LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
February 04/08
Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to
Saint Matthew 5,1-12. When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after
he had sat down, his disciples came to him. He began to teach them, saying:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are
they who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will
inherit the land. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for
they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are they who are
persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of
evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward
will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Chad's Future Taliban enters capital while the West is asleep.By Walid Phares.
03/02/08
Going Easy on Olmert, Going Hard on Suleiman and Siniora.By:Walid
Choucair. 03/02/08
Winograd: IDF plans were anything but best-laid-By:REBECCA
ANNA STOIL-January
03/08
The
Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It. By: Walid Phares. January 03/08
Lebanon - a return to civil war?By JONATHAN SPYER. January 03/08
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 03/08
Troops Held For Investigation, Civilians arrested on Charges,
Agitators Hunted Over Bloody Riots-Naharnet
Arab Warning: Elect Suleiman or Dilemma-Naharnet
Lebanon orders
arrest of 11 soldiers over shootings-Reuters
Lebanese Army Arrests 11 Soldiers, Six Civilians over Bloody
Riots-Naharnet
Army Warns: Attacking
Soldiers Serves Israel's Interests, Confuses Investigation-Naharnet
Jumblat to meet Saudi
King-Naharnet
Two Lebanese Soldiers
Wounded in Fresh Attack-Naharnet
Jumblat to meet Saudi King-Naharnet
U.N. Approves Lebanese Request for Help
Probing Eid Murder-Naharnet
Israeli Attempt to Reopen Channel to
Divert Water from Lebanon Thwarted-Naharnet
Wife, Daughter of Saudi
Embassy Employee Killed in Chad-Naharnet
Third Underwater
Internet Cable Damaged in Mideast-Naharnet
Sarkozy Marries Carla Bruni-Naharnet
Arab Warning: Elect Suleiman or Dilemma
Naharnet: Arab officials have
informed Lebanese leaders that failing to elect Army Commander Gen. Michel
Suleiman president by Feb. 11 would push the country into "political and
security dilemma."The pan-Arab daily ash-Sharq al-Awsat attributed the report to
an unnamed Arab Diplomat in Beirut. Failing to reach agreement on electing
Suleiman by a parliamentary session scheduled for Feb. 11 would have "very
serious" repercussions, the source said. Such a warning has been relayed to
leaders of both the Hizbullah-led opposition and the majority, including
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri, the
source added. He warned that "there would be no other Arab chance and no other
initiative," noting that failure of efforts exerted by the Arab League "opens
the door to internationalizing" the Lebanese crisis.The source noted that
consensus on Suleiman has "declined". However, he said "only an agreement
between the Lebanese can salvage the country from maze." Beirut, 03 Feb 08,
12:17
Troops Held For Investigation,
Civilians arrested on Charges, Agitators Hunted Over Bloody Riots
Naharnet: Examining military
magistrate Jean Fahed ordered the arrest of 17 people, including 11 military
personnel, over last week's riots in Beirut's southern district of Mar Mikhail
and ordered law enforcement agencies to identify and arrest three suspected
agitators. The servicemen arrested "pending completion of the
investigation", included three officers, two non-commissioned officers and six
privates, according to Fahed's statement that summed up measures adopted "in
light of the current stage of investigations." The six civilians were arrested
on charges of rioting and the illegal possession of weapons, the statement
added.
The examining magistrate also ordered the identification and arrest of three
suspected "civilian agitators," the statement noted. In light of the current
stage of investigations, three civilians were released unconditionally, 21
civilians and five minors were conditionally released pending completion of the
investigation, the statement added. The statement termed the events of last
Sunday "acts of violence" that resulted in the death of seven civilians, wounded
other civilians and a number of military personnel in addition to inflicting
property damage. "Investigation persists with a large number of civilian
witnesses and a large number of military personnel," the statement noted. The
statement does not indict the arrested military personnel because they were held
pending completion of the ongoing investigation. The civilians, however, were
clearly charged with rioting and illegal possession of weapons, a step that
leads to indictment.
News reports said one of the military personnel arrested is a ranking officer.
The reports quoted unidentified informed sources as saying Ahmed Hamzi, an AMAL
official who was the first victim of the Jan. 27 riots, was shot in the back
with an AK-47 Kalashnikov rifle bullet, a weapon that is not used by the
Lebanese Army force deployed in the area.
Other victims, according to the reports, fell due to M-16 bullet wounds. The
U.S.-made assault rifle is the standard weapon used by the Lebanese Army. The
reports said victims, other than Hamzi, were hit after escalation of the
protests into a confrontation with the Army, which included attacking soldiers
and attempting to strip them of their weapons.
An AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle fitted with a telescope was found deserted
near the Hayat Hospital, at a distance of 800-1.000 meters from the
confrontation grounds. "Investigations are underway to determine why the rifle
was deserted there and who deserted it and efforts are underway to determine if
it was the weapon used against Hamzi," the report said.
The report noted that the AK-47 is not a weapon designed for sniping. The
rifle's operational range is 500 meters.
The reports quoted sources as saying the investigation dropped the probability
of targeting army troops and rioters with sniper fire by a third party,
especially from the adjacent Christian district of Ein Rummaneh.
No snipers were positioned on rooftops during the confrontation, the reports
said, noting that army troops had deployed on the roofs of two to three
buildings overlooking the confrontation grounds.
"Investigators are trying to establish if such troops deployed on roof tops had
opened fire on the rioters," one report said.
The report added that two Lebanese Army vehicles were targeted by rifle fire.
Beirut, 03 Feb 08, 10:03
Lebanese Army Arrests 11 Soldiers, Six Civilians over Bloody Riots
The Lebanese army arrested 17 people, including 11 soldiers and three officers,
over last week's bloody riots that left seven people killed in Beirut, the
military
prosecutor's office announced Saturday.
"In light of the events that took place on January 27 in the region of Mar
Mikhael and Shiyah and that led to the deaths of seven civilians and left a
number of people injured, including soldiers, the military police ordered these
arrests," a statement said.
Those detained included three officers, two non-commissioned officers, six
soldiers and another six civilians.
The statement said some were arrested for causing public disorder and several
for carrying weapons without a license.
Sunday's violence broke out after youths protesting alleged long spells of power
cuts in the Shiite district of Shiyah entered the nearby Christian area of Ein
el-Rummaneh and began throwing stones and setting cars on fire.
The situation quickly escalated after a member of the Amal movement was shot in
the back.
Youths turned out in several neighborhoods, setting tires ablaze and briefly
shutting down the main road leading to the airport.
Protests also broke out in the southern coastal cities of Sidon and Tyre and in
the eastern Bekaa region.
All of those who died in the riots were Shiite Muslims, including two from the
leading opposition party Hizbullah and two from Amal.
The seventh victim was a rescue worker who later died from his wounds.
The bloodshed raised fears of civil strife in a country already grappling with
its worst political crisis since the end of the civil war and with a series of
assassinations mainly targeting anti-Syrian figures.
Hizbullah, which is engaged in a power struggle with the ruling coalition,
blamed the government for Sunday's unrest.
Hizbullah deputy Ali Ammar accused the army of indiscriminately firing at the
protesters and said the military was being used as a pawn by the coalition.
The nation has been embroiled in a deep political and security crisis since the
assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri in February 2005.
The backlash against his killing resulted in Syria withdrawing its forces from
Lebanon after a presence of nearly 30 years.(AFP-Naharnet)
Beirut, 02 Feb 08, 22:57
Army Warns: Attacking Soldiers Serves Israel's Interests,
Confuses Investigation
The Army Command on Saturday cautioned that attacks targeting
soldiers in Beirut and its suburbs deal a blow to security and stability and
serve interests of the Israeli enemy. The command, in a statement, said some
army posts in Beirut and its suburbs have been recently targeted by "sporadic
attacks, the latest of which was opening fire at an observation post in Galerie
Samaan area which wounded two soldiers." The command stressed: "Targeting the
army is targeting security and stability, which is what the Israeli enemy has
been seeking with all means, especially in the post July 2006 war era."It added
that attacking the army "directly confuses the investigation carried out by the
military and judiciary … to reach the truth" regarding riots that killed several
people and wounded scores last Sunday. The statement noted that "only the
judiciary has the right to announce the outcome (of investigations) irrespective
of "political and street pressures."The army command warned religious
authorities, political leaders and "all citizens" against "schemes aimed at
targeting the will of the Lebanese people to maintain joint existence and drive
a wedge between the army and the people. Beirut, 02 Feb 08, 15:13
Lebanon orders arrest of 11 soldiers over shootings
Sat 2 Feb 2008,
BEIRUT (Reuters) - A Lebanese judge ordered on Saturday the arrest of three army
officers and eight soldiers over the killing of opposition protesters a week ago
in some of Beirut's deadliest street violence since the 1975-90 civil war.
Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah, a powerful group backed by Syria and Iran, had said
the army mishandled Sunday's incident which occurred after troops opened fire to
break up a protest in south Beirut over power cuts, and demanded a swift
inquiry.
Seven supporters of Hezbollah and a Shi'ite ally were killed and some 30
protesters were wounded in the violence, the worst since pro-government
supporters and opposition followers clashed in Beirut a year ago.
The bloodshed and Hezbollah's ensuing harsh criticism of the army, traditionally
a close ally in its conflict with Israel, raised tension in a country going
through a deep political crisis which has left it without a president since
November.
Sunday's violence also fuelled fears of factional bloodshed unless a
14-month-old conflict between the Hezbollah-led opposition and the
Western-backed ruling coalition is resolved.
In the first reaction to the investigation so far, a senior opposition source
told Reuters:
"The initial results of the investigation show a high level of seriousness in
(dealing with the matter) that assures us that things are going in the right
direction."
Judge Jean Fahd also ordered the arrest of six civilians for rioting and bearing
unlicensed arms.
Authorities had listened to 85 civilian witness statements and questioned 120
military personnel. They also made use of closed circuit television footage and
media video footage of the violence.
Weapons confiscated in the area were examined to determine whether or not they
had been used, a judicial statement said.
"The investigation is still continuing with a large number of civilian witnesses
and a number of soldiers," it said.
Army commander General Michel Suleiman, also a presidential nominee, had been
under pressure to identify those behind the violence. The anti-Syrian majority
had accused the opposition of sparking the protest for political ends.
The army has a reputation of being the only institution capable of keeping the
peace in Lebanon in the three years since the slaying of former Prime Minister
Rafik al-Hariri.
While the Damascus-backed opposition and Western-backed governing coalition have
agreed on Suleiman as president, differences over the shape of a future
government have held up his confirmation as head of state.
But some analysts say the army's handling of the incident, which took place in
the same area where the civil war started, puts its credibility at stake and may
hurt Suleiman's chances of becoming president.
**(Additional reporting by Nadim Ladki and Laila Bassam; Writing by Yara Bayoumy)
© Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters
The Candidate Who Can See the Enemy,
Can Defeat It
By:
Walid Phares
Posted: 02/01/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24808&s=rcme
The post 9/11 era has changed the rules of engagement for national security
experts and for those who can read the mind of the Jihadists, when it comes to
US Presidential elections. While the principle was that the counter Terrorism
community should let the voters chose their candidates and select their chief
executive first, then offer the expert advice to the President later,
unfortunately for that principle, things have changed.
Indeed, since the attacks against New York and Washington and the engagement of
the nation in the war with Jihadism since 2001, the selection of the US
President can fundamentally affect the survival of the American People. Who
would occupy the White House in 2009 will have to make decisions for four to
eight years with cataclysmic consequences on the physical security and the
freedom of 300 million citizens in this country and eventually on the free world
as a whole: For the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world has to be
able to know who the enemy is so that all resources are put into action. Short
of this ability to be very clear and precise on the nature of the danger and the
processes to address it, a next US President could cause a major disaster to
this nation. American voters cannot afford to install a man or a woman who can’t
identify and define the enemy. If you can’t see that enemy, you simply cannot
defeat it.
In the 2004 Presidential election, the real choice was not between Parties and
socio economic platforms. It was between the option of resuming the war against
what was called then “Terrorism,” and the option of retreating from the
confrontation. Everything else was decoration. Americans were agonizing on the
direction to adopt before their numerical majority resettled President Bush in
the White House. Some argued that Americans do not change Presidents during a
War. I think that the country was influenced by the two afore mentioned
directions and chose one over the other; but at the same time I do think though
that an overwhelming majority of voters wasn’t fully informed as to the real
stakes. Less than half of the country was told that the war in Iraq was wrong,
and that there was no war on terror, and more than half of the country was not
even told who the enemy was or what it really wanted.Continued
The 2004 Presidential elections took place in quasi popular ignorance. The
sitting -- and fighting -- President was reelected by basic instincts not by
enlightened citizens, which if compared to the opposing agenda were a
sophisticated choice.
In 2008, America is quite different and the outlook of the forthcoming
confrontation is by far more dramatic. US forces are still deployed in
Afghanistan and Iraq and the Jihadists -- of all types, regimes and
organizations -- are still committed to reverse democracy in these two
countries. The war there is not over rather the greater challenges are yet to
begin. Al Qaeda got beaten badly in the Sunni Triangle and in Somalia but a
younger generation of Jihadists is being put into battle across the region. Not
one single Sunni country will escape the rise of Salafi Terror in the next US
Presidential term. Iran’s regime is speeding up its strategic armament, testing
American resolve when possible; Syria is surviving its isolation and bleeding
our allies in Iraq and Lebanon; Hezbollah is about to seize Lebanon; Hamas has
seized Gaza; Turkey’s Islamists are reversing secularism; and Pakistan’s
Jihadists are eying the nuclear missiles. But worse, three generations of
Jihadists have penetrated the social and defense layers of Western Europe and
the United States. In few years from now, the next President may have to witness
European cities burned by urban warfare in his (or her) first term, and could be
forced to arm the doom day devices for the first time in this century by the
following Presidential term. These images from a not so distant future may
become the reality to face the leaders we will select in the primaries and the
one who will be sitting in the oval office next January. The prospects are
really serious. Thus the choice of the best candidate at Party and national
levels is not a matter of routine or a regular exercise of US politics.
Never as before Americans must scrutinize the agendas of their candidates and
find out which platform is the best suited for what is to come, who among them
can face off with the lethal enemy, shield the economy, manages the daily lives
while building the vital coalitions the world has ever needed? Who can withstand
the pressure, understand the nature of the enemy and bring into the decision
making posts the men and women who can win the conflict. And it is from a simple
reading of these platforms -- as posted and published -- as well as from the
public speeches of the candidates that anyone among us can shop around for the
best suitable of the candidates. At this point of US and world history, Party,
gender, race, and social class affiliations only can’t offer the right choice
for the forthcoming Presidential election. At the end it is a personal selection
act for each citizen. In democracies and certainly in the United States this
year one can make many choices and select the appropriate candidates:
1. Decide to withdraw unilaterally from the war and let the next generation
struggle with the consequences
2. Think that if we mind our business as a nation the world as it exist today
will simply comply.
3. Commit to continue the confrontation by maintaining the status quo and
awaiting for things to get better by themselves
4. Engage the enemy deeper, smarter and wider and end the war faster.
All depends on how we were educated about the conflict and what is it that we
consider priorities in our lives. If we were misinformed about the events that
have bled this country and will bring the world into dramatic times, before they
recede, we would vote for the candidates who sees no threat to America and who
practice politics as if Peace is secure. But if we know where we are in the
world we’re living in, we’d look at survival first before we argue about
everything else. I am among those who believe -- and see -- that this country
(and other democracies) are marked for aggression and Terror. All our concerns
about economy, social justice, cultural harmony, wealth, and technological
advancement are dramatically pending on the ability of the rising menace to
crumble this country’s national security and all what would collapse with that
fall.
Probably I am among the few who see the clouds gathering around the globe and
thus have been urging leaders to act fast, decisively and early on to avoid the
future Jihad –that has began already. Had what I see wasn’t there I would be
fully excited -- like any citizen -- to argue forcefully about the crucial
matters of our existence: health, environment, nutrition, scientific
discoveries, animal protection, and why not space exploration. Had I not
realized that all that debate was hinging on what Bin laden and Ahmedinijad were
preparing, I would have been looking at a whole different roaster of
Presidential candidates. But that is not the world I see ahead of us, in the
immediate future.
Hence, I’ll leave the debate about the best economic and technological
directions to their experts and I would postpone the social and philosophical
dreams to better times. Right now and right here I am interested in who among
the candidates can simply understand the tragic equation we’re in and may be
able to use the resources of this nation to cross the bridge ahead of us.
President Bush was elected before 9/11 neither on the grounds of avoiding the
Jihadi wars nor winning them. Very few even knew that we were already at war. He
was reelected on the ground of being a better choice than the defeatist
political alternative. This year I suggest that Americans deserve a more daring
choice. They need to see and certify that the next occupant of the White House
lives on this Planet, at this age, knows that we are at war and above all knows
which war we are fighting. The margin of error is too slim to allow hesitations.
By 2012 the Jihadists may recruit one million suicide bombers and could align
two nuclear powers. By 2016 they would deploy 10 million suicide bombers and
seize five regimes equipped with the final weapon. In the next eight years
NATO’s European membership could be battling urban intifadas and US task forces
lacking shelters worldwide. To avoid these prospects of apocalypse the offices
on Pennsylvania Avenue must catch up with the lost opportunities as of next
winter.
