterly ruined Columbia, the right wing [of the army] began its march northward toward Winnsboro.”

Feb. 18, 1944: U.S. Marines land and quickly capture Engebi island, the first obstacle to seizing Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshalls. The following day, U.S. Army forces strike Eniwetok – a tougher fight – and soldiers and Marines seize the island in three days.

Feb. 19, 1945: One year after the Eniwetok landings, the first two of three dispatched U.S. Marine divisions begin hitting the beach on day-one of the epic battle for Iwo Jima (one of the great U.S. Marine Corps victories which we will expound on over the coming weeks). Described as “throwing human flesh against reinforced concrete,” the battle is best remembered by the dramatic photograph of the flag-raising on Mt. Suribachi and the 27 Medals of Honor awarded. But it will not be without great cost: Of the 21,000 Japanese diehards defending Iwo, some 20,800 will be killed. Almost 7,000 Marines will lose their lives. Another 26,000 will be wounded. Aside from Marine losses, a handful of casualties will be suffered among the ranks of U.S. Army, Navy, and Coast Guard personnel who also were there.

Feb. 20, 1944: U.S. Army Air Forces and Britain’s Royal Air Force begin Operation Argument – also known as “Big Week” – a massive thousand-plus bomber offensive (with all of the bombers’ supporting fighter aircraft) aimed at destroying the German Air Force in the air and the Luftwaffe manufacturing facilities on the ground in order to achieve irreversible air superiority before the Normandy landings. Allied losses will be high. German losses will be staggering.

Feb. 20, 1962: U.S. Marine Lt. Col. (future colonel) and two-war fighter pilot John H. Glenn Jr. becomes the first American to orbit Earth. Glenn orbits Earth three times in less than five hours in his spacecraft, Friendship 7.

Glenn will become a U.S. senator in 1974. In 1998, at the age of 77, he will return to space (becoming the oldest human in space) aboard Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-95) commanded and piloted respectively by U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonels Curtis L. Brown and Steven W. Lindsey.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: “This Week in American Military History,” appears this week in WORLD DEFENSE REVIEW and every week as a feature of HUMAN EVENTS.

HIZBALLAH GETS AWAY WITH MURDER, AGAIN

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 15 February 2009 at 6:30 pm UTC

Hizballah’s thugs are at it again – as they so-often are despite scant-if-any media coverage of their ongoing activities aimed at achieving complete political and military dominance over Lebanon, which is why their operations are so often successful in that country. And it is why their strategic/political leverage continues to strengthen unabated.

Saturday, members of the Shia terrorist organization and their allies reportedly attacked members of the pro-democracy March 14 movement whom – representing a majority in that country – were marching and speaking out against Hizballah’s leaders following a Beirut rally commemorating the 4^th anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Several March 14 members were injured; and one man, Lutfi Zein Eddine, was killed (reportedly stabbed multiple times as he attempted to shield his son, who was wounded in the attack).

According to sources, “Police watched from a distance and did not intervene.”

Naturally, Hizballah denies having any responsibility in the man’s death. They often do deny such things, and they get away with it. In fact they always get away with murder, and are even rewarded on those rare occasions that they do accept responsibility. Remember May 2008.

Some Lebanese media – to include some international correspondents – try to paint Hizballah as a somewhat misunderstood religious-based political party (with, ahem, military grade weapons). But Hizballah is clearly one of the most dangerous, expanding terrorist organizations on Earth. And nobody is permitted to speak out against Hizballah. Nor is any reporter to attempt to accurately report the strength and activities of Hizballah until Hizballah is ready – if ever – for those activities to be disclosed.

As we have exhaustively reported, Hizballah – the so-called “party of God,” which rules a Shia kingdom inside the sovereign state of Lebanon, and which gained enormous strategic/political leverage when they turned their so-called weapons of resistance against the Lebanese government and citizenry in May 2008 – is in the words of former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk, ”a premier terrorist organization. Beyond that, it has built up an independent military capability that is greater than the military capabilities of the Lebanese armed forces.”

Let’s recap what I have been reporting since 2007:

Hizballah is trained, equipped, and heavily financed (an estimated one-billion dollars annually) by Iran, and the organization is operationally supported by both Iran and Syria.
Hizballah is expanding its base, and the organization is increasing its global reach.
Hizballah has “conducted very large, spectacular” terrorist operations worldwide.
Hizballah has defiantly refused to surrender its arms in Lebanon as called for under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701.
Hizballah has demonstrated time-and-again since May 2008 that it has no qualms about overtly killing Lebanese civilians as a means of furthering the organization’s aims.
Hizballah has heavily infiltrated the Lebanese Army.
Hizballah, since May, has wormed its way into position as an official component of the overall Lebanese Defense apparatus.

Yesterday Hizballah’s attacks against those who would speak the truth resulted in Zein Eddine’s death. His son, Shadi, was treated in a hospital and released.

Our sources also tell us, members of the pro-democracy movement traveling toward northern Lebanon were attacked by Hizballah’s allies, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and others.

“The pro-democracy majority turned out in enormous numbers,” says Tom Harb, secretary general of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution. “They want 1559 implemented. They want justice for the killing of Hariri. But Hizballah and their allies keep trying to undermine democratic progress.”

Harb adds, “The current U.S. administration must understand the dangers of Hizballah and the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis. To rush into dialogue would be a huge mistake, because the terrorists and terrorist supporters will perceive themselves as having been granted greater leverage.”

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com

John Paul Jones’ Salute and Myron Harrington’s Marines

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 11 February 2009 at 12:50 pm UTC

THIS WEEK IN AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY:

Feb. 9, 1943: U.S. Adm. William F. “Bull” Halsey receives the following message from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Alexander M. “Sandy” Patch:

“Total and complete defeat of Japanese forces on Guadalcanal effected 1625 today . . . Am happy to report this kind of compliance with your orders . . . because Tokyo Express no longer has terminus on Guadalcanal.”

The campaign launched by U.S Marines and sailors in August 1942, and fought by Army, Navy, and Marine forces (and allies) over a six-month period, has resulted in the decisive defeat of Japanese forces on-and-near the island of Guadalcanal. The close of the campaign also ends the first major American offensive of World War II.

Feb. 10, 1763: The Treaty of Paris is signed ending the Seven Years War, known as the French and Indian War in the North American colonies. For America – militarily speaking – the war strengthens Great Britain’s territorial dominance and strategic supremacy in North America. The war also serves as the conflict prior to the American Revolution in which many future Continental Army commanders cut their teeth.

Feb. 10, 1962: In a dramatic Cold War prisoner swap between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers is exchanged for Soviet spy Rudolph Ivanovich Abel on the Glienecker Bridge between West Berlin and Potsdam in East Germany.

Powers is a former U.S. Air Force officer who had been flying U-2s for the CIA when he was shot down over the Soviet Union and captured in May 1960. Abel, a KGB colonel, had been arrested in New York in 1957 and convicted of espionage activities against the United States.

Feb. 12, 1955: Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower sends U.S. military advisors to South Vietnam.

Feb. 12, 1973: The first American prisoners of war are released from North Vietnamese captivity.

Feb. 13, 1861: U.S. Army Assistant Surgeon Bernard J. D. Irwin takes voluntary command of combat troops, leading an expedition to rescue some 60 men of the 7th Infantry who are trapped and surrounded by Apache Indian forces under Cochise. According to his citation: “Irwin and 14 men, not having horses began the 100-mile march riding mules. After fighting and capturing Indians, recovering stolen horses and cattle, he reached [2d Lt. George N.] Bascom’s column and help break his siege.”

Though the Medal of Honor does not yet exist, Irwin will receive the new decoration in 1894. And his actions at “Apache Pass” will prove to be the first in history for which the medal is awarded.

