What’s in a Name?
Willa ~ Former CIA Operations Officer
Dear Readers,
Since this is my first article, let me explain that my name is not really Willa. That’s my pseudonym (pseudo), well, part of it anyway. The rest remains classified. During my thirty-plus years as an operations officer in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO), I used a pseudo for everything I wrote. The pseudo is not a name you say aloud to someone, rather it is a name that is used in all communications. The purpose is to protect the identity of the case officer who is writing or being written about.
Most pseudos are decidedly unromantic. Mine bore no resemblance to such glamorous names as “Alexis Carrington” or “Paris Hilton.” No, mine was more in the line of Hazel Q. Zygoteendorfster, a name you would never see anywhere. But it served its purpose. It protected my true identity from anyone (a spy) who might try to intercept our communications and see my real name.
I also had an alias, well more than one actually. An alias is an entirely different matter. Aliases are used when you are involved in an operation, meeting an agent, doing clandestine work. Unlike a pseudo, with an alias, you have a name and a history (legend) that goes with that name, such as Jane Doe, sales representative with ABC Corporation. The depth of the alias identity depends on the complexity of the operation being undertaken. If you are using the alias for a single meeting which does not have ramifications, you will not need a long “legend.” But if you are using an alias in a continuing operational relationship with a potential agent, you will need to have an entire background story, namely a legend, with name, history, backstopping, and knowledge of the field you claim to be working in.
Working in an alias identity can be exciting but you always have to remember to stay in character, just as in the theater, except in this case there is no margin for error, for missing a line or forgetting your character. Lives really can be at stake.
Pseudos and aliases are but two of the devices used to protect intelligence officers and agents from identification in the complex and compartmented world of espionage.
Stay tuned for upcoming insights into the world of espionage...
Willa .
Valerie Plame, Mrs. Joseph Wilson, Ms Wilson? The woman at the center of the Novak-Rove news story about who revealed the name of a deep cover CIA officer is all the same woman. Valerie Plame. Mrs. Joseph Wilson and Ms. Wilson are not aliases. They are her real name, her true identity. Reference to any of those names reveals her identity. As a retired CIA operations officer (within the Directorate of Operations) of over three decades, let me say that when you have a clearance you are obligated to protect classified information. This is the information to which you have access as a result of your work, and includes any information cleared colleagues provide you. You sign a secrecy agreement which requires that this information be held as classified. Breach of that commitment means loss of your clearance and/or career termination. It is, and should be, taken very seriously by anyone who has the privilege of holding a clearance. The identity of a deep cover officer is classified information, even if that officer resides in the Washington, D.C. area and even if he or she is married to a well-known person. Revealing it with intent under the 1982 law is a felony. Revealing and/or confirming it is a breach of your security agreement. Why does it matter? Basically, whoever Ms Plame met clandestinely in any operational assignment overseas is now identified as potential CIA. Suppose Ms Plame had been working on the terrorist target and had developed contact with someone who had access to a terrorist cell, such as an Al Qaeda operative? Revealing Ms Plame’s identity, particularly in the media, would have ended that access instantly and may well have led to the elimination or execution of that agent by his own people. Why would a potential agent trust a case officer if there was any possibility that his or her identity would be made known to the public? If the CIA cannot protect the identities of its officers, and thus of their agents, how can we possibly convince foreign agents to work for us? One of the most basic promises we make to a potential agent or asset is that we will protect their identity from public exposure. For them, this can be a matter of life or death. That’s why the principal of protecting identities of clandestine CIA operations officers is so critical, and that’s why it is a national security concern. Finally, why has it taken so long for the powers in Washington to identify the sources of the revelation of Ms. Plame’s identity? How difficult can that be? Basically just getting a sense of who Robert Novak routinely contacts—an assessment even of the types of people he may contact narrows the group. If the powers in Washington cannot find Source One of Robert Novak’s renowned column, how will we ever find Osama bin Laden in the back country of Pakistan, Iran or Southern China? Why doesn’t Mr. Novak’s Source One step forward and put a lot of people out of their misery, starting with Judith Miller?