Thus, and unlike traditional commentators in classical US politics I am not
looking at who said what and who flipped flopped when. Frankly, it doesn’t
matter at this stage if it is a he or a she, of this or other race, of this or
other church, and if the President is single, has a large family or has divorced
twice. The stakes are much higher than the sweet but irrelevant American usual
personality debate. I want to know if the candidates are strong willed, smart,
educated about the world, informed about the threat, can define it, can identify
it, can fight it, are not duped by their bureaucracy, cannot be influenced by
foreign regimes, have the right advisors, can run an economy while commanding a
war and still see the threats as they handle daily crisis and take drastic
measures as the hard times are approaching. I want to know if the candidates are
very specific when they inform their public about the menace. Yes, it is indeed
a vital function of national security that we need to insure for the next few
years, so that all other issues can be addressed thoroughly. In short I don’t
want to see the fall of Constantinople being repeated on these shores in the
next decade or two. Humanity will not recover from such a disaster.
And that potential hyper drama hinges on the mind and the nerves of the next
President of this country. At this stage three men and a woman, all remarkable
politicians, are the finalists (or so it seems) for the ultimate job. Their
skills are rich, their past and present are colorful, their images are
attractive to many and the dreams they inspire are equally powerful: A minority
symbol, a successful woman, a war hero and a bright entrepreneur. If there was
no Jihadi menace, meaning a different Planet, I would hardly be able to choose.
Senator Obama would be an amazing choice to end the wounds of the past. Senator
Clinton, as a woman, would break the gender taboo. Senator McCain, as a man who
suffered for his country would epitomize the faithfulness of this nation.
Governor Romney, the family man and the successful businessman can be the symbol
of a hopeful America. As beautiful as these tales can be, my search for the best
choice is not as dreamful as the descriptions the candidates inspire,
unfortunately. I am looking at the scariest item on any Presidential agenda and
check out if they are conscious about it: national security. Here is what I
found so far.
Senators Obama and Clinton, unlike their colleagues Edwards and Kucinich (before
they quit the race) acknowledge that a “war on terror” is on. Both have pledged
to pursue al Qaeda relentlessly instead of blaming their country as their mates
have stated. Also, Obama and Clinton, to the surprise of their critics have
enlisted good counter terrorism experts as advisors. But from there on, the
findings gets darker. The Senator from Illinois wants to end the campaign in
Iraq abruptly, which would lead to the crumbling of the democratic experiment
and a chain of disasters from Afghanistan to Lebanon opening the path for a
Khomeinist Jihadi empire accessing the Persian Gulf and the Eastern
Mediterranean: Too many sufferings and devastating results. Obama’s campaign
need to radically transform its agenda on world view so that the voices of the
oppressed peoples in that part of the world, can be heard. Maybe a trip to
Darfur and Beirut can help rethinking his agenda. Unfortunately the latest news
from the campaign isn’t encouraging. The Senator wants to shake the hands of
Dictator Assad, authoritarian Chavez, apocalyptic Ahmedinijad and perhaps even
the Khartoum bullies of Sudan’s Africans. No need for further evidence: such an
agenda in the next White House is anathema to the sense of human history.
Senator Clinton has a powerful political machine and happens to have enlisted
top national security experts in her team. She will commit to stand by Israel
and would not visit the oppressors of women in Tehran. But beyond these two red
lines her foreign policy agenda (despite the knowledgeable expertise available
to her) is (using ironically the words of Obama in other fields) “a bridge back
to the twentieth century.” Indeed, the plan is to withdraw from Iraq without
defeating the Jihadists, without containing the Iranians and without solidifying
Democracy. It is an asphalted path to the Obama pull out, with some decorations
and consolation prizes. A retreat from the Middle East will be paved with
fabulous commitment not to let Israel down. A commitment which would lose its
teeth, once the Pasdarans will be marching through Iraq and Syria and would
install Armageddon’s Shahhab missiles in the hands of Hezbollah. On the
Senator’s agenda there is no definition of the enemy or commitment to contain
it, reverse it or defeat it. There are no policies of solidarity with oppressed
peoples and there is no alliance with the democratic forces of the region. Mrs
Clinton won’t befriend Ahmedinijad but it would let him -- and other Islamists
-- crush her own gender across the continents.
But more important perhaps, from an American perspective would the crisis to
expect in Homeland Security if one or the other agendas advanced by the two
Senators would enter the White House. If no drastic reforms would take place
within their projected policies of non confrontation of Jihadism, an army of
experts, activists and lobbyists is expected to invade all levels of national
security and reinstall the pre 9/11 attitudes. In short Jihadophilia would
prevail, even without the knowledge or the consent of that future White House.
It already happened in the 1990s and led to what we know. The reading of
political genomes has no margin for error. The electoral platforms of the two
Senators are enemy-definition-free. Not identifying the enemy is equal to not
defining the threat. Thus, and unless the good advisors rush to fill that gap
before the national election, Democratic voters will lack their chance to bring
in a solid defender of the nation.
On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are struggling with a different
choice, nonetheless as challenging and with long term consequences. Aside from
Congressman’s Paul isolationist program which calls for striking deals with
bloody dictatorships, disengaging from any containment of Jihadi threats,
abandoning peoples in jeopardy, and giving free ride to penetration and
infiltration within the US homeland (all clearly and unequivocally stated in the
open); aside from this anomalistic agenda, all other platforms had a minimum
baggage of resistance to Terror forces, each one with a different rhetoric.
McCain, Romney, Huckabee, as well as Giuliani and Thompson (before they pulled
out) were all ready to engage battle with “the” enemy, pursue the so-called War
on Terror and agreed on fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their agendas
attempted to define the threat, leaping ahead of their competitors on the other
side of the aisle. Their statements and posted documents are irrefutable
evidence that if they gain the White House there would neither surrender the
country to domestic infiltration nor they would disengage from the confrontation
overseas. On this ground alone, and unless the Democratic contenders and their
final nominee change their counter Terrorism approach (which is not that
likely), the final choice American voters will have to make -- on national
security -- will be dramatically different and irreversibly full of
consequences.
But at this stage of the primaries the grand choices seems to have to be made by
Republicans. Indeed, in what I consider the single most important ingredient in
the War with Jihadism, the identification of the threat is at the heart of the
success or the failure. All four leading Republican candidates were equal in
fingering what they perceived as the enemy: They called it “radical Islam” and
gave it different attributes, “Islamo-fascism,” “extremist Islamism,” “Islamic
terrorism,” and other similar descriptions. In that regard they are at the
opposite end of their Democratic contenders. But in my analysis, after more than
25 years of study and observations of the phenomenon, and seven years after
9/11, the term “radical Islam” is not enough when a US President (or other world
leaders) wants to define the danger and build strategies against it: Without
delving into the deeper layers of academic research (at least not in this
article), the term used outside a doctrine is too general, doesn’t pin down the
actual forces acting against democracies and can be easily overturned and
manipulated by skilled operatives in the War of ideas. So, the slogan of
“Radical Islam” could be a linguistic indicator to the direction from where the
menace is coming from, but falls short of catching the actual threat doctrine:
Jihadism. Hence in my judgment those candidates who take the ideological battle
lightly are not equipped as those who have done their homework fully and offered
the voters, and perhaps the public, a comprehensive doctrine on counter Jihadism.
We’re not dealing with semantics here, but with keys to unlock the stagnation in
the current conflict. Short of having a future President who knows exactly who
the enemy is, how does it think, and how to defeat it, the conflict cannot be
won. There can be no guesses, no broad drawings, no general directions, no
colorful slogans, and no good intentions alone. This next President has to
understand the Jihadist ideology by himself (herself as well) and not rely on
advisors to place descriptions in the speeches, and change them at the wish of
lobbyists. This nuance in understanding the threat and in articulating the
rhetoric has gigantic consequences. All strategies related to fighting al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, in Iraq and within the West, and related to containing
Khomeinist power in the region and beyond emanates from a US understanding of
their ideologies, key elements of the foes global strategies. Hence when I
examine the agendas of the Republican candidates and analyze their speeches I
look at indicators showing the comprehension of the bigger picture. All four
leaders, McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have developed common instincts
as to where it is coming from; but that is not enough. Americans need to see and
know that their future President can man sophisticated rhetoric, is ready to go
on the offensive, and move against the enemy before the latter jumps at American
and allies targets. Being just tough and willing to strike back heavily is not
anymore an acceptable threshold. We need the next President to be aware of what
the other side is preparing, preempt it and do it faster than any predecessor.
The next stage in this war is not about sitting in the trenches and increasing
the level of troops wherever we currently are. It will be about moving swiftly
and sometimes stealthily and reaching the production structure of the enemy. And
to do this, our projected leaders need to identify and define the threat
doctrine and design a counter doctrine, a matter the US Government has failed to
achieve in the first seven years of the war.
The two leading contenders on the Republican side, McCain and Romney, both
recognize that there is an enemy, are committed to defeat it, but identify it in
different intensities. Senator McCain says it is “Radical Islam,” and pledges to
increase the current level of involvement. On Iraq, the former Navy Pilot says
he will continue to fight till there are no more enemies to fight. To me that is
a trenches battlefield: We’ll pound them till they have no more trenches.
Governor Romney says the enemy is Global Jihadism, and it has more than the one
battlefield of Iraq. And because the Jihadists are in control of regimes,
interests and omnipresent in the region and worldwide, the US counter strategies
cannot and should not be limited to “entrenchment” but to counter attacks,
preemptive moves and putting allies forces on the existing and new battlefields.
Besides not all confrontations have to be militarily. The difference in wording
between the general term “radical Islam” and the focused threat doctrine
“Jihadism” says it all. One leads to concentrate one type of power in one place,
regardless of what the enemy is and wants to do, and the other concept lead to
pinch the foe from many places on multiple levels and decide over the ending
process of the conflict.
I am sure Senator McCain can follow the same reasoning and catch up with the
geopolitics of the enemy but so far Governor Romney has readied himself better
in the realm of strategizing the defeat this enemy. The next stage of the war
has to do with a mind battle with the Jihadists. The latter aren’t a just a
bunch of Barbarians set to bloodshed. They have a very advanced strategy,
projecting for decades, and they are ready to confront our next President and
defeat the United States. This is why I have come to the conclusion that -based
on what was provided to the public by the four leading candidates- Governor
Romney has the capacity of managing the counter strategies against the
Jihadists, only because he stated to the public that he sees the enemy as to who
they are. And if a President can see them, he can defeat them. His Republican
contender, now leading the polls, can sense them but haven’t shown them. The
leading candidates on the other side are making progress in the opposite
direction: One wants to end the War unilaterally and the other wants to make
Peace with the oppressors. In short, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the
mother ship, McCain will supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back
to the barracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.
Hence, as is, I have recommended Governor Romney for the Republican Primaries as
first among equals while considering Senator McCain as a genuine leader. If
Romney is selected I believe America may have a chance to try new strategies. If
his contender is selected, we will have four or eight more years of the past
seven years. On the other side, I have suggested to counter-Terrorism experts to
help Democratic candidates restructure their agendas on national security in
line with the reality of the enemy: For I would like to see both Parties
presenting a united vision of the threat while differing on how to confront it.
That would be the ideal situation America can be in and a response to the
deepest will of the American public.
(PS: This analysis represents my personal views and not the views or position of
any of the NGOs I am affiliated with.)
---------------------------------------
Dr Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America,
of The war of Ideas: Jihadism against democracy and of the forthcoming book, The
Analysis: Lebanon - a return to civil war?
By JONATHAN SPYER
The recent killing of Captain Wissam Eid of the Lebanese Internal Security
Force, and the shooting deaths of eight Shi'ite rioters - including four
Hizbullah supporters - at the Mar Mikhael intersection in southern Beirut last
week offered the latest evidence of the potential of the political stalemate in
Lebanon to spill over into renewed civil conflict.
Lebanese mourners carry the flag-draped coffins of Capt. Wissam Eid and of his
bodyguard, Osama Mereib, during their funeral procession.
Photo: AP
Substantive compromise on the issues dividing the country seems impossible. The
overriding cause of the crisis is Syria's determination to prevent political
stability in its smaller neighbor on any but its own terms.
The key issues lying behind the Lebanese political crisis are inseparable from
the larger regional balance of power, and above all, the emergence of a new
regional Cold War which places the United States and its allies against Iran and
its clients - including Syria and the Lebanese Shi'ite Hizbullah.
The latest manifestation of the crisis concerns the issue of the successor to
president Emil Lahoud, who stepped down last November. Since then, a deadlock
has emerged over the succession. There is agreement that the successor should be
General Michel Suleiman, chief of staff of the Lebanese army.
But the precise terms of the succession remain under dispute. In January, 2008,
the Arab League in Cairo claimed to have produced a compromise acceptable to
both sides. At the conference, Syria declared its acceptance of a formula
devised by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, heralding a breakthrough.
According to this proposal, Suleiman would be appointed president, and a new
national unity government would be formed, giving equal weight to the ruling
March 14 Party and opposition ministers. Neither side would have veto power, and
the balance was to be made up of minister appointed by the new president.
It is now apparent, however, that the pro-Syrian opposition will not accept this
arrangement. Syria is expressing its opposition through the activation of client
organizations within Lebanon. Hizbullah has threatened to escalate street
protests in the next few weeks if the opposition's demand for a blocking
capability in a new cabinet is not accepted.
Many analysts consider that the spate of recent terror attacks, one of which
killed Eid, are part of Hizbullah's effort to inflame tensions in the interest
of its Syrian patron. The January 15 bombing at the US embassy in Beirut - in
which four people died, and the violent, tire-burning Shi'ite protests of the
last days all fit into this pattern. It is worth noting that during the protests
on January 27, an RPG 7 shell was fired by unknown persons in the Mar Mikhael
area.
Lebanon has been struck by an ongoing series of assassinations of anti-Syrian
political figures in Lebanon over the last two years. Eid's killing was the
latest of these, following on from the murder of Deputy Chief of Staff Francois
al-Haj in December. Eid was involved in the investigation into the murder of
former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri in April, 2005. He was also responsible
for monitoring Hizballah activity in the southern suburbs of Beirut. The force
of which he was a member, the Internal Security Force, has been seen as
staunchly loyal to the Saniora government, and its commander, Ashraf Rifi, is a
known critic of the Damascus regime.
The Syrian regime is trying, above all else, to prevent the formation of a
proposed international tribunal into the Hariri's murder. Preliminary UN
investigations centered on possible Syrian involvement in the killing. The
nightmare scenario for Damascus would be for the tribunal to request the
transfer of senior regime figures for trial in the Hague. Syria is determined to
prevent this at all costs. This fact, above all others, appears to be driving
the current Hizballah escalation of violence.
Iran, the other international backer of the Lebanese opposition, is understood
to be playing a longer game in the Lebanese context. Iran's key asset in Lebanon
is Hizballah, which it helped found and which it finances and trains. The
Iranians have no direct interest in an immediate political escalation in
Lebanon. Rather, they need time for Hizballah to recoup the losses and damage it
suffered in Second Lebanon War.
Teheran's key concern is that Hizballah rebuild its strength as an Iranian
regional military asset - a process which is now proceeding apace.
Iran is also understood to wish to avoid open sectarian conflict between
Shi'ites and Sunnis, since such a conflict would undermine its desire to project
its power throughout the region, and to claim the mantle of the key anti-Western
force in the Middle East.
However, it appears to be Syria's more urgent agenda that is now dictating
events, and which may yet take Lebanon to the abyss and beyond it.
A new Arab League attempt to resolve the situation is under way, and Moussa is
on his way back to Beirut. Given the underlying realities of the situation
described above, this attempt will almost certainly be added to the list of
failures. The current signs indicate that this failure may herald increased
destabilizing activity by opposition forces - in the main Hizbullah, which
remains by far the best-organized and most capable political-military force
among the opposition.
Thus, more attacks of the type that took place on January 15 may be expected,
along with increased street activities similar to those witnessed early last
year, and in recent days at Mar Mikhael. The government, meanwhile, shows no
sign of backing down, and has proved able to marshal forces of its own. The
prospect is one of increased strife, with the specter of civil war perhaps
closer than at any time in recent memory.
*****The writer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in
International Affairs Center, IDC Herzliya.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201867280113&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Winograd: IDF plans were
anything but best-laid
By REBECCA ANNA STOIL
Jerusalem Post 03/02/08
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201867280372&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
One of the most hotly-debated events of the Second Lebanon War was the final
series of operations, collectively known as Operation Change of Direction, held
in the days leading up to the cease-fire. With many in the public questioning
the decision-making process leading to the operation, the Winograd Committee's
final report also examined the IDF's planning and orders concerning the
operation - and found a number of problematic elements both in the command
structure as well as in the planning stages.
The goal of the operation was, according to the cabinet's decision that was
passed on to the IDF, to "take control of a security strip adjoining the
border." The plan was okayed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and then-defense
minister Amir Peretz on August 5, when they instructed the IDF to plan a "wide
ground operation in the goal of offering a response to the continued rocket fire
on the Israeli home front." The plan was to be presented to the cabinet for
final approval as soon as the IDF was ready.
However, the report noted, only a minority of the highest levels of political
and military leadership believed that this was the only step that could
determine the war in the favor of Israel. Ultimately, the strategic idea behind
the operation was, in the words of the report, "to take control of south
Lebanon, damaging the operational 'heart' of Hizbullah, and destroying its
infrastructures in south Lebanon in order to improve the conditions for security
solutions."
The first major error that the committee uncovered within the IDF planning was
the fact that while then-chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz instructed
planners to consider two options: plans if a cease-fire went into effect on
August 8, and plans if no such cease-fire went into effect. What he did not
consider was the potential that a cease-fire could occur shortly after August 8,
necessitating forces in the field to make an abrupt about-face in the middle of
the planned ground operation. Similarly, no plans were drawn up for a smaller,
more limited operation in the event that the larger ground operation would not
be canceled but simply delayed.
The operation was, in fact, delayed twice - each time by 24 hours - after it was
approved. Over that 48-hour period, IDF planners took no steps to update or
amend their original plans in light of the delay.
Despite the lack of concrete plans for how to carry out an "about-face," Halutz
informed OC Northern Command Udi Adam when he gave him the go-ahead, that he
should be prepared for "a stop in the processes within a time period to be
determined."
The Winograd Committee noted that it was "not clear what the chief of General
Staff thought about the implications of a restricted timetable." According to
the report, it was only after the troops began to move into Lebanon that serious
discussions were undertaken regarding the time of a potential cease-fire.
"Around midnight, the political echelon determined that the operation must be
concluded within 60 hours, and that the cease-fire would take effect on August
14, at 8 am," the committee wrote in their final report.
It was only approximately 20 hours later that, according to the committee,
Halutz updated the operational orders - and even then, he budgeted 72 hours for
the process. Nevertheless, the orders still held by at least one of the
divisions involved in the operation still called for "Stage A" of the operation
to last 96 hours.
Occasionally, the committee's probe found, when and how different field
commanders were told to stop operations was varied and inconsistent.
Due to this, and other planning inconsistencies noted by the committee in the
final report, the report draws the damning conclusion that "it seems that the
IDF General Staff - and even more so the political leadership - were not fully
aware of the details of the operations in the field."
Going Easy on Olmert, Going
Hard on Suleiman and Siniora
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 02/02/08//
http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/02-2008/Article-20080202-db415f5c-c0a8-10ed-01dd-6f82510bffc8/story.html
The Winograd Report represents an important milestone in the vicious circle of
Arab defeats by Israel and in the long ongoing conflict Arab-Israeli conflicts.
It will allow future generations to derive lessons from the July War, since "a
semi-military organization of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the
strongest army in the Middle East, which enjoyed full air superiority and size
and technology advantages," as the summary of the report put it.
If the Winograd report is primarily published to draw conclusions by the Jewish
state and its leaders regarding one point in the conflict with the Arabs, it
would not the first time that the leaders of the Zionist movement have done this
following Israeli failures or shortcomings in wars with the Arabs. Following the
October 1973 War during which the Egyptian and Syrian armies succeeded to
penetrate Israeli defenses, there were numerous writings on "deficiency" in Tel
Aviv's dealing with this war which was waged through an Arab initiative.
However, the Winograd Commission brought the obvious Israeli failure in the July
War as a result of Hizbullah's successful resistance in the face of strongest
army in the region out into the open. This leads to drawing a lesson regarding
the other side, that is, the Arabs.
This lesson is quite obvious: if there is political will and resolve, the
Israeli army is not unconquerable. The catch for the Arabs is that they have no
strategy except fighting their enemy from a position of strength, or negotiating
with their enemy from a position of strength during a time of negotiations. One
element of strong bargaining is military capability. With the drawing of lessons
on the Arab side, we should not forget the chief conclusion of the Winograd
Report: the talk of Israeli failures only means that Israel is preparing for
another war, and it will be stronger in this next war, after remedying its
various shortcomings. This is why the international media observed that the
Winograd Report "went easy" on the Israeli politicians, especially, Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert.
In this context, a comparison between what is taking place in Israel and Lebanon
leads to a sad impression. In Israel, the prime minister neutralized during a
political crisis that resulted from the failures of the war. In Lebanon, Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora becomes a target that must be brought down with the
objective of provoking and expanding a political crisis for reasons having to do
with his dispute with Syria. This has nothing to do with Siniora's performance
during the July War, a performance praised by the Resistance as patriotic. In
fact, Siniora was designated as pro-Resistance during the ceasefire negotiations
as his partner in the negotiations Speaker Nabih Berri put it.
In Israel, Olmert dodges the accusation and in Beirut it sticks to Siniora for
reasons completely unrelated to the war. In fact, Siniora represents the
Lebanese "political echelon," which had agreed on defeating Israel's political
goals in its war against Lebanon and the Resistance.
To sum it up, in Israel the investigation of failures is used to protect
politicians while in Lebanon, the successes are exploited to weaken the domestic
"political echelon," for goals that have nothing to do with the war and those
who carried it out from a position of defense on the military, political,
diplomatic, social and media levels.
As Israelis reach closure over the fragility of their ruling government
coalition, the weakening of Lebanon's politicians goes further than Siniora; it
also targets the next president of the Republic, General Michel Suleiman, in an
attempt to weaken his position in any upcoming political settlement such that he
will abandon his position as a neutral player. Such a move is underway to give
one side advantage over the other and to strip the president-to-be of his
prerogatives before he becomes president by turning him into a hostage. The
previous residents of Baabda Palace are all familiar with such a policy as they
had functioned as hostages while serving their terms
Chad's Future Taliban enters capital while the West is
asleep
By Walid Phares
Counterterrorism 03/02/08
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/02/chads_future_taliban_enters_ca.php#trackbacks
As Americans are debating who among their candidates
for the primaries can best confront the Jihadists or at least preempt their
offensives worldwide, future Jihadi forces have in one day invaded an African
country (under European protection), a key location for the Darfur forthcoming
Peace missions. In less than 12 hours the so-called armed opposition of Chad,
crossed the entire country from its Eastern frontiers with Islamist-ruled Sudan
to the capital N'Djamena across from Northern Nigeria. The latest reports
mention fierce battles around the Presidential Palace and back and forth inside
the city. But at this stage the geo-political consequences are crucial for the
next stages locally, regionally and internationally. The bottom line is that in
one day, what could become the future Taliban of Chad have scored a strategic
victory not only against the Government of the country (which was supposed to
back up the UN plans to save Darfur in Sudan) but also against the efforts by
the African Union and European Union to contain the Sudanese regime and stop the
Genocide. Today's offensive, regardless of the next developments, has already
changed the geopolitics of Africa. Outmaneuvering the West and Africans, those
regimes and forces standing behind the "opposition" have shown that they are
restless in their campaign against human rights and self determination on the
continent. But even more importantly the events of today shows how unprepared
are Europeans and Americans in front of Jihadi regimes which seem weak on the
surface but highly able to surprise and crumble Western efforts of containment.
On Saturday February 2, 2008, and as French President Nicolas Sarkozy was
getting married in Paris and Americans were shopping for food to enjoy the
"super Bowl" on Sunday, Jihadi-backed military forces launched a blitzkrieg
across Chad using one thousand 4 X 4 armed trucks. They reached the capital in
few hours and started battling the Chadian Army isolating the President in his
Palace and declaring victory to the international media. This so-called
"opposition" has a Unified "Military Command" and includes: The Union of Forces
for Democracy (UFDD) led by Mahamat Nouri, Rally of Forces for Change (RFC) led
by Timane Erdimi, and the UFDD-Fundamental led by Abdelwahid Aboud Mackaye. At
first sight a non seasoned observer would conclude that this is yet another
African troubled country with a bunch of "separatists," "rebels" and
"insurgents." In fact it is not that simple. These forces have been backed by
the Jihadi regime in Khartoum and some of its funding -according to the Chadian
Government- has been sent from Saudi Arabia.
At the center of the confrontation is Darfur. This Black Muslim province inside
Sudan has been the victim of Genocide at the hands of Arab fundamentalist forces
known as the Janjaweed, essentially backed by the regime of Sudan. The people of
Darfur have resisted the forced "Arabization" -turned ethnic cleansing- at the
hands of the Janjaweed. Both neighboring Chad and the United Nations came to the
help of Darfur since 2005. In return, the Salafists and Wahabis of the region
came to the support of Sudan's regime against the Africans and the West. France
dispatched some military units to Chad and soon a "Eurofor" (European Force) was
set under UN auspices to be dispatched on the borders between Chad and Sudan to
help the Darfur refugees. The Islamists of Khartoum opposed the international
initiative and seems to have enlisted -although discretely- the backing of the
Wahabi circles in Saudi Arabia, but also the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Hence
the battlefield for Darfur became a fault line between the international
community and the strange bed fellows of the Jihadi axis.
Using the classical doctrine of Khid'aa (or deception) the Khartoum regime
bought as much time as it needed to allow the arming and training of the
"rebels" inside Chad. The equipment used by the militias has been obtained in
few months and "offices" were opened in several countries in the region. Oil
dividends quickly poured on the future Taliban of Chad and their political and
media training went very fast. All what the Sudanese regime had to do to abort
the forthcoming Darfur UN operations was to collapse the basis from where these
operations will be launched: Chad. The question is not about how did the
Jihadists figure this out, it is rather how the strategists in Washington and
Paris failed to predict it. Although it was very simple: Movements on the ground
inside Chad and intense media activity in support on al Jazeera for months
projected what was to come. How did the Atlantic allies fail to see the threat
gathering is stunning?
For Western and international defense systems to dramatically fail to monitor
and detect the movement of thousands of armed men crossing an allied country
from border to border is alarming. The US has just organized an African Command
-backed by the highest technologies worldwide- and the French military have a
presence in Faya Largau as well as a jet squadron in the capital ready to
scramble. Was there an abandonment? Was there a deal cut on Darfur? We will see.
However the most interesting development -along with the militia's blitzkrieg,
was the preparedness of the Jihadi propaganda machine. Amazingly, as the
"opposition" forces have reached N'Djamena the official minister of what could
become the future Taliban regime in Chad, Jibrin Issa was comfortably seated in
al Jazeera's studios in Qatar. Obviously he wasn't flown from Africa to the Gulf
on the request of the booking Department of the Qatari funded network to "react"
to the offensive. He was already at the station -or at least in Qatar-when the
offensive began. Very interestingly, the man was wearing a classical Western
business outfit and clean shaved. The PR strategy was to show the world,
including France and the US, that the forces thrusting into their ally wasn't a
sister of the Islamic Courts of Somalia or a Taliban "looking" militia. The game
was to project this coup as "domestic" against "corruption" and the rest of the
litany, thus boring for average Western public.
Issa played the script very well until a point where reality surfaced abruptly.
At first, as I was listening to his impeccable Arabic, I was wondering why did
he have this Arabian Peninsula accent and utter those mechanical sentences. It
was strange to hear an African "minister" of a future regime in Chad speaking
excellent Arabic, but I gave it a pass. Until, at the end of his interview he
made a troubling mistake. Out of the blue he started to thank the "brave
commander of the Islamic Republic of Sudan" General Omar al Bashir (the head of
the regime responsible for the Genocide in Darfur) for his help to the
"movement" and started to praise his "highness the servant of the two shrines,"
(that is the Saudi Monarch) for his support (obviously to the movement).
Suddenly, and despite the frustration of the al jazeera anchor that the game may
have been exposed, I connected the dots. It was indeed a Sudanese-backed
operation to change the regime in Chad, and backed by Wahabi circles, as a
preemptive move to crumble the forthcoming humanitarian operation in Darfur. The
Jihadists, kings of strategies, won another day. To preempt a UN move against
one of their regimes (Sudan) they took out the Government which had agreed to
help the UN and the West. In my sense this was highly predictable. But the
failure of the West to predict is highly questionable.
The days ahead may shape or reshape the ground in Chad and the direction of
events could lead to more dramatic change in the political landscape in Africa.
If Washington and Paris tergiversate, the future Chadian Taliban will
consolidate their grip and thrust further into the Sahara. The Darfur operation
will be doomed. If the Chadian Army resist and the international community
intervene,the status quo ante could be restored.It is also predicted that the
"opposition" will work hard on is image. It will try not to show the "Jihadi"
identity immediately. Besides, not all components of the "opposition" are
Taliban-type. When the opposition settles in the capital, the Islamists will
slowly surge and strategically behead their allies a la Afghanistan. It is
really too early to tell.
For now, Americans are busy watching the game, electing nominees and questioning
their candidates as to who has the best "credentials" to win the war on terror.
In France the debate is about where will the Presidential couple spend their
honeymoon. Let's admit it, the Jihadi strategists are having a blast. One more
country has fallen on the way to Constantinople.
******
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European
Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of the best seller Future Jihad and
the recent War of Ideas.