Feb. 13, 1945: USS Batfish (the first of two so-named American submarines) sinks her third Japanese submarine in four days.

Feb. 14, 1778: The Continental sloop-of-war Ranger (the first of 10 so-named American warships) under the command of Capt. John Paul Jones fires a 13-gun salute to French Adm. Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte’s fleet anchored in France’s Quiberon Bay. The French return the salute with nine guns. It is the first time America’s new flag – “the stars and stripes” – is officially recognized by a foreign power.

Feb. 14, 1814: The American frigate USS Constitution captures Lovely Ann, a British armed merchant vessel, and HMS Pictou, a Royal Navy schooner, within hours of each other.

Constitution (known affectionately as “Old Ironsides”) is the oldest ship in the American Navy. Launched in 1797, she serves today as a duly commissioned ship crewed by active-duty U.S. sailors and Naval officers in order to further public awareness of American Naval tradition.

Feb. 14, 1912: USS E-1 (SS-24), the U.S. Navy’s first diesel-powered submarine, is commissioned in Groton, Connecticut. The sub is skippered by an almost 27-year-old Lt. Chester W. Nimitz, destined to become the famous five-star fleet admiral of World War II.

Feb. 14, 1968: As the bloody Battle of Hue rages (part of the broader Vietnamese TET Offensive), Capt. Myron Harrington and his Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines prepare to assault the city’s Citadel with its commanding Dong Ba tower.

Harrington is ordered to attack, to which he responds simply, “aye aye, sir.” Harrington’s Marines take the tower and other objectives in fierce fighting. Harrington will receive the Navy Cross for “extraordinary heroism” in an action on the 23rd, and ultimately rise to the rank of colonel.

In a PBS documentary Harrington recalls:

“Throughout all of this, you constantly had this fear. Not so much that you were going to die, because I think to a certain degree that was a given. This was combined with the semi-darkness type of environment that we were fighting in because of the low overcast – the fact that we didn’t see the sun – gave it a very eerie, spooky look. You had this utter devastation all around you. You had this horrible smell. I mean you just cannot describe the smell of death especially when you’re looking at it a couple of weeks along. It’s horrible. It was there when you ate your rations. It was almost like you were eating death. You couldn’t escape it.”

AUTHOR’S NOTE: “This Week in American Military History,” appears this week in WORLD DEFENSE REVIEW and every week as a feature of HUMAN EVENTS.

Phares: Analysis of the Munich Conference on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 10 February 2009 at 6:58 pm UTC

Military analyst W. Thomas Smith Jr.’s ongoing conversations with international terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares

IN AN ARTICLE FOR HUMAN EVENTS, my friend and colleague Clare M. Lopez laments that the Obama administration is playing a game of international appeasement with terror-sponsoring, nearly nuclear Iran to sate the appetite of a segment of Obama’s political constituency. And they’re likely doing it at the expense of U.S. national security.

“An 8 February 2009 speech by Vice President Joe Biden (in Munich, of all places) did note U.S. readiness to take pre-emptive action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, but also repeated that the U.S. is open to talks,” writes Lopez, vice pres. of the Intelligence Summit and a former CIA operations officer. “This is what your mother always warned you against: mixed signals.”

Indeed, and as Bridget Kendall writing for the BBC says: “Many people want to believe that Barack Obama’s hopeful campaign message of change can somehow deliver a magic formula. But many have also noticed there was more mood music [at Munich] than concrete specifics.”

On the Munich table this year was Iran – How could it not be? – as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, the broader war on terrorism, and deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations.

As part of our ongoing series of conversations with international terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares, we examine this month’s conference.

W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Echoing Obama, Vice President Biden declared it was time to “press the reset button” in order to stem the tide of “a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance.” In your book, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, you dedicated an entire chapter to the necessity of a renewed Russian-American partnership against terrorism and jihadism in particular. Almost a week before Biden announces “a strategic rethinking” of these issues you pointed out on Russia Today TV that “the new call to U.S. intelligence to gather better information about Russia” may well turn to “ an enhancing” or thawing of these frozen relations. Do you agree with Biden’s new approach to the Europeans and the Russians?

DR. WALID PHARES: The strategic approach I outlined in my last book, The Confrontation, was part of a comprehensive new doctrine promoting the isolation of the terror forces –particularly the Jihadi networks – instead of what we are witnessing which is the great powers and democracies fighting the fight in dispersed ranks and with different strategies. What I proposed last year – which by the way was advanced way before the U.S. election primaries – was a new geopolitical approach calling for repairing and reforming weakened Transatlantic relations since 2003 and the Russian-American relationship for the last few years. But to be clear, my approach was and is to reaffirm the Atlantic alliance and through it build a solid bridge to Russia not by caving in to the Jihadi powers, regimes and organizations, but by building a wider alliance to isolate these radical forces. In my many meetings and briefings in Europe for a whole year I advanced the idea of bringing together all of what is common between America and Europe regarding concerns over the rise of Jihadism within their own countries, and then design an Atlantic approach to confront the threat.

SMITH: And one such initiative, launched last April in Washington, was the formation of a Transatlantic legislative initiative.

DR. PHARES: Yes. With that initiative the aim was to develop fresh thinking on an international platform in the struggle against terrorism. Naturally I support the idea of a renewed Euro-American partnership in the campaigning against terror, and inasmuch as it can be successful, the initiation of a dialogue with the Russian Federation on joint efforts against Jihadi terrorism. But this new approach must move beyond the abstract and the emotional. Yes, working with the Europeans is more than a must, it is a natural strategic direction. And I don’t think there will be major hurdles in re-initiating this platform. But with the Russians specifically there must be a lot of work on redefining the common threat.

SMITH: The U.S. has much in common with the Europeans regarding our mutual strategic interests, terrorist threats, and our efforts aimed at countering global terrorism. The attacks in Madrid, London and elsewhere as well as our joint counterterrorism efforts worldwide, demonstrate this common thread and the threats we share. But let’s look at the commonality we share with Russia in this regard.

DR. PHARES: Keep in mind that regardless of politics and mutual criticism between the West and the Federation, the Russians have been targeted significantly by the Salafi Jihadists. Remember the atrocities at the Beslan school and the Moscow theater. There was and is an all out Jihadi campaign against the Russian people regardless of politics. The ideological platforms of most neo Wahabi and combat Jihadi movements consider Russia to be as much an infidel and an enemy as the West. Therefore, Washington and Moscow must come to some minimum level of understanding and cooperation in this realm. Actually it is illogical that both powers haven’t engaged in such an important counterterrorism dialogue. For if progress is made at this level, this may help alleviating the crises over other issues of great importance in Europe including the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the problems in the Caucasus.

SMITH: But aren’t the Russians today prosecuting a somewhat “cold conflict” offensive aimed at undermining U.S. strategic interests in Asia and Europe? Didn’t Moscow encourage Kyrgyzstan to shut down the U.S. base there? And we know the Russian Navy and strategic air forces are operating in America’s Caribbean backyard.

DR. PHARES: The symptoms of confrontation are numerous and seemingly irreversible. Listening to Hugo Chavez’s claims that Russian and Iranian support are necessary to expand his regime’s dominance in the Caribbean, watching as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs receive technology and military support from Moscow, and then we have Assad of Syria offering bases to Russia in return for shipments of weapons is certainly not reassuring to democracies. Nor are central European reports regarding concerns of Russian missiles and other provocations. But all of this is a result of the collapse of U.S.-Russia relations. Hence the necessity of repair, even if the United States must be the initiator of rebuilding burned bridges no matter who burned them. Washington must use all the tools at its disposal to reach out not only to the Kremlin but – and more importantly – to the Russian people in order to redirect the attention of both nations against a common threat. So my recommendations – as advanced in my book – are to engage in a two-pronged approach: Talk to the decision-makers but also to the citizens, and without hesitation. President Obama tried to reach out to the Arab Muslim world via an interview with al Arabiya TV, and he will deliver a speech from a “Muslim city” soon. He should do the same with the Russian people. What Vice President Biden has said in Munich should be the beginning of a tireless campaign to reach out to Europeans and Russians going beyond the abstract.