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Friday, August 05, 2005
Syria - Israels Northern Enemy
Bowing to international pressure, Syria complied with UN Security Council resolution 1559 and pulled its 30,000 soldiers out of Lebanon. While the US and UN praised the withdrawal as a victory for freedom and democracy, they’re not cheering yet.The Syrians still have 5,000 secret service personnel stationed in Lebanon, monitoring political, economic and military activity. Lebanon was the straw that broke the camel’s back. First, Syria fell from grace with the US by sheltering Palestinian terror groups opposed to the Mideast peace process. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups are headquartered in Damascus. That’s why Syria is high on the US State Department’s list of countries sponsoring terrorism. Then, Syria outraged America by allowing al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists to cross the border and join the insurgency in neighboring Iraq. With his back against the wall, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad chose to sacrifice Lebanon, a pawn in his political chess game. Assad knew that UN sanctions against Syria would make him even more unpopular among the people than he already is. Assad is a member of the Moslem Alawite sect, which is just 7 percent of the population. Syria is over 80 percent Sunni Moslem and 9 percent Christian. Lebanon’s economy is one good reason why Syria still has a presence in Lebanon. Syria’s annual per capita income amounts to just $1,000, whereas Lebanon’s is $3,900. The lucrative Lebanese drug trade funneled tens of millions of dollars to the Syrian government that could not be provided by taxpayers in a moribund economy. The Lebanese have never been a warlike nation. Their trade has always been banking and insurance, which is why they were known as the Switzerland of the Middle East. The Lebanese population is 60 percent Moslem and 40 percent Christian. After losing the Golan Heights to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and suffering defeat in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Syria has maintained a low profile in the conflict with Israel. But Syria has overtly supported the Palestinians and the Islamic guerilla group Hizbollah in South Lebanon in their terrorist war against Israel. The principal role of Syria’s 5,000 agents in Lebanon is to keep this front line against Israel active. Although it has withdrawn its troops from Lebanon, it has by no means relinquished the goal of wiping Israel off the map. And even as Syria was withdrawing its troops, Moscow was promising to arm the Syrian military with new missiles. In a double sense, Israel’s enemy comes from the north. Israel has never initiated a war to conquer the Land promised to her by God—modern Israeli governments have been too far removed from the Bible to even think this way. So all of Israel’s territory was acquired during wars initiated by surrounding Arab countries. A look at the borders promised to Israel in Ezekiel 47:13-20 confirms that they’ve already been established in the east, west and south. It’s only the northern border that hasn’t yet been set. And bearing in mind that Israel wins territory only when attacked, it’s an educated guess that at some point Syria will attack Israel from the north, with the help of Russia. When this happens, Syria will lose territory to Israel, including Damascus, ceding to Israel the territory promised by God. The northern borders defined in Ezekiel 47 will be established. This will amount to a quarter of Syria and four-fifths of Lebanon. That’s why Russia’s military pact with Syria is an apocalyptic step in that direction. The Promised Land: Israel’s northern territory includes large parts of Lebanon and Syria, according to Ezekiel 47:13-23.
Bowing to international pressure, Syria complied with UN Security Council resolution 1559 and pulled its 30,000 soldiers out of Lebanon. While the US and UN praised the withdrawal as a victory for freedom and democracy, they’re not cheering yet.The Syrians still have 5,000 secret service personnel stationed in Lebanon, monitoring political, economic and military activity. Lebanon was the straw that broke the camel’s back. First, Syria fell from grace with the US by sheltering Palestinian terror groups opposed to the Mideast peace process. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups are headquartered in Damascus. That’s why Syria is high on the US State Department’s list of countries sponsoring terrorism. Then, Syria outraged America by allowing al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists to cross the border and join the insurgency in neighboring Iraq. With his back against the wall, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad chose to sacrifice Lebanon, a pawn in his political chess game. Assad knew that UN sanctions against Syria would make him even more unpopular among the people than he already is. Assad is a member of the Moslem Alawite sect, which is just 7 percent of the population. Syria is over 80 percent Sunni Moslem and 9 percent Christian. Lebanon’s economy is one good reason why Syria still has a presence in Lebanon. Syria’s annual per capita income amounts to just $1,000, whereas Lebanon’s is $3,900. The lucrative Lebanese drug trade funneled tens of millions of dollars to the Syrian government that could not be provided by taxpayers in a moribund economy. The Lebanese have never been a warlike nation. Their trade has always been banking and insurance, which is why they were known as the Switzerland of the Middle East. The Lebanese population is 60 percent Moslem and 40 percent Christian. After losing the Golan Heights to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and suffering defeat in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Syria has maintained a low profile in the conflict with Israel. But Syria has overtly supported the Palestinians and the Islamic guerilla group Hizbollah in South Lebanon in their terrorist war against Israel. The principal role of Syria’s 5,000 agents in Lebanon is to keep this front line against Israel active. Although it has withdrawn its troops from Lebanon, it has by no means relinquished the goal of wiping Israel off the map. And even as Syria was withdrawing its troops, Moscow was promising to arm the Syrian military with new missiles. In a double sense, Israel’s enemy comes from the north. Israel has never initiated a war to conquer the Land promised to her by God—modern Israeli governments have been too far removed from the Bible to even think this way. So all of Israel’s territory was acquired during wars initiated by surrounding Arab countries. A look at the borders promised to Israel in Ezekiel 47:13-20 confirms that they’ve already been established in the east, west and south. It’s only the northern border that hasn’t yet been set. And bearing in mind that Israel wins territory only when attacked, it’s an educated guess that at some point Syria will attack Israel from the north, with the help of Russia. When this happens, Syria will lose territory to Israel, including Damascus, ceding to Israel the territory promised by God. The northern borders defined in Ezekiel 47 will be established. This will amount to a quarter of Syria and four-fifths of Lebanon. That’s why Russia’s military pact with Syria is an apocalyptic step in that direction. The Promised Land: Israel’s northern territory includes large parts of Lebanon and Syria, according to Ezekiel 47:13-23.
Hizbullah's military bluff fools friends and foes alike
By Adnan El-Ghoul - Daily Star staffSaturday, August 06, 2005Analysis
On the eve of the Syrian troops' withdrawal last April, Hizbullah leaders bid them a fond farewell, but did not shed any tears as their departure ensured the resistance group a much-sought measure of independence.In a recent speech, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah revealed earlier U.S. plans to force the Syrians into pressuring the resistance to disarm. Had the U.S. taken this course, the architects of American diplomacy would have been on the right track.However, for one reason or another, the Americans chose instead to engage the international community through UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and pin their hopes on the anti-Syrian politicians inside Lebanon; the Americans hoped the international community could accomplish multiple objectives in one string of events. However, aside from ousting Syria, U.S. accomplishments have fallen far short of expectations and it is now too late to reconsider options at this stage.Whether this was due to America's miscalculation and the Lebanese opposition's confused priorities or not, many observers believe it was Hizbullah's impressive foresight, enabling it to address the advancing crisis long before it developed, which caused the failure of American objectives.No one seems to have an issue with the Party's political power but many demand Hizbullah dismantle its military wing.However, few realize that in the absence of Syrian domination, Hizbullah will have the ability to expand militarily beyond previous limitation.Iran, Hizbullah's true regional sponsor, was not able to provide military assistance without the Syrians' consent. Moreover, since its founding, the resistance has had to put up with Syrian threats of eradication or restrictions on the quality and quantity of its armory. During Hizbullah's recent visit to Iran, high-ranking Iranian officials praised the party's leadership in directing its political and military maneuvers and decided it was about time to reward them. Iran pledged to strengthen Hizbullah, viewing the group as increasingly useful as Western pressure mounts over the nuclear dispute. In addition, as long as Syria faces increasing American pressure, Damascus will continue to allow the transit of more sophisticated armaments from Tehran to Hizbullah. During his talks with the Iranians, Nasrallah was able to prove his party was capable of protecting its arms and putting them to good use, and so convince Tehran to supply the group with a new cache of sophisticated weapons.Hizbullah's skillful maneuvering led many to believe it already possessed such a sophisticated armory. Contrary to common belief, the size of resistance organization's true armory paled in comparison to that of similar militant groups.Many of it's traditional allies, such as Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party, believed the "myth" and expressed serious concern over Hizbullah's "military might." Moreover, the Israelis also played a role in exaggerating Hizbullah's image through hysterical proclamations that the resistance possessed thousands of long-range missiles, to which the resistance leader happily acquiesced.Until this moment, the militarized division had played the role of a scarecrow, which Hizbullah's leadership had skillfully ingrained in the minds of its foes, followers and partners, many of whom supported the resistance purely rhetorically without taking any part in its decisions or military plans. However, it would be naive to believe such a bluff, despite its effectiveness, would have been sufficient to defuse any serious attempt to dismantle Hizbullah's fortified division.Disarming the resistance has been a very complicated process, not on account of its alleged military power, but rather because, politically, the Lebanese unique sectarian system prevents the exclusion of one of its biggest sect, the Shiites.However, despite serving as a protective shield, the sectarian makeup of the resistance may well be the cause of its downfall, unless the group manages to break out of its shell and become a nationwide movement.
By Adnan El-Ghoul - Daily Star staffSaturday, August 06, 2005Analysis
On the eve of the Syrian troops' withdrawal last April, Hizbullah leaders bid them a fond farewell, but did not shed any tears as their departure ensured the resistance group a much-sought measure of independence.In a recent speech, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah revealed earlier U.S. plans to force the Syrians into pressuring the resistance to disarm. Had the U.S. taken this course, the architects of American diplomacy would have been on the right track.However, for one reason or another, the Americans chose instead to engage the international community through UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and pin their hopes on the anti-Syrian politicians inside Lebanon; the Americans hoped the international community could accomplish multiple objectives in one string of events. However, aside from ousting Syria, U.S. accomplishments have fallen far short of expectations and it is now too late to reconsider options at this stage.Whether this was due to America's miscalculation and the Lebanese opposition's confused priorities or not, many observers believe it was Hizbullah's impressive foresight, enabling it to address the advancing crisis long before it developed, which caused the failure of American objectives.No one seems to have an issue with the Party's political power but many demand Hizbullah dismantle its military wing.However, few realize that in the absence of Syrian domination, Hizbullah will have the ability to expand militarily beyond previous limitation.Iran, Hizbullah's true regional sponsor, was not able to provide military assistance without the Syrians' consent. Moreover, since its founding, the resistance has had to put up with Syrian threats of eradication or restrictions on the quality and quantity of its armory. During Hizbullah's recent visit to Iran, high-ranking Iranian officials praised the party's leadership in directing its political and military maneuvers and decided it was about time to reward them. Iran pledged to strengthen Hizbullah, viewing the group as increasingly useful as Western pressure mounts over the nuclear dispute. In addition, as long as Syria faces increasing American pressure, Damascus will continue to allow the transit of more sophisticated armaments from Tehran to Hizbullah. During his talks with the Iranians, Nasrallah was able to prove his party was capable of protecting its arms and putting them to good use, and so convince Tehran to supply the group with a new cache of sophisticated weapons.Hizbullah's skillful maneuvering led many to believe it already possessed such a sophisticated armory. Contrary to common belief, the size of resistance organization's true armory paled in comparison to that of similar militant groups.Many of it's traditional allies, such as Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party, believed the "myth" and expressed serious concern over Hizbullah's "military might." Moreover, the Israelis also played a role in exaggerating Hizbullah's image through hysterical proclamations that the resistance possessed thousands of long-range missiles, to which the resistance leader happily acquiesced.Until this moment, the militarized division had played the role of a scarecrow, which Hizbullah's leadership had skillfully ingrained in the minds of its foes, followers and partners, many of whom supported the resistance purely rhetorically without taking any part in its decisions or military plans. However, it would be naive to believe such a bluff, despite its effectiveness, would have been sufficient to defuse any serious attempt to dismantle Hizbullah's fortified division.Disarming the resistance has been a very complicated process, not on account of its alleged military power, but rather because, politically, the Lebanese unique sectarian system prevents the exclusion of one of its biggest sect, the Shiites.However, despite serving as a protective shield, the sectarian makeup of the resistance may well be the cause of its downfall, unless the group manages to break out of its shell and become a nationwide movement.
Canadian Christian Goes On The Road To Tell The World About Lebanese Injustice And The Goodness Of God Jeremy Reynald
Bruce Balfour, the Canadian Christian who was acquitted of charges of spying for Israel by a Lebanese military tribunal in Beirut, has a vision to tell the world about the freedom available in Jesus Christ and the injustices being suffered by Lebanese prisoners.Balfour knows first-hand what Lebanese prisoners face, having spent 55 days as a "guest" of the Lebanese penal system in mid-2003. After Balfour was released in Sept. 2003 he spent the next few months writing a book which he entitled "Rivers of Blessing: The Heart and Path of a Simple Servant," which in addition to telling the story of his captivity documents his exciting life. Describing Balfour's life the book cover reads, "From wilderness wanderings in Western Canada to war, kidnappings, terrorism, and imprisonment by a wickedly evil regime in the land of the Bible! Living on miracles daily to survive, this simple servant believed God could accomplish whatever He asked him to do. But what would He ask?" Having completed the book, Balfour is now on the next leg of his life's journey – a world speaking tour – which he is beginning in Alb., N.M. Balfour's Prison Experience Balfour attracted worldwide attention when he was arrested at Beirut Airport on July 10 2003. At that time, he was the Field Director of Cedars of Lebanon, an interfaith humanitarian project that was planning to help replenish the Cedars of Lebanon in the mountains of northern Lebanon. Prior to Balfour's July 2003 trip to Lebanon he had made numerous trips to the area and had attracted the attention of the authorities there. According to Balfour, "During March 2003, the Syrian secret service began to bring in many of my friends for questioning, in an attempt to gather evidence against me. Unknown to me, the Syrian established prosecutor general signed an arrest warrant against me on April 2 2003, following my conviction in abstencia by the military court for ‘spying for Israel.' When I returned to Lebanon on the evening of July 10 2003, I was arrested at the Beirut airport. I was detained in prison for two months, my captors breaking many international laws, mainly by not informing the Canadian government." According to Balfour, Lebanese authorities did not intend to release him, never informing the Canadian government of his incarceration. "After 12 days of hell, I was able to get two messages out privately, one through a humanitarian organization, to inform the world of my capture." Balfour was finally convicted for charges that included "teaching the Bible boldly," and given one year in prison. The prison sentence was subsequently reduced to time served. Balfour said he considers the conviction and sentence a great honor. While Balfour was in prison, his plight attracted prolific worldwide media attention. "There were many friends and family speaking out for me, along with a visitation in prison by some of Canada's top cabinet ministers and tens of millions praying for me from around the world. (After that) the breakthrough came," he said. While incarcerated, Balfour said he had the "unbelievable" opportunity to teach the Bible during four military court sessions with generals, colonels, majors, captains and a variety of other individuals. As a result, Balfour said, "Our Creator was greatly magnified and He received all the glory." Why was Balfour Imprisoned? But what were the circumstances that led to Balfour's imprisonment? Prior to Balfour's 2003 incarceration, he said he had been kidnapped, arrested and interrogated on numerous occasions by a variety of militias, armies and terrorist groups from the Israeli border to Beirut. Balfour added, "During the spring and summer of 2002, while trying to establish a location for planting a forest of the Biblical Cedars of Lebanon on the original slopes in south Lebanon where they were cut for Solomon and David's house; as well as the Temple of Jerusalem, I had confrontations with the Hezbollah, who control the area. Those confrontations were the beginning of a campaign to make me disappear (and would culminate in my July 2003 arrest)." Balfour on What Lies Ahead for the World and Him Balfour said he is not optimistic about the world's worsening terrorist situation, believing it will "only get worse in the weeks and months ahead. We need to know what the enemy believes and thinks." There is no easy solution outside the (Jesus') return. Islam is out for world control." Bruce Balfour Balfour is available for speaking engagements and may be reached by e-mail at cedarsoflebanon2002@yahoo.com. He can receive messages at (505) 400-7145. For additional information about Balfour's current, ministry, go to www.freedom_ministries.org
Bruce Balfour, the Canadian Christian who was acquitted of charges of spying for Israel by a Lebanese military tribunal in Beirut, has a vision to tell the world about the freedom available in Jesus Christ and the injustices being suffered by Lebanese prisoners.Balfour knows first-hand what Lebanese prisoners face, having spent 55 days as a "guest" of the Lebanese penal system in mid-2003. After Balfour was released in Sept. 2003 he spent the next few months writing a book which he entitled "Rivers of Blessing: The Heart and Path of a Simple Servant," which in addition to telling the story of his captivity documents his exciting life. Describing Balfour's life the book cover reads, "From wilderness wanderings in Western Canada to war, kidnappings, terrorism, and imprisonment by a wickedly evil regime in the land of the Bible! Living on miracles daily to survive, this simple servant believed God could accomplish whatever He asked him to do. But what would He ask?" Having completed the book, Balfour is now on the next leg of his life's journey – a world speaking tour – which he is beginning in Alb., N.M. Balfour's Prison Experience Balfour attracted worldwide attention when he was arrested at Beirut Airport on July 10 2003. At that time, he was the Field Director of Cedars of Lebanon, an interfaith humanitarian project that was planning to help replenish the Cedars of Lebanon in the mountains of northern Lebanon. Prior to Balfour's July 2003 trip to Lebanon he had made numerous trips to the area and had attracted the attention of the authorities there. According to Balfour, "During March 2003, the Syrian secret service began to bring in many of my friends for questioning, in an attempt to gather evidence against me. Unknown to me, the Syrian established prosecutor general signed an arrest warrant against me on April 2 2003, following my conviction in abstencia by the military court for ‘spying for Israel.' When I returned to Lebanon on the evening of July 10 2003, I was arrested at the Beirut airport. I was detained in prison for two months, my captors breaking many international laws, mainly by not informing the Canadian government." According to Balfour, Lebanese authorities did not intend to release him, never informing the Canadian government of his incarceration. "After 12 days of hell, I was able to get two messages out privately, one through a humanitarian organization, to inform the world of my capture." Balfour was finally convicted for charges that included "teaching the Bible boldly," and given one year in prison. The prison sentence was subsequently reduced to time served. Balfour said he considers the conviction and sentence a great honor. While Balfour was in prison, his plight attracted prolific worldwide media attention. "There were many friends and family speaking out for me, along with a visitation in prison by some of Canada's top cabinet ministers and tens of millions praying for me from around the world. (After that) the breakthrough came," he said. While incarcerated, Balfour said he had the "unbelievable" opportunity to teach the Bible during four military court sessions with generals, colonels, majors, captains and a variety of other individuals. As a result, Balfour said, "Our Creator was greatly magnified and He received all the glory." Why was Balfour Imprisoned? But what were the circumstances that led to Balfour's imprisonment? Prior to Balfour's 2003 incarceration, he said he had been kidnapped, arrested and interrogated on numerous occasions by a variety of militias, armies and terrorist groups from the Israeli border to Beirut. Balfour added, "During the spring and summer of 2002, while trying to establish a location for planting a forest of the Biblical Cedars of Lebanon on the original slopes in south Lebanon where they were cut for Solomon and David's house; as well as the Temple of Jerusalem, I had confrontations with the Hezbollah, who control the area. Those confrontations were the beginning of a campaign to make me disappear (and would culminate in my July 2003 arrest)." Balfour on What Lies Ahead for the World and Him Balfour said he is not optimistic about the world's worsening terrorist situation, believing it will "only get worse in the weeks and months ahead. We need to know what the enemy believes and thinks." There is no easy solution outside the (Jesus') return. Islam is out for world control." Bruce Balfour Balfour is available for speaking engagements and may be reached by e-mail at cedarsoflebanon2002@yahoo.com. He can receive messages at (505) 400-7145. For additional information about Balfour's current, ministry, go to www.freedom_ministries.org
A dialogue with Hezbollah on what?
By: Elias Bejjani*August 3/2005
It is time for all the Lebanese actual community representatives, political leaders, MP'S, Cabinet Ministers, and high-ranging clergy to immediately engage into an objective, transparent, authentic and serious national dialogue. This dialogue has become a must after the liberation of Lebanon was achieved last April ending thirty years of Syrian savage occupation. The decision-making process of the Lebanese people has now presumably become free and accordingly their leadership can and without any Syrian intimidation or pressure, decide on productive plans for the future of their country in mere patriotic milieus to immunize Lebanon's democracy, tolerance, coexistence, peace, welfare and identity.
During its deplorable occupation era, Baathist Syria had forced since1982 the armed Hezbollah Shiites organization under the disguise of resistance against Israel, as well as many other armed Lebanese and Palestinian militias, safeguarded the outlaw status quo of the Cantons it created in all the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and produced a corrupt and conscienceless generation of Lebanese puppet subservient politicians who are professionals in camouflage, flimflam, fraud, knavery, treason, lying and cheating.
The disarmament of Hezbollah must have first priority in an immediate national, quite and objective rational dialogue. All manipulative, Trojan and twisted justifications used by Hezbollah's leadership and their Syrian and Iranian rogue regimes to hinder Hezbollah disarmament must be addressed openly, exposed publicly and stripped of all lies and threats in front of all the Lebanese people and the whole world.
An Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia based in southern Lebanon, Beirut and Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah was the only Lebanese armed militia allowed by Syria to remain armed in 1990 when Christian Lebanese militias were all disarmed in accordance with the "Taef Accord" (forced on Lebanon's MP'S in a conference held at the Saudi Taef City in 1988 to end 15 years of internal Lebanese wars). Syria also did not disarm any of the Palestinian militias and at the same time did not allow the Lebanese authorities to carry on this duty.
Hezbollah militarily and administratively fully controls South Lebanon, patrols the Lebanese border with Israel, prevents the Lebanese Army from deploying there, and does not permit the Lebanese central government to exercise its authorities or responsibilities in the whole region. Hezbollah is the actual ruler not only of South Lebanon, but also of a big portion of the Bekaa Valley and the whole Southern Suburb of Beirut where its headquarters are located. Its bizarre current armed status quo is in defiance of the Lebanese constitution and of both the "Taef Accord" and the UN Resolution 1559 as well as the "Armistice Agreement" that regulated the Lebanese - Israeli borders (Signed in 1949)
The UN Resolution 1559 that was passed by the UN Security Council on September.2.2004, and the "Taef Accord , Both call for the disarmament of all militias, for the Lebanese army to patrol the Lebanese Israeli border and for the Lebanese government to enforce its control and authority on all the Lebanese territories through its own legitimate armed forces.
Hezbollah is strongly refusing to disarm or make it even peacefully possible for the Lebanese Army to deploy in the southern regions and on the Lebanese Israeli border. Its Leadership have been resorting to all tactics and strategies of intimidation, fanaticism, confessionalism and terror to maintain their arms and confiscation of the central government role. Hezbollah's General Secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and many others of his top (aides) have publicly cautioned that any hand that dares to touch their arms has to be an Israeli one and will be accordingly severed. At the same time they keep on threatening that any attempt for their disarmament will lead to a state of internal unrest and confrontations.
The new Lebanese government, the first after the end of the Syrian occupation did not address the UN Resolution 1559 in its ministerial Statement. It fully ignored the need for the implementation of Resolution's remaining clauses that calls for the disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the Southern regions and on the Lebanese Israeli Border. Instead it used the wooden Arabic rhetoric of resistance against Israel, Israeli occupation, and Arabic strategy and liberation, in a time when all Arab countries including the Palestinians themselves Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and Saudi Arabia have abandoned such a hostile rhetoric and forged or in the process to forging peace treaties with Israel.
The irony here lies in the fact that the Lebanese officials and politicians have told the US Secretary of State Department Condoleezza Rice last month during her visit to Beirut that they will initiate an internal dialogue to tackle the fate of Hezbollah's arms and asked her for {additional} time to achieve this aim.
What sort of dialogue they are advocating for and deluding themselves with? and what chances [do] they have for the success of such a dialogue when Iran's leadership have boldly stated on Tuesday while receiving Sheik Hassan Nasrallah that all attempts to disarm Hezbollah are absolute illusion. Meanwhile Hezbollah leadership have declared a readiness to engage in an internal Lebanese dialogue if its aims are limited only for finding means and ways needed to protect and legitimize their arms, solidify their resistance role against Israel and to give some assurances to those Lebanese who require them because of baseless fears from Hezbollah's arms. Accordingly all hopes in disarming Hezbollah through such a dialogue have been killed by Iran and Hezbollah, as well as by Syria whose PM, Mr. Ottari has tied last month the fate of Hezbollah's arms to the Syrian national security.
The Lebanese leadership are all required to take a clear-cut stance on this matter and declare publicly what kind of dialogue they are perusing with Hezbollah. Is it the kind of dialogue that Hezbollah is after in a bid to safeguard its current military status quo at the expense of the central government authority, keeps its huge arsenal, maintains full control on the cantons it erected in South Lebanon, Beirut Suburb and Bekaa valley, and put the Lebanon's decision making process for peace and war in the hands of Syria and Iran? Or a dialogue that is pre set to fully disarm Hezbollah, disintegrate its military structure and help in its integration into the political democratic and peaceful Lebanese life?
The only Lebanese political group that had taken a clear stance on this matter is the Free Patriotic Movement headed by MP, General Michel Aoun. General Aoun and his parliamentary block have openly called for the full implementation of the UN Resolution and for an internal Lebanese dialogue that aims to hand over all Hezbollah's arms to the Lebanese Army and for the Central Government to take full control on all the Lebanese territories through its own legitimate armed forces. All other Lebanese political and religious groups including the Lebanese government members, are either camouflaging [and frightened] to take a stance or are on Hezbollah's side for religious reasons.
Hezbollah that was given a Lebanese cabinet portfolio for the first time since it was founded by Syria and Iran in 1982 (On July 19, Hezbollah MP Mohammed Fneich was sworn in as energy minister), has hijacked the new Lebanese government, [taken it as] hostage, crippled its capabilities for dealing with the UN Resolution 1559 and [has] put Lebanon in a confrontational position with the UN and international community. It is widely believed that under the current circumstances, Beirut's government will not be able by any means to disarm Hezbollah neither through a peaceful dialogue, nor by its own military force.
[Saudi Arabia's new king, King Abdulla] has sponsored and adopted his Lebanese ally MP, Saad Al Hariri who, because of the Saudi unlimited help and advocacy, was able to control Lebanon's parliamentary majority in the last elections and to form Lebanon's new government through his hand-picked PM Fouad Siniora. It has been learned that the King was successful in convincing both presidents Bush and Chirac to support the leadership of Saad Al Hariri after the assassination of his father, Raffic Al Hariri, and help him rule Lebanon [fully] through his control on both its parliament and government. It was learned too that the King promised both presidents that Al Hariri will peacefully via an internal Lebanese dialogue work on the implementation of the remaining clauses of the UN Resolution 1559 provided he is given an ample of time to deliver.
It [is] worth mentioning that [in 1988], the Saudis sponsored the "Taef Accord" but later abandoned it completely, failed in delivering their promises and obligations and kept a blind eye on Syria's occupation and atrocities. One wonders if the Saudis are now repeating the same pattern of conduct and conceding to Iran whose leadership who promised this week its General Secretary, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah with an on going support and protection to maintain its current military status?
We strongly believe that both the UN and free world countries who prepared, sponsored and passed the UN Resolution 1559 and forced Syria to put an end to its occupation of Lebanon, have a further obligation to see that all the 1559 clauses are implemented and that Hezbollah and all the other Lebanese and non Lebanese militias are disarmed, or otherwise the whole middle east will know no peace and the war against terrorism will never be won.
By: Elias Bejjani*August 3/2005
It is time for all the Lebanese actual community representatives, political leaders, MP'S, Cabinet Ministers, and high-ranging clergy to immediately engage into an objective, transparent, authentic and serious national dialogue. This dialogue has become a must after the liberation of Lebanon was achieved last April ending thirty years of Syrian savage occupation. The decision-making process of the Lebanese people has now presumably become free and accordingly their leadership can and without any Syrian intimidation or pressure, decide on productive plans for the future of their country in mere patriotic milieus to immunize Lebanon's democracy, tolerance, coexistence, peace, welfare and identity.
During its deplorable occupation era, Baathist Syria had forced since1982 the armed Hezbollah Shiites organization under the disguise of resistance against Israel, as well as many other armed Lebanese and Palestinian militias, safeguarded the outlaw status quo of the Cantons it created in all the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and produced a corrupt and conscienceless generation of Lebanese puppet subservient politicians who are professionals in camouflage, flimflam, fraud, knavery, treason, lying and cheating.
The disarmament of Hezbollah must have first priority in an immediate national, quite and objective rational dialogue. All manipulative, Trojan and twisted justifications used by Hezbollah's leadership and their Syrian and Iranian rogue regimes to hinder Hezbollah disarmament must be addressed openly, exposed publicly and stripped of all lies and threats in front of all the Lebanese people and the whole world.
An Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia based in southern Lebanon, Beirut and Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah was the only Lebanese armed militia allowed by Syria to remain armed in 1990 when Christian Lebanese militias were all disarmed in accordance with the "Taef Accord" (forced on Lebanon's MP'S in a conference held at the Saudi Taef City in 1988 to end 15 years of internal Lebanese wars). Syria also did not disarm any of the Palestinian militias and at the same time did not allow the Lebanese authorities to carry on this duty.
Hezbollah militarily and administratively fully controls South Lebanon, patrols the Lebanese border with Israel, prevents the Lebanese Army from deploying there, and does not permit the Lebanese central government to exercise its authorities or responsibilities in the whole region. Hezbollah is the actual ruler not only of South Lebanon, but also of a big portion of the Bekaa Valley and the whole Southern Suburb of Beirut where its headquarters are located. Its bizarre current armed status quo is in defiance of the Lebanese constitution and of both the "Taef Accord" and the UN Resolution 1559 as well as the "Armistice Agreement" that regulated the Lebanese - Israeli borders (Signed in 1949)
The UN Resolution 1559 that was passed by the UN Security Council on September.2.2004, and the "Taef Accord , Both call for the disarmament of all militias, for the Lebanese army to patrol the Lebanese Israeli border and for the Lebanese government to enforce its control and authority on all the Lebanese territories through its own legitimate armed forces.
Hezbollah is strongly refusing to disarm or make it even peacefully possible for the Lebanese Army to deploy in the southern regions and on the Lebanese Israeli border. Its Leadership have been resorting to all tactics and strategies of intimidation, fanaticism, confessionalism and terror to maintain their arms and confiscation of the central government role. Hezbollah's General Secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and many others of his top (aides) have publicly cautioned that any hand that dares to touch their arms has to be an Israeli one and will be accordingly severed. At the same time they keep on threatening that any attempt for their disarmament will lead to a state of internal unrest and confrontations.
The new Lebanese government, the first after the end of the Syrian occupation did not address the UN Resolution 1559 in its ministerial Statement. It fully ignored the need for the implementation of Resolution's remaining clauses that calls for the disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the Southern regions and on the Lebanese Israeli Border. Instead it used the wooden Arabic rhetoric of resistance against Israel, Israeli occupation, and Arabic strategy and liberation, in a time when all Arab countries including the Palestinians themselves Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and Saudi Arabia have abandoned such a hostile rhetoric and forged or in the process to forging peace treaties with Israel.
The irony here lies in the fact that the Lebanese officials and politicians have told the US Secretary of State Department Condoleezza Rice last month during her visit to Beirut that they will initiate an internal dialogue to tackle the fate of Hezbollah's arms and asked her for {additional} time to achieve this aim.
What sort of dialogue they are advocating for and deluding themselves with? and what chances [do] they have for the success of such a dialogue when Iran's leadership have boldly stated on Tuesday while receiving Sheik Hassan Nasrallah that all attempts to disarm Hezbollah are absolute illusion. Meanwhile Hezbollah leadership have declared a readiness to engage in an internal Lebanese dialogue if its aims are limited only for finding means and ways needed to protect and legitimize their arms, solidify their resistance role against Israel and to give some assurances to those Lebanese who require them because of baseless fears from Hezbollah's arms. Accordingly all hopes in disarming Hezbollah through such a dialogue have been killed by Iran and Hezbollah, as well as by Syria whose PM, Mr. Ottari has tied last month the fate of Hezbollah's arms to the Syrian national security.
The Lebanese leadership are all required to take a clear-cut stance on this matter and declare publicly what kind of dialogue they are perusing with Hezbollah. Is it the kind of dialogue that Hezbollah is after in a bid to safeguard its current military status quo at the expense of the central government authority, keeps its huge arsenal, maintains full control on the cantons it erected in South Lebanon, Beirut Suburb and Bekaa valley, and put the Lebanon's decision making process for peace and war in the hands of Syria and Iran? Or a dialogue that is pre set to fully disarm Hezbollah, disintegrate its military structure and help in its integration into the political democratic and peaceful Lebanese life?
The only Lebanese political group that had taken a clear stance on this matter is the Free Patriotic Movement headed by MP, General Michel Aoun. General Aoun and his parliamentary block have openly called for the full implementation of the UN Resolution and for an internal Lebanese dialogue that aims to hand over all Hezbollah's arms to the Lebanese Army and for the Central Government to take full control on all the Lebanese territories through its own legitimate armed forces. All other Lebanese political and religious groups including the Lebanese government members, are either camouflaging [and frightened] to take a stance or are on Hezbollah's side for religious reasons.
Hezbollah that was given a Lebanese cabinet portfolio for the first time since it was founded by Syria and Iran in 1982 (On July 19, Hezbollah MP Mohammed Fneich was sworn in as energy minister), has hijacked the new Lebanese government, [taken it as] hostage, crippled its capabilities for dealing with the UN Resolution 1559 and [has] put Lebanon in a confrontational position with the UN and international community. It is widely believed that under the current circumstances, Beirut's government will not be able by any means to disarm Hezbollah neither through a peaceful dialogue, nor by its own military force.
[Saudi Arabia's new king, King Abdulla] has sponsored and adopted his Lebanese ally MP, Saad Al Hariri who, because of the Saudi unlimited help and advocacy, was able to control Lebanon's parliamentary majority in the last elections and to form Lebanon's new government through his hand-picked PM Fouad Siniora. It has been learned that the King was successful in convincing both presidents Bush and Chirac to support the leadership of Saad Al Hariri after the assassination of his father, Raffic Al Hariri, and help him rule Lebanon [fully] through his control on both its parliament and government. It was learned too that the King promised both presidents that Al Hariri will peacefully via an internal Lebanese dialogue work on the implementation of the remaining clauses of the UN Resolution 1559 provided he is given an ample of time to deliver.
It [is] worth mentioning that [in 1988], the Saudis sponsored the "Taef Accord" but later abandoned it completely, failed in delivering their promises and obligations and kept a blind eye on Syria's occupation and atrocities. One wonders if the Saudis are now repeating the same pattern of conduct and conceding to Iran whose leadership who promised this week its General Secretary, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah with an on going support and protection to maintain its current military status?
We strongly believe that both the UN and free world countries who prepared, sponsored and passed the UN Resolution 1559 and forced Syria to put an end to its occupation of Lebanon, have a further obligation to see that all the 1559 clauses are implemented and that Hezbollah and all the other Lebanese and non Lebanese militias are disarmed, or otherwise the whole middle east will know no peace and the war against terrorism will never be won.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
HIRC hearing: Lebanon Reborn? - Panel II
(Thursday, JULY 28, 2005)PANEL II OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEESUBJECT: "LEBANON REBORN? DEFINING NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL IN THE WAKE OF MARCH 14, 2005"more...
(Thursday, JULY 28, 2005)PANEL II OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEESUBJECT: "LEBANON REBORN? DEFINING NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL IN THE WAKE OF MARCH 14, 2005"more...
UNESCO Helps Preserve 29 More Collections Of World’s Cultural Heritage
A three thousand year old Phoenician inscription from Lebanon, a 6th century Albanian codex, medieval manuscripts on medicine and pharmacy from Azerbaijan, and Austrian Gothic architectural drawings are among 29 documentary collections from 24 countries, which have now been inscribed on the Memory of UNESCO's World Register, bringing to 120 the total number of inscriptions on the Register to date. The additions include for the first time collections from Albania, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Cuba, Italy, Lebanon, Namibia, Portugal, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Some of the collections are almost as old as recorded history itself, like the newly added sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos from Lebanon., The Phoenician inscription, dating from the 13th century BC, is the earliest known example of alphabetical as opposed to hieroglyphic or cuneiform writing; Other ancient collections include the 11,000 palm-leaf and paper manuscripts in Sanskrit from Pondicherry, India, dating from as early as the 6th century A.D; and a Serbian Gospel from 1180 A.D.
Others are as modern as the newly inscribed Astrid Lindgren Archives in Sweden containing nearly all the original manuscripts of the author (1907-2002), including the Pippi Longstocking series. Astrid Lindgren was one of the most influential writers for children and young adults in the 20th century; the Battle of the Somme film of 1916 in the United Kingdom, the first feature-length documentary to record war in action; and a collection of Jewish musical folklore (1912-1947) in Ukraine, consisting of 1,017 wax cylinders and transcriptions are examples of more recent work that UNESCO will now preserve.
UNESCO Director-General, Koïchiro Matsuura, approved the inscriptions, