« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »

September 2007

September 21, 2007

Rice and Bush stand by Blackwater

CondiSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice quashed any idea that the troubled Iraqi Interior Ministry would dictate who would protect US diplomatic personnel in Baghdad.

As Rice praised private security contractor Blackwater USA for its work in Iraq, she announced an inquiry into diplomatic security in that country.

President George W. Bush said he wants to establish the facts about whether or not Blackwater guards broke any rules. Blackwater patrols resumed in Iraq.

"We have needed and received the protection of Blackwater for a number of years now, and they have lost their own people in protecting our people in extremely dangerous circumstances," Secretary Rice told reporters today. She has ordered a probe of diplomatic security in Iraq.

President George W. Bush said that he's saddened by the civilian deaths in the Sunday firefight, but added that he's going to wait for the facts to be established by an Iraqi-US commission. "The folks like Blackwater who provide security for the State Department are under rules of engagement. In other words, they have certain rules. And this commission will determine whether or not they violated those rules," the president said.

"Obviously to the extent innocent life was lost, I'm saddened. Our objective is to protect innocent life," added the president. "I want to find out the facts about exactly what took place there."

A top aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told CBS News that there's likely to be a face-saving way out of the problem.

September 20, 2007

Will Bush administration cave in to Iraqi corruption?

Bribe The whole world is watching how the Bush Administration will respond to the crooked Iraqi Interior Ministry's demand that the State Department fire the security company that has so effectively protected American diplomats, personnel and VIPs.

If the US government pulls Blackwater USA's contract to provide security in Iraq, it will be sending the following messages:

1. Extortion pays: If American security companies want to keep working for the US government in Iraq, they must pay bribes in the form of spurious "license fees" to the corrupt Iraqi Interior Ministry. (Blackwater, we are told, refused to pay such bribes.)

2. Terrorism pays: The US will reward terrorists - like Spain did after the Madrid bombings - by caving into demands that it change its policies in Iraq. If terrorists can goad Washington into removing its effective forces from the field, the terrorists win.

3. Political warfare pays: Foreign crooks and terrorists need only turn up the political heat on Washington to remove effective elements of the war effort from the fight.

4. The truth is worthless: Whether or not the Blackwater guards acted properly - initial US government reports say they did - means nothing. Cutting some kind of deal to appease inept Iraqi leaders is more important than establishing the facts.

5. Saving American lives doesn't pay: The administration will appear to be saying that US security companies might be better off financially if they protect their clients less aggressively and lose a few State Department officials once in a while.

6. When the chips are down, President Bush won't stand behind the Americans who risk all to protect his diplomats from terrorists in Iraq.

Stay the course, Mr. President. Ride this one out. Tell Prime Minister Maliki that his own Interior Ministry is a bigger threat to the Iraqi people than any American company could ever be. (Download iraq_interior_ministry_report.pdf .) The sooner he builds an honest, effective and service-minded army and security force, the sooner we Americans can leave. Until then, Blackwater and the others stay.

September 19, 2007

Shakedown gone bad?

Shakedown_2Something reeks about the Iraqi Interior Ministry's announcement that it has pulled the permit of the Blackwater security company to operate in Iraq.

The Interior Ministry never issued such a permit to begin with. Blackwater and other firms have been providing security services in Iraq under terms set by the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and grandfathered in after the new Iraqi government took power. The operational item, CPA Order No. 17, became Iraqi law. The ministry has no say in the matter.

The controversy smells like political warfare-style retaliation after a failed shakedown. The spectacularly corrupt Iraqi Interior Ministry probably tried to get the company to pay millions in fake "license fees" and found that Blackwater doesn't pay bribes. Even Al Jazeera says in its Blackwater reporting that the Americans have no confidence in the Iraqi police, who are under Interior Ministry authority.

Time will tell about the exact circumstances of the September 16 attack on the State Department convoy and the subsequent shootout. But the versions coming from the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the US side differ markedly. The Interior Ministry says that Blackwater personnel shot people without provocation. A US government report obtained by Time magazine says otherwise.

According to the US report, gunmen ambushed the State Department motorcade "from several locations." The Blackwater security team "returned fire to several identified targets" and left the area after gunmen shot into the engine of one of its vehicles. Iraqi units then tried to prevent a second convoy from coming in and helping the stricken Blackwater team: the convoy was "blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel."

Now the Iraqi government is demanding that the US fire Blackwater and hire a new company for Iraq security.

Was the Interior Ministry's quick denunciation of Blackwater and its fake announcement that it had pulled a nonexistent permit simply retaliation against a company that won't pay off crooked officials? It sure looks that way.

That question should be part of any official and unofficial investigations.

September 14, 2007

War of ideas? What, me worry?

AlfredTop Bush Administration national security officials practically admit that they are doing nothing to wage the war of ideas against Islamist extremists.

In a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) asked the nation's top security and intelligence chiefs about what they are doing to counter enemy propaganda at home and abroad.

The answer, as Bill Gertz reports in the Washington Times: "Not much."

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller told the Senate that the FBI is doing nothing to combat enemy propaganda (even though the Bureau routinely did such things since before World War II). All it's doing, he said, is "outreach" to Muslims here at home so they "understand the FBI" and address the "radicalization issue," he said, according to Gertz.

National Counterterrorism Center chief Scott Redd acknowledged in the hearing that the "war of ideas" is one of the "four pillars" in American war strategy, but said there is no "home office" for that pillar in this country.

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell "said the intelligence community does not conduct any battle of ideas against terrorists in the United States unless there is a foreign connection," Gertz writes. Fair enough. But is it acting on a comprehensive strategic level, or are the efforts still piecemeal?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, reports Gertz, "also said nothing is being done domestically to battle Islamist extremist ideas. The department's incident management team, he said, is focused on civil rights or civil liberties — not fighting terrorists' ideology." Not even when the ideology threatens citizens civil rights and civil liberties.

September 10, 2007

Pointed critique proposes solutions for Iraq IO failure

IraqisIn a blunt but productive critique of Coalition information operations (IO) in Iraq, an IO practitioner offers a way out of the mess.

Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) Senior Fellow Andrew Garfield writes in the Middle East Quarterly that US-led efforts to communicate with Iraqis have been unimaginative, disorganized, largely irrelevant to the target audiences, slow to anticipate or respond, and often wasteful of funds and resources. The bottom line, he argues, is that current IO strategy is not supporting the warfighters in Iraq. The enemy is running IO circles around us.

My read on Garfield's article is that our IO policy is getting our guys needlessly killed.

The "insurgents," Garfield says, have mastered various forms of political and cultural communication, from high-profile images and videos of their attacks to the simple stuff like grafitti, art, poetry, songs, leafletting, publishing and multimedia productions.

While US-led forces should reign supreme in all those areas - and monitor the enemy's visual imprint to diminish its psychological presence - the effort fumbles. "The slow speed of the U.S. military's clearance process—typically it takes three to five days to approve even a simple information operations product such as a leaflet or billboard—creates an information vacuum that Iraqis fill with conspiracy theories and gossip often reflecting the exaggerations or outright lies of insurgents and extremists," Garfield says.

The insurgents, terrorists and militiamen are adept at exploiting TV cameras to project their message globally, while "US authorities handicap themselves. US military lawyers fear 'blowback' to US domestic audiences, which they interpret as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibited domestic distribution of propaganda meant for foreign audiences. As a result, US commanders forbid coalition authorities to openly engage on the Internet. The decision has ceded this key tool to the Iraqi insurgents," he adds.

Indeed, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 pertains only to the State Department. Congress narrowly defined the law to pertain exclusively to State and to what became the US Information Agency, which has since been absorbed into the State Department. Military lawyers and PAOs who invoke Smith-Mundt to limit Defense Department information ops are flat wrong. This blog published an alert about Smith-Mundt last May.

Garfield identifies wastefulness in US-funded information operations: "While the coalition has spent a hundred million dollars on advertising in Iraq, the strategy of re-awarding huge contracts to advertising firms who spend tens of millions of dollars on nationally-broadcast radio and television commercials but who cannot demonstrate effective audience penetration is questionable. Local Iraqi firms have designed the most effective commercials at a relatively low cost. For example, one commercial showing the impact of an improvised explosive device on an Iraqi family cost only $15,000 to make. However, most coalition advertisements, perhaps one hundred times more costly, lack resonance and relevance among ordinary Iraqis, even as they saturate the airwaves."

Some US-funded ads, he says, have done more harm than good. Lack of IO coordination is another problem: "There is an interagency process meant to coordinate the coalition's information campaign but, in reality, this becomes a forum for information sharing rather than a mechanism for command and control."

Garfield calls for "a single command authority" to "guide and supervise all information and psychological operations and public affairs staff," rather than have the current competing structure with many chiefs and little grand strategy.

A slow message approval process has killed excellent initiatives. Senior officials, Garfield writes, "take days if not weeks to clear information operations products, even excellent products developed by Iraqis for their own ethnic groups." Approval of an advertisement for a newspaper in an Iraqi city like Fargo, North Dakota, requires passing through a colon of staffers, lawyers and senior officers up to the three-star level. Garfield proposes a quick approval process modeled after that of private news organizations.

Garfield provides a mother lode of observations and ideas to fix the current chronic IO problem in Iraq. Everyone in the IO community should read and debate it. To read the article, click here.

September 09, 2007

Brilliant. Finally.

Fran_townsendIt was just two words, but they were said at the right time and by the right person. Their simplicity ordinarily would earn no accolades. But my expectations are so low that the words sparkle of brilliance.

Osama bin Laden is "virtually impotent." That's how a senior White House official responded to news of the terrorist's recent video. Twice. The official is a woman.

It's a remarkable recovery for an administration that has branded bin Laden like no other - and persists in doing so this very week. President George W. Bush couldn't resist telling reporters that he'd seen the bin Laden video and offering his opinion about it. Bad move - the statement confirmed that the al Qaeda leader had won peer status with the President of the United States, and reaffirmed bin Laden's branding campaign; he is one of the few in the world who can make a video and get near-instant comment from the American president.

So what a nice rhetorical kick in the البيض for a female American official to say that the video shows that bin Laden is "virtually impotent." 

White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend (pictured) said it twice on Sunday - on Fox News Sunday and CNN's Late Edition. She said it as if taunting bin Laden. "This is about the best he can do," she said. "This is a man on the run, from a cave, who's virtually impotent other than these tapes."

Way to go, Fran. Rather than make bin Laden look ten feet tall, we should be tearing him down to size. Looks like someone at the White House gets it.

September 08, 2007

Two thumbs-up for NYPD report on Islamist terror detection

Nypd_2The New York City Police Department has a first-rate intelligence team that produced an important and timely report on the recruitment and indoctrination of Islamist terrorists in the West. My colleagues in the intelligence community say that the report is as good if not better than most of the analysis being produced in Washington.

"Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat" is a guide to help police identify extremists-in-the-making, well before they have committed a crime. Using real-world instances, the report draws patterns to enable law enforcement to recognize locales where individuals become radicalized and indoctrinated for terrorist purposes.

And unlike a lot of the unclassified work done on the federal level, the NYPD report doesn't seem shy about calling things as it sees them, explaining matter-of-factly why mosques are legitimate surveillance targets because of the terrorist planning activity that some clerics permit within the sanctuary. 

The NYPD report was released just before German authorities arrested German converts to Islam in connection with an alleged spectacular terrorist campaign. Germans are expressing alarm that some of their own countrymen are becoming Muslim extremists and terrorists. Says a senior official in Bavaria, "Germans converting to Islam should be watched because they tend to show particular fanaticism in order to prove worthy of their new religion."