SMITH: As you’ve often said Moscow has been trying to shield the Iranian regime from the effects of international sanctions, supplying them with technology and more. How can the U.S. engage Russia diplomatically while it is blatantly supporting America’s foes in the Middle East?

DR. PHARES: It is a question of political engineering in Washington. I am not sure about what the Obama administration’s plans are in this regard, or if the administration even has any. But I would strongly urge a two-dimensional approach. Regarding the Iranian regime, Washington should expand its coalition against nuclear weapons. In doing so, the U.S. will remain under the UN umbrella but at the same time can engage in direct initiatives. Some are advising the White House to begin full-fledged dialogue. I would advise a different path, where the talking is not the issue, but the recipients of that dialogue must be the issue. We’ll address this later. But whatever the administration wants to do regarding Iran, it should not link it to its grand strategy of shaping new alliances worldwide. I admit, this needs lots of strategic crafting in Washington and it needs a global vision of how to confront the Jihadi threat ultimately.

SMITH: Russia has been warned in so many words that the U.S. will not accept the idea of a world divided into “spheres of influence” as we once were; and that former Soviet-bloc nations like Georgia and Ukraine should have the unimpeded right to decide which alliances – like NATO – they might decide to join. Will this prove to be an un-negotiable obstacle to any renewal of Russo-American understanding?

DR. PHARES: The current Russian leadership considers the extension of NATO close to Russia’s borders as a menace. But this is a new development for during the 1990s and the first years after 9/11 Moscow wasn’t that nervous about this advance of NATO. One has to analyze what happened that created a breakdown in trust? For Russia has had borders with NATO in the post Soviet era, on the borders between Kaliningrad and Poland. Alaska is dozens of miles away from Kamchatka. The question deserves a thorough analysis. What prompted Russia to consider the adhesion of Georgia and Ukraine as threatening? All Russian citizens killed by Terrorists since the end of the Cold war were attacked by Jihadists, either in the Caucuses or in Moscow’s heart. Russians populations are targeted by Wahabis and by their allies all coming from the south not from the West. Thus the question is legitimate: why does the Kremlin fear the Poles and the Ukrainians more than the Salafists and eventually the Khomeinists? The analytical review of this Russian shift has to be done in the West.

SMITH: Some have argued that NATO’s military presence in the Balkans is the real reason for Russia’s overreaction elsewhere.

DR. PHARES: The Russians didn’t hide their frustrations in 2007-2008 when Washington backed the secession of Kosovo from Serbia despite Russian calls to allow negotiations between the two parties over the fate of Serbian minorities in Kosovo. Politicians in the U.S. openly claimed that direct American support to Kosovo’s unilateral separation would gain the sympathy of the Organization of Islamic States to American foreign policy. Russia warned it would back similar claims in the Caucasus in return. In a sense, yes, the Kosovo problem has deteriorated Russian-American relations. Perhaps a re-engagement by Washington over the minority status of Serbs inside mostly Muslim Kosovo can thaw one segment of frozen Russian-American relations. But this is only one example of the complex web of interests between the two nations. There are many forces worldwide who have an interest in seeing the ties completely severed between Moscow and Washington. Radical ideologues cheered publicly during the Georgia-Russia conflict last summer, and were gleefully pronouncing a return to the Cold War.

SMITH: Back to the Munich conference, do you see that Biden’s approach and the report by General David Petraeus, commanding general of CENTCOM, regarding Afghanistan have brought support from Western democracies and Russia to the theater there?

DR. PHARES: Again, in my last book, I called for a maximum internationalization of the campaign against the Jihadi forces, including the Taliban and al Qaeda. Some of our friends in the counterterrorism community do not trust the United Nations and anything international about confronting the terrorists. They may be right at this stage, but this can change if a new coalition is formed inside the UN Security Council.

SMITH: Yes, but we are talking about the unwieldy, far-too-often incompetent, and – in many ways as we have seen in Lebanon and elsewhere – impotent UN.

DR. PHARES: Regardless of most of the UN bureaucracy and some of the institutions which seem not to be on board in the campaign against terrorism, an entente between the major powers to isolate the Jihadists and their allies can reverse the current realities. I saw this first-hand when in the spring of 2004 – and despite deep divisions between America and France on Iraq – we were able to forge a single-issue alliance between Washington and Paris on the need to evacuate Syrian forces from Lebanon. It worked and the Security Council became the main force in pushing the Syrian occupation outside the small republic. With regards to Afghanistan, there is already a NATO consensus on defeating the Taliban and their al Qaeda acolytes. Washington must put efforts toward consolidating this Western alliance and go on a charm offensive to convince Russia and even India to be more supportive of the campaign. Again it will depend on the strategic architects in Washington. Will they capture the moment and widen the alliance on the Afghan battlefield or will they lose the opportunity and retreat into doomsday theories of finding the “good” Taliban to talk to? It really depends on who in Washington gets it and is willing to move swiftly and globally. I see a window of opportunity for the Obama administration to score a significant victory in Afghanistan. With Petraeus’s new operational plans, an anti-terrorist government in Islamabad, a European perseverance so far, and potential common-interests with Moscow to reverse the Jihadi threat in central Asia, there couldn’t be a better alignment of the planets. But the window is small and short-lived.

SMITH: Back to Iran, how do you read Biden’s statement regarding Iran that the administration is ready to engage in dialogue with them?

DR. PHARES: I think the administration has decided to try the dialogue strategy with the Iranian regime. And there may be too much pressure now for them not to go down that path. First you have a campaign promise to fulfill, then you have a current majority in Congress, which has already adopted this direction. But more importantly, the administration is besieged by a mass of expertise pushing toward the “sit down” doctrine. I don’t see at this stage any other course of action for them – unless the Iranian regime commits a less-likely mistake – than to slide, slowly, then fast into the so-called dialogue with the Mullahs. The problem in my mind is that I do not see a medium nor a long-range plan in Washington projecting – if not predicting – the stages to follow the theatrics of this diplomatic dance. In other words, the big achievement is not going to be the actions of organizing meetings and what have you, but what is it that you are going to get from the meetings. I have my own predictions, but let’s hold them for future analysis. Vice President Biden though understands that the U.S. will be dealing with very difficult set of circumstances and a Machiavellian regime on the one hand. And he will have to keep the sword of Damocles in the other.

[Dr. Phares is director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. Recently, he was appointed secretary general of the newly formed Trans Atlantic Parliamentary Group on Counterterrorism. Dr. Phares has provided analysis to the U.S. government. He regularly conducts Congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings, and he has been providing exclusive analysis to us for nearly five years.]

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com

Phares: Iran’s Fear of a Velvet Revolution

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 3 February 2009 at 5:38 pm UTC

PRESS TV, the Iranian-government-owned English-language web and television broadcasting company, recently published a report contending Iran’s intelligence ministry had uncovered and publicly disclosed details regarding an alleged “’US-backed’ spy ring which had plans to topple the Tehran government.”

According to the report:

“Following the arrest of four Iranian nationals on charges of plotting to overthrow the government with Washington’s support, head of the counterespionage department in the Intelligence Ministry said Monday that the group intended to build social and political tension in the country.”

The official, whose name was not revealed, added “organizing anti-government public rallies and creating ethnic division in the country” were among the tactics to be employed by the network.” [The report may be read here.]

In our ongoing conversations with Dr. Walid Phares – director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies who now also serves as secretary general of the Trans Atlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism — we asked for his interpretation of any underlying message within the report.

We know what the report says. What are the Iranians not saying?

DR. WALID PHARES: First, the Iranian regime has always conducted arrests among its opposition. It has done so since coming to power in 1980. The regime has – for all intent and purposes – physically eliminated Iranian citizens – thousands of them – by labeling them as being “U.S.-backed” and/or “Zionist” elements inside the country.

If you look at the archives of the various international human rights organizations, or country reports in various foreign ministries; and of course, if you review the information collected from the many Iranian opposition groups, you’ll easily discover a continuous and systematic suppression of freedoms in Iran for the last 30 years. The arrest campaigns have covered nearly every sector of Iranian society: students, women, labor, artists, but also ethnic minorities such as Arabs, Kurds, Baluch, Azeri and others. Also, religious minorities such as Christians, Jews and Bahais have also been persecuted.

The news regarding arrests of Azeri ethnics in Iran is not unusual. We’ve been reading open sources reports about Bahais arrests in recent weeks, as well as arrests of Ahwaz Arabs over the past several months, and women over the last year. So, the reports by the Iranian regime about a “U.S. conspiracy” is neither strange nor exceptional.

W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: The Iranian press reported the unnamed intelligence official as saying “the group” had been successful in fomenting dissent among Azeri people in the Azerbaijan Province. Why the regime’s focus on this province?

PHARES: This is very telling in that anti-Khomeinist sentiment is spreading in the northwestern part of the country and among the single largest ethnic minority in Iran. Azeris are the second group after the Persians, and they form a contiguous group settling the entire northwestern part of Iran in what is known as southern Azarbaijian. It is historically a part of the Azeri nation and they speak a Turkic language. Traditionally the Iranian Azeris have been loyal to the Iranian nation, and many among them have served in Iran’s military. But with the radicalization of the regime and the economic crisis now underway in Iran, many ethnic minorities are protesting bad socio-economic conditions in their areas. They mainly accuse the Mullahs in Tehran of concentrating wealth among their own elite in the center while letting the provinces decay. The Azeris aren’t happy with the state of affairs in the so-called ‘Islamic republic.’ Hence we’re witnessing the rise of local opposition movements in their areas. The regime responds with preemptive arrests, and of course labels any protest as a ‘pro-American’ conspiracy: Classical Khomeinist narrative.

SMITH: Why would the Iranian press quote ‘Intelligence officials’ and not the justice ministry?

PHARES: Because most likely when the opposition is widening, the regime unleashes its strongest arm, the intelligence services. If anything this is an indicator that the Azeri movement, and all other movements are getting stronger with time.

SMITH: The report states:

“Tehran’s Islamic Revolution Court sentenced the four suspects without announcing the length of their sentence.

“‘They have confessed to trying to distance the people of Iran from the government and introduce the United States as their sole savior,’ the court said in a statement.

“Two of the detainees are internationally renowned doctors Arash and Kamyar Alaei, who specialize in HIV/AIDS.

“In the Monday press conference, the top Iranian counterespionage official said that the US intelligence agencies had resorted to ‘soft overthrow projects’ over the past decade, as there is no international statute law against such measures.”

What are we to deduce from such arrests?

PHARES: It means the middle class in Iranian Azarbaijian is fed up with the Mullah regime. When the Khomeinists begin striking out at citizens – doctors as in this case, or professors and bloggers as in other cases – we’re talking about a serious development. When educated people are accused of political ‘incitement’ against the regime – which translates to political opposition – it means that many more activists are mobilizing civil society, and that of course is a red line to the regime.

SMITH: The report also mentions the U.S. having spent $32 million on “soft overthrow projects,” a means by which the U.S. could “infiltrate elite and expert circles” and therein gain access to information regarding national “infrastructure, microbiological achievements, and defensive capacity.” They also named names of Americans. Why?

PHARES: It is an act of desperation. It shows the regime is angry and wants to send a message to the U.S. government, which by the way is preparing to open dialogue with Tehran. By naming names and agencies, the Iranian Pasdaran [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and intelligence services are sending a message to the Obama administration telling them that if they want to open dialogue, they will have to shut all these ‘democracy operations.’ What is ironic is that the Bush administration was criticized for doing so little to help the Iranian democracy movement. If indeed the Iranian regime is complaining about $32 million spent allegedly by the U.S. on democracy activities, this is peanuts compared to the billions of dollars spent on the war on terror and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the war of ideas. This amount is ridiculous: Yet the Iranian regime wants Washington not to spend a penny on any program that would help democracy groups in Iran. This pressure is aimed at preempting the Obama administration.

SMITH: The report said “Iranian intelligence operatives had been able to infiltrate the network and ‘launch an intelligence war with the CIA by leaking false information.’” It also said the UK and Israel were involved.

PHARES: Typical of the regime to try to frame all three governments of the U.S., UK, and Israel in one giant conspiracy. For by linking alleged Israeli activities to alleged U.S. and British activities against the regime, they would create a ‘radioactive’ environment in the region. Again, Tehran is trying to build a big bargaining chip for the day of dialogue. Thus the Iranian negotiators hope to be in a position of strength: Hold the high ground and lead with other subjects before the discussion of the most relevant ones, i.e. the nuclear issues.

SMITH: The report mentions the claim by Mohammad-Javad Zarif, the former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, that “the White House is taking essential measures to orchestrate a ‘Velvet Revolution’ in Iran.”

PHARES: It is a reminder of the last decade of the Soviet Union when Soviet citizens invited to the West were eager to learn about open and free societies. They were often punished by Moscow for concocting revolutions against the Communist regime. The Iranian establishment lives in the paranoia of a similar situation. They spy on their own citizens when they travel and accuse them of being recruited by the West. When the Khomeinists start talking about a so-called ‘American support’ of a so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’ inside Iran, it means they are indeed afraid that seeds have already been sown for such a revolution. In fact, what worries the regime are not these scientific conferences but the narrative on many Iranian web sites talking about ‘democratic revolution.’ Ali Khamenei’s Pasdaran can feel the sentiment inside Iran’s civil society. Thus they want to suppress these sentiments by connecting them to an alleged American and Western activity.

[Dr. Phares, who has provided similar analysis to U.S. government – and who regularly conducts Congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings – has been providing exclusive analysis to us for nearly five years.]

[The Iranian Press TV report also states: “Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed in July that U.S. Congressional leaders had secretly agreed to President George W. Bush’s $400-million funding request for a major escalation in covert operations inside Iran.” Our sources coordinating with the Iranian opposition groups, have informed us that members of those opposition groups “are wondering why Hersh is leaking such information, which is in turn used by the regime against them.”]

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

New Yorker Pleads Guilty to Supporting Terrorist Media

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 24 December 2008 at 2:19 am UTC

Pakistani-born New Yorker Javed Iqbal has today pled guilty to providing material support to Hizballah’s Al Manar television network.

According to a statement just issued by the Coalition Against Terrorist Media (CATM), a project of the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD): “Iqbal, who was due to stand trial on January 5, 2009 in New York’s Southern District Court, … admitted to providing satellite transmission services through his Brooklyn-based company HDTV Ltd to Al Manar in exchange for payment, according to several reports.”

The CATM statement adds the Iqbal case “is believed to be” the first such case in the U.S. involving Al Manar.

“[Iqbal’s] guilty plea is significant and a sobering reminder of the threat Iranian-backed Hizballah continues to pose to Americans,” says FDD President Clifford D. May. “Al Manar was correctly designated as a terrorist entity by the U.S. government and many satellite companies around the world have made the right choice in stopping Al Manar broadcasts.”

May continues: “Free speech is no defense when a so-called ‘media outlet’ is working with a terrorist organization, and providing it with support for fundraising, recruitment and pre-attack surveillance. In providing this support, Al Manar does more than yell fire in a crowded movie theater. It provides the match, the gasoline and the arsonist.”

Lebanon-based Hizballah –- perhaps the most-dangerous foreign terrorist organization on the U.S. State Department’s designated terrorist list — is trained, equipped, and heavily financed by Iran, and the organization is operationally supported by both Iran and Syria. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has warned, Hizballah “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team.” And earlier this month, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk referred to Hizballah as “a premier terrorist organization … Beyond that, it has built up an independent military capability that is greater than the military capabilities of the Lebanese armed forces.”

Al Manar, Hizballah’s satellite TV network, was at one time being broadcast over much of Europe, Africa, and the Far East until the U.S. government and others shut down much of its overseas operations. And when it was discovered that some American companies were continuing to advertise on al Manar in Lebanon, they too were pressed to pull out … and did.

The U.S. government listed Al Manar a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity” in March 2006. Iqbal was arrested and charged five months later.

Iqbal’s alleged “partner in crime,” Saleh Elahwal of New Jersey, is slated to be tried next month.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.

Free and Fair Elections in Lebanon Impossible with Hizballah’s Weapons

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 17 December 2008 at 6:53 pm UTC

If the U.S. State Department-designated terrorist group, Hizballah, and Hizballah’s allies gain control of Lebanon through parliamentary elections slated for June 2009, “American support for Lebanon will be placed in jeopardy” and “we should have no illusions about that,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk during a panel discussion hosted by the Washington, D.C.-based Aspen Institute, last week.

Indyk’s remarks reflect a particularly disturbing reality for the pro-democracy majority in Lebanon, which lost much of its political power to Hizballah and its allies when concessions were granted to Hizballah in order to persuade Hizballah to stop the killings (after the organization turned its weapons on the Lebanese people in May 2008). And the remarks should reflect a disturbing reality for the rest of the world.

“[Hizballah] is a premier terrorist organization,” Indyk said. “Beyond that, it has built up an independent military capability that is greater than the military capabilities of the Lebanese armed forces.”

Indeed, as we have time-and-again reported, Hizballah – the so-called “party of God,” which rules a Shia kingdom inside the sovereign state of Lebanon, which battled Israel in the 2006 war (inflicting enormous damage on Lebanon), and which gained enormous strategic / political leverage in May of this year – may well have evolved into the world’s most formidable terrorist army.

Consider the following:

Hizballah is trained, equipped, and heavily financed (an estimated one-billion dollars annually) by Iran, and the organization is operationally supported by both Iran and Syria.
Hizballah is expanding its base, and the organization is increasing its global reach.
Hizballah has “conducted very large, spectacular” terrorist operations worldwide.
Hizballah has defiantly refused to surrender its arms in Lebanon as called for under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701.
Hizballah has demonstrated time-and-again since May that it has no qualms about overtly killing Lebanese civilians as a means of furthering the organization’s aims.
Hizballah has heavily infiltrated the Lebanese Army.
Hizballah, since May, has wormed its way into position as an official component of the overall Lebanese Defense apparatus.

Yet the U.S. has provided – and continues to send – hundreds-of-millions-of dollars in military aid to Lebanon’s armed forces and national police when some experts and analysts have surmised that money may well end up in the hands of the terrorists.

Moreover, last month, Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman – the pro-Hizballah, pro-Syrian former Lebanese Army commander – signed a new Defense pact with Iran, and Sleiman’s newly dubbed Army commander, General Jean Kahwaji, traveled to Damascus for a series of schmoozing sessions with his Syrian counterpart General Ali Habib.

On Monday, Naharnet reported Iran’s allocation of some “$600 million for the Lebanese elections” as told to the Kuwaiti newspaper, Alseyassah (Al-Siyassa).

Simply put, total control of Lebanon achieved by-and-for the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis may well-be in the offing and under our noses. The pro-democracy movement may be effectively quashed within six months, and the West may lose – in fact it may have already lost – its Lebanese front in the broader war on terror.

In a letter just released by the World Council of the Cedars Revolution (Lebanon’s largest pro-democracy movement), WCCR president Joseph P. Baini calls on both Sleiman and the “parliamentary majority” to postpone elections until Hizballah and all armed militias lay down their arms.

I’m not holding my breath, but at least Baini is saying what must be heard.

“It should be clearly stated that Hizballah is not the only faction to be fully armed,” Baini writes. “There are of course its very close affiliates such as the Amal movement, the Palestinian Camps, and terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Fatah al-Islam and Islamic Jihad, who are all proxies for and subservient to Syria and Iran. Therein lies the real dilemma for the people of Lebanon and the Cedars Revolution. Most of the military arsenal within Lebanon is in the possession of organizations classified by the free world as ‘terrorists.’”

Speaking to Alseyassah, Tom Harb, secretary general of the International Lebanese Committee for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, says Hizballah must be disarmed before free and fair elections can take place.

“Elections cannot take place while groups are intimidating voters by force or the threat of force,” says Harb, and after all, “elections in Lebanon have been postponed in the past.”

If elections take place as is, Hizballah will be the one political party in possession of rifles, grenades, machineguns, missiles, and a demonstrated willingness to use them on anyone who does not wish for the same things the terrorists wish. And the Lebanese Army has demonstrated its unwillingness to confront Hizballah.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Jimmy Carter and Hizballah

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 11 December 2008 at 6:00 pm UTC

Poor ol’ Jimmy Carter. He’s a good man to be sure: an excellent Sunday School teacher I’m told, a Naval Academy grad and submariner (huge pluses in my book). But as a wartime commander-in-chief—and make no mistake the United States was at war (with the Soviets and their proxies as well as the Iranian revolutionaries) during his presidency—Carter has proven to be sorely lacking.

As an elder statesman, Carter has worked tirelessly building houses for the homeless and generally trying to further various human rights causes worldwide. And that’s great. But where he doesn’t need to stick his nose is in the realm of American foreign policy.

Cases in point are his recent offers to monitor the 2009 Lebanese parliamentary elections and meet with the Lebanon-based Shia terrorist group, Hizballah.

As far as the election monitoring is concerned, Lebanon’s interior minister Ziad Baroud said, according to USA Today, he “welcomed [Carter’s] offer but … the Cabinet must approve it.”

As far as the proposed meeting with Hizballah is concerned, the terrorist group — which Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team” – rejected the offer because they say Hizballah doesn’t meet with current and former U.S. presidents.

My question is, what was Carter thinking? Maybe that’s it: He wasn’t. Few western leaders are thinking rationally when it comes to Jihadists like Hizballah (or Hamas whom Carter has already met with).

These people are killers – at war with the infidel (meaning us) – nothing more. Meeting with Hizballah (And, yes, Barack Obama has suggested meeting – without precondition – Hizballah’s primary benefactor, Iran.) would accomplish absolutely nothing for the West.

Hizballah cannot be taken at its word. Jihadists lie and deceive – and coerce or pay their supporters, sympathizers, and apologists to do the same – as a matter of strategic leverage (please see my piece on Al Taqiyya). Terrorists like Hizballah meet with their enemies in order to “clean their public faces,” appear more human, attempt to shift their enemy’s intelligence focuses, and buy time for the greater Jihad: There is no permanent peace with the Jihadists, only temporary truces so that they may regroup or strengthen their positions.

What such a meeting also would accomplish for Hizballah – whose leaders have proclaimed “Death to America” – is an undeserved recognition of the terrorist group as a formidable armed-power worthy of an audience with a former leader of the free world. Then it would give the terrorists an opportunity to reject such an offer, which is exactly what they did with the Carter offer.

In the end, the offer and rejection – in the eyes of Shia extremists like Hizballah (even their Sunni counterparts like Al Qaeda) – makes America appear weak, groveling, and jilted, which only fuels the enemy’s public standing in the Islamic world thus enhancing their recruiting and sponsorship efforts among rank-and-file Muslims.

Can anyone imagine a former U.S. president offering to meet with Hitler or members of the SS during the height of World War II? Or worse, Hitler or the SS saying “no” to such a meeting?

We are similarly at war with the Jihadists who ultimately want to subjugate or kill us. There is no negotiating with this enemy. We must come to grips with this fact, and stop trying to convince ourselves that Islamists think and reason like Westerners.

The only senior Western representative to meet with Hizballah should be the commanding general of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, and that meeting should be an unconditional demand that Hizballah surrender its arms as called for under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701.

As for Pres. Carter: He should stick to his volunteer work; building houses for the homeless and teaching Sunday School.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

COMBAT LEADERSHIP LESSONS

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 5 December 2008 at 8:11 pm UTC

Review of LEADERSHIP: Combat Leaders and Lessons
(Essays by Members of the Class of 1959, United States Military Academy)
by Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Each generation of military officers is both similar and unique: As young cadets, midshipmen, and officer candidates, they are cut from the old school wisdom of senior officers and NCOs. Once they become officers, they continue to learn from both seniors and subordinates, as well as from drilling, training, and schooling; personal experience; natural maturing; and real-world command challenges over a period of years.

The United States Military Academy at West Point, Class of 1959, is no exception.

As cadets, the boys of ‘59 learned from the combat veterans of World War II and Korea (Certainly some of the more senior professors would have chewed dirt on the Western Front in 1918.). And as newly minted officers in a new nuclear Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps (The Air Force Academy was barely up and running in 1959, and a handful of Marines were trained at West Point, though most leathernecks attended Annapolis), these graduates of West Point were soon among the first to be schooled in – or in some way affiliated with – the new official art of special forces operations. Members of the Class of ‘59 held company level – and higher – commands during America’s involvement in Vietnam. They held commands throughout the most-challenging decades of the Cold War, the violent early years of the Jihadist terror awakening, and up through and beyond Gulf War I.

Now, 50 years after receiving their commissions as second lieutenants, several members of the “Long Gray Line” – many of them now retired generals and colonels – have written a series of essays for the next generation of combat commanders, the Class of 2009, compiled in a new book: LEADERSHIP: Combat Leaders and Lessons.

I just received my copy this week, signed by my friend, retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (an internationally respected military analyst who has held combat commands at many levels; is himself a West Point graduate, Class of 1961; and whose StandUpAmericaUSA published LEADERSHIP). And I’ve barely been able to put the book down.

Without giving away the entire game (because I urge every American military commander and future commander to purchase and read this book), essays include conversationally written leadership lessons and anecdotes covering everything from “leadership under fire” to “a failure of courage,” to responsibility, loyalty, sacrifice, and the criticality of preserving operational security and, yes, military integrity at all costs.

Lt. Gen. Thomas L. McInerney, USAF (ret.) discusses the leadership and op-sec challenges he faced as commander of Third Air Force during the raid on Libya in April 1986. Gen. Frederick M. Franks, Jr., USA (ret.), commander of the now famous “left hook” that smashed Saddam Hussein’s army in 1991, addresses the essentials – “character, leadership, and competence” – for a commander to win on the battlefield. Maj. Gen. Nicholas Krawciw, USA (ret.) lends perspective from his personal experience in the Middle East during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Maj. Gen. John S. Grinalds (from my own Marine Corps), Maj. Gen. William A. Cohen, Brig. Gen. William J. Mullen III, Colonels Andrew P. O’Meara Jr., James L. Abrahamson, and others round out this collection of sage narratives.

It’s a quick read and a must: Nothing academic, just the proverbial nuts and bolts of military leadership in peace and war.

And make no mistake – though there may be parallels between military command and other styles of leadership – these essays are a stark reminder that running a corporation or a political campaign are nothing like commanding an infantry battalion. Though a good business leader or politician would do well to read this book.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Also visit medalofhonorconvention.com.

Gen. Petraeus meets Lebanese Leaders

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 2 December 2008 at 5:14 pm UTC

By Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.

The U.S. Embassy in Beirut is reporting today’s meetings between U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus – commander of the U.S. Central Command – and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Lt. Gen. Jean Kahwaji, commander-in-chief of the Lebanese armed forces.

According to an Embassy statement: “The discussions focused on the United States’ continued assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces so it can maintain peace and stability, and safeguard the Lebanese people. The U.S. Government has provided over $410 million in military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces and it will continue to support the legitimate institutions of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese people as they seek to preserve their independence and security.”

No surprise, as we’ve been reporting our $ millions in military assistance to Lebanon for months. And there is no question but that we must assist Lebanon and regain our vital Lebanese front (which we’ve lost to the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis in the months since Lebanon-based Hizballah attacked the Lebanese government and citizenry in May 2008). But should we not be supporting the pro-democracy resistance against Hizballah instead of the army?

Let’s not forget:

The Lebanese army – then under the command of Gen. Michel Sleiman (Kahwaji’s predecessor) – refused to fight Hizballah in May.
Hizballah – a U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization which our own Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team” – has heavily infiltrated the army.
Hizballah is now considered an official wing of the overall Lebanese Defense apparatus.
Iran – a designated state sponsor of terrorism – finances Hizballah to the tune of $ one billion annually.
Sleiman – who is today president of Lebanon in part because he refused to fight Hizballah in May – signed a five-year defense pact with Iran last week.
Kahwaji has returned from Syria – also a designated state sponsor of terrorism, which has long provided operational support to Hizballah — where he was schmoozing with his Syrian counterpart Gen. Ali Habib just a few days ago.

Don’t misunderstand me: I am a huge supporter of both Gen. Petraeus (who no doubt will go down in history as one of the great captains of counterinsurgency) and Lebanon. But if anyone would simply take the time to connect the dots, they would come to no other conclusion but that our Lebanese policy is seriously and dangerously flawed.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

WCCR: “Lebanon in danger of being classified a terrorist nation”

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 29 November 2008 at 6:28 pm UTC

No one can travel to Lebanon nor establish relationships with the Lebanese people—there and here in the states—without falling in love with that country. And no military commander, planner, or analyst in 2008 can consider Lebanon without appreciating the strategic significance of the country as a critical front – which cannot for any sound justification be sacrificed – in the overall war on terror.

But that is exactly what we – meaning the United States and Europe – are allowing to happen.

As I’ve been writing for the past several days – actually for more than a year – we are losing the Lebanese front. In fact, the front may already be lost.

Yesterday, Joseph P. Baini, president of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution (Lebanon’s largest pro-democracy movement, which continues to be a majority in that country), stated in a letter to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora that what may be considered a loss, actually represents something much darker for Lebanon.

“Lebanon is in danger of being classified as a terrorist nation,” Baini writes.

At the heart of Baini’s letter are the recent military and political gains made by the Lebanon-based, Iranian-Syrian sponsored terrorist group, Hizballah, as well as Hizballah’s increasing influence in both Lebanese and international media (I’ve been writing about Hizballah’s media influence for months and much of that analysis may be accessed here, here, and here.).

As an example, Baini points to the German government’s blocking of the reception of Hizballah’s satellite television network, “Al-Manar,” on Nov. 21, 2008.

No problem. Right? The U.S., France, and other sovereign states have also blocked terrorist TV, as they have a right to do, and I would argue an obligation from the standpoint of national security.

According to an article in Variety magazine:

“The [European Foundation for Democracy] said Al-Manar is used by Hizballah to recruit terrorists and communicate with sleeper cells around the globe, and it urged all European countries to ban the web.

“‘The German government has taken an important step in contributing to European efforts to counter the spread of radicalization and violent ideologies,’ said EFD exec director Robert Bonazzi.”

Problem is, Hizballah – hellbent on exporting its Islamist radicalism worldwide – is not content with Germany’s decision. It’s not enough that Hizballah control all of previously sovereign Lebanon. These birds – who burned property; seized major roads, villages and districts of cities; murdered innocent civilians; and generally shot Lebanon to pieces because they could not have their way in May 2008; are now demanding that Al Manar NOT be banned in a country that should have no connection to them whatsoever.

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), “Lebanese Information Minister Tarek Mitri phoned Al-Manar director-general Abdallah Kassir to say that the German measure against the channel was strange and unacceptable and was not in line with the freedom of expression believed to be an evident right in democratic societies.”

Folks, have you seen the violent vitriol Al Manar spews?

According to Baini’s letter, “The free world is today hailing the German government for its courageous action in banning the telecast of Al Manar … However, there appears to be a good deal of pressure being brought to bear by Hizballah and their affiliated members of the Lebanese parliament, upon the Lebanese government to take a position pressuring the German government to withdraw the ban.”

The letter also mentions Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman’s planned visit to Germany in a few days, and adds “It is also common knowledge that the president is a strong supporter of Hizballah.”

An article published in today’s Alseyassah (Al-Siyassa), a Kuwait-based newspaper, says (translated and paraphrased):

The Lebanese government must remain on the side of free world, not on the side of terrorists.

The Lebanese government should not interfere in the national security of any nation.

The Lebanese government may make itself liable if it pressures any foreign government in this manner, especially if a terrorist attack takes place in that country.

If the Lebanese government pressures Germany in this way, might Germany pull its troops out of UNIFIL and might other western nations (France, Italy, Spain) do likewise in support of Germany?

By the way, Sleiman just signed a new Defense pact with Iran (I write about that here), Hizballah’s primary benefactor, after spending time in Iran this week. And Sleiman’s newly dubbed commander of the Lebanese Army, General Jean Kahwaji, is currently in Damascus schmoozing with his Syrian counterpart General Ali Habib. Syria, by the way, has long provided operational support to Hizballah and many other terrorist organizations.

If these actions alone aren’t leading Lebanon down the path of being designated a “state sponsor of terrorism,” as Baini suggests, I’m not sure what is?

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Lebanon and Iran—the Insanity Continues

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 28 November 2008 at 2:37 pm UTC

With the exception of the Jihadi terrorist attacks in India, the most recent heartbreakingly predictable development in our ongoing war against Islamist terror is the West’s loss of the Lebanese front: A loss we’ve seen coming for months, despite the fact that a majority of the Lebanese people want freedom in that country.

The West’s loss was capped this week by the signing of a five-year defense pact between Lebanon and Iran, which will – among other yet to be disclosed particulars – supply Lebanon with weapons.

Iran already funds the Lebanese-based Shia terrorist group, Hizballah, with an estimated one-billion dollars annually. And Hizballah – which our own Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team” – turned its illegal (according to UN mandate) weapons on the Lebanese state in May 2008.

Hizballah, which rules a radical Shia kingdom inside the sovereign state of Lebanon (similar to how the Taliban is set-up in Afghanistan), has gained tremendous power and political leverage since May.

Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman – who I warned for over a year was pro-Syrian, pro-Hizballah, now we see pro-Iranian (I know this man, spent time with him, his intelligence chief, and many of his top generals in Lebanon) – has sold his country, and completely duped America and the West.

For Heaven’s sake, we still continue to send $ millions in military aid to Lebanon’s armed forces and national police.
Our own government praised the insane May 2008 Qatar deal that rewarded Hizballah for its attacks against the Lebanese government and citizenry.
Sleiman – then commander-in-chief of an army which he refused to commit against Hizballah – was dubbed president thanks to the Qatar deal (and the U.S. government oddly praised that dubbing).
Iran and Hizballah continue to undermine our efforts and their coordinated efforts have killed untold numbers of American and British soldiers in Iraq.
Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to salivate over the prospect of “a world minus America.”
Now Sleiman and Ahmadinejad have signed a defense pact.

Yet we are praising and supporting Sleiman? We are sending his army cash?

Folks, this is not rocket science (pardon the cliché). Something is seriously broken in terms of our foreign policy and our ability to prosecute the war on terror.

We are in denial about our enemy and his motivations, and he is coming after us … and making gains everyday.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Lebanon’s Sleiman schmoozing with Ahmadinejad

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 25 November 2008 at 11:47 pm UTC


[Sleiman and Ahmadinejad]

Following a recent lecture I gave to a group of extremely bright, young U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officer candidates, I was asked why the Shia terrorist group Hizballah—being the global threat it is—rarely headlines any major daily newspaper in the mainstream media.

It was an excellent question, one I am often asked, and one which I am unable to adequately answer: After all, Hizballah is perhaps the most dangerous terrorist army in the world. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff once said, Hizballah “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team.”

So why isn’t wartime America being adequately informed and educated in this regard?

I won’t begin to guess beyond the insanity of political correctness or who knows what. But I will say that this lack of information has served as an enabler of Hizballah and its Iranian-Syrian overlords. It has bought time for the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis. It has seriously undermined the majority pro-democracy movement in Lebanon (including the brave resistance against Hizballah), and it has utterly failed the American taxpayer.

Case in point, the recent granting of tens-of-millions of dollars (on top of hundreds-of-millions over several years) worth of U.S. military aid to Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman’s army: an army that Sleiman has refused to commit to action against Iranian-Syrian-supported Hizballah, even when Hizballah was killing Lebanese civilians during a series of axis-engineered attacks against the Lebanese government in May 2008.

Sleiman, then-commander of the armed forces (and with some strong personal connections to terrorist-sponsoring Syria), was quickly dubbed president when a deal was cut by the Arab League to persuade Hizballah to stop killing albeit temporarily.

The most bizarre thing of it all was that Sleiman’s ascension to the presidential palace was praised by our own State Department, and the U.S. government even upped the money.

Then lo’ and behold, we learned that the money was going to an army (already Hizballah-infiltrated) that now officially considered Hizballah a legitimate arm of the Lebanese Defense apparatus.

Was the American taxpayer aware of this? Nope. But he continued to pay for it.

Now comes the latest looniness: Weeks after Sleiman – still accepting our money and during a grand American tour in which he was graciously entertained by the White House – began criticizing our defensive raid from Iraq into Syria, this man has again slapped us in the face.

This week, Sleiman is in Iran embracing and generally palling around with Mahmoud Wipe-Israel-off-the-face-of-the-Earth Ahmadinejad, the president of Hizballah’s primary benefactor.

According to Naharnet: “‘We are grateful that the Islamic Republic of Iran has always stood by the Lebanese people and government,’ IRNA [the Iranian News Agency] quoted Sleiman as saying.”

The Gulf Times reports: “A Lebanese government official said on Sunday that talks with Iranian officials will include efforts to forge a ‘national defense strategy’ for Lebanon, where Hizbullah’s arsenal remains a thorny issue.“

And the Lebanon Daily Star reports: “The London-based Arab daily Al-Hayat said in its Sunday edition that Tehran was planning on providing the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with heavy weapons, including missiles.”

Yet we’re still sending Sleiman’s army millions of dollars.

The American people are still clueless.

The future military leaders of America are still asking “why?”

And frankly I still don’t have an answer.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Hizballah Calls for Referendum on its Weapons

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 15 November 2008 at 3:19 am UTC

By Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.

[Dr. Walid Phares]

Hizballah, the Iranian-Syrian-backed Shia terrorist organization – perhaps the best-organized, most heavily-financed, most-dangerous organization on the U.S. State Department’s designated terrorist list – has called for a national referendum on whether-or-not the issue of its weapons-possession in Lebanon should be accepted or rejected by the Lebanese people.

Until May of 2008 – when Hizballah and its allies launched a series of armed attacks against the government and the Lebanese citizenry – it was widely accepted that the pro-democracy majority in Lebanon supported the United Nations’ call for Hizballah to disarm along with all other militias in Lebanon.

But the sudden, unprecedented call for a referendum this week suggests the terrorist group – emboldened by its political, military, and geostrategic gains since May – believes it has forcibly intimidated the Lebanese people to the point that the majority is no longer capable of standing up for true democracy. And a referendum in favor of Hizballah’s weapons might forever quash international demands for Hizballah to disarm.

The issuance of such a call is a clear expression of Hizballah’s confidence in its ability to advance its control of Lebanon. It’s also a huge gamble for the terrorist organization.

Why take the risk? We asked Professor Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (and a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels).

W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Why would Hizballah call for a referendum when they know that the pro-democracy movement (which is a majority) in Lebanon is against Hizballah having weapons?

DR. WALID PHARES: We have to understand the geopolitics of Lebanon have dramatically changed since last May. Any analysis of Hizballah’s positions and initiatives today must be developed based on the new factor in the equation, which is that Hizballah’s control of Lebanon’s national security. Hence, when Hizballah’s leaders offer to submit their weapons-possession to a referendum it means they have insured a military-protected control mechanism over the political process in the country. They can determine the answer to the referendum, which negates the validity of the referendum.

Yes, it is true that on March 14, 2005, one-and-a-half million Lebanese from all religious and ethnic sectors marched against the Syrian occupation and terrorist militias. But that clear cut popular majority has since been undermined, intimidated, and essentially defeated over the past three years. The assassinations of representatives of the Cedars Revolution such as Parliamentarian Gibran Tueni, the attempt to kill outspoken journalists such as May Chidiac, and the militia invasion of Beirut and the Chouf districts in May are all evidence that Lebanon today lives under terror and needs significant help from the international community so that its people can exercise free popular referendums.

Ironically, I had suggested via Arab satellite TV three years ago, that the Lebanese people be allowed to decide on the weapons of Hizballah, in other words should an armed militia be permitted to exist outside the Lebanese Army. At that time and since then, no one from Hizballah or even the March 14 coalition considered the initiative. Obviously, at the time it wasn’t in Hizballah’s interest to accept a referendum knowing that an overwhelming majority of citizens would vote “no.” But after three years – and particularly since May 2008 – it appears as if they feel confident they can get a majority of Lebanese to agree to their keeping these weapons. Since they have the upper hand in the country militarily, they believe they can pull it off. As for March 14 and the Lebanese government: both have had multiple opportunities to have the UN by their side helping them implement UNSCR 1559. Unfortunately, they hesitated and lost that opportunity. In short, Hizballah’s call today for a referendum means they are close to transforming Lebanon into another Iran or Venezuela.

SMITH: Agreed. But why risk it? Hizballah already holds all the cards, so why try for a different hand?

DR. PHARES: Hizballah is taking full advantage of the post-May era in Lebanon since seizing power; first on the ground in Beirut, then when its military role was recognized at the Doha Conference. And as the United States was preoccupied with its presidential campaigns and election, the Iranian-backed Hizballah moved forward to consolidate its gains and achieve as many small victories on the ground and in the government in order to insure its influence over more than a third of the cabinet and then enjoying the fact the new president of Lebanon would not – and will not – move against the group.

Now, with the election of a new U.S. president, the impression of the Iranian leaders is that they may have some time where diplomatic engagement may occur. Hence, the mood in Hizballah’s camp is that the time is ripe to further consolidate their grip over Lebanon and thus completely bypass UN resolutions by calling for a referendum over their weapons, and win it easily. Is it a risk? Unless the other side and the international community seize the opportunity and corner Hizballah, it won’t be a risk.

SMITH: So do you believe that accepting the suggestion of Hizballah regarding a weapons referendum should be considered?

DR. PHARES: Yes, but only if there is smart, strong Lebanese leadership able to turn the initiative in the right direction. Because, after all, there is a real popular-majority in Lebanon, which is opposed to the armed militias, particularly to the pro-Iranian forces. This is a fact that has not changed.

In fact, according to the information I have, the anti-Hizballah majority has grown wider among the masses within the various communities: not the other way around. If the leaders of the Cedars Revolution are politically intelligent they would accept Hizballah’s proposal and take the challenge all the way. If they recollect themselves and think strategically, they can pull a massive victory with democratic means.

SMITH: What if a majority voted “yes” for Hizballah’s weapons? Would that not be another victory for Hizballah?

DR. PHARES: Knowing the real aspirations of the public, I would accept that risk.

First, the advantage would be that Hizballah would have moved the legitimacy of their weapons from the divine level to the citizens’ level. That alone is significant.

Second, if the Lebanese are provided with all international mechanisms to express themselves freely, they will surprise Hizballah as well as their own elected representatives. The question is to enable the Lebanese to express themselves freely.

Even in the absence of the implementation of UNSCR 1559, a mechanism is possible to organize a real referendum. I’d say, it is feasible and has high chances for success. The question again is about the ability of Lebanese politicians to focus and act strategically, and not sink or be maneuvered into the narrowness which has led to so many setbacks to democracy in that unlucky country.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

A demand that Syria deliver terror suspects to the Hague for questioning

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 9 November 2008 at 4:05 pm UTC

In message addressed to the office of the United Nations Secretary General for Legal Affairs, the senior official of the International Lebanese Committee for UN Security Council Resolution 1559 called on the UN “to put its hand on the so-called affair of the terrorist group Fatah al Islam.”

In the unedited statement, Tom Harb, secretary general of “Committee 1559,” says:

“In view of the fact that the Syrian regime has made allegations that it has arrested a number of members of terrorist group Fatah al Islam and displayed them on Syrian state TV;“In view of the fact that this group is responsible for the killing of Lebanese military and civilians;

“In view of the fact that this group operates in Lebanon and in Syria and that it crosses the borders back and forth, in full violation of UNSCR 1701 and in view of the fact that it is an armed group operating on Lebanese territory against the will of the Lebanese Government and in violation of UNSCR 1559;

“Therefore we are asking the office of the Secretary General to instruct the Syrian regime to transfer the custody of the so-called suspects to the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague.

“Furthermore we ask the United Nations to summon the Syrian officers who claimed arresting the terrorists to make their depositions in front of international investigators.

“For Committee 1559, based on statements made by Lebanese officials and public figures themselves targeted by the Syrian intelligence, and based on expert reports concluding that the Syrian regime is behind these terrorist conspiracies, urges the United Nations to seize this opportunity and turn the claims of the Assad regime to be investigated by the International Tribunal. For if the Assad regime has been a suspect in the Terror assassination of Rafiq Hariri and many Lebanese politicians over the past four years at least, hence its latest move if anything is an additional suspect maneuver which deserves international scrutiny.”

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.

Legendary Marine Col. John W. Ripley passes on

Posted by W. Thomas Smith Jr. on 2 November 2008 at 4:35 pm UTC

By Maj. W. Thomas Smith Jr.

COL. JOHN W. RIPLEY, U.S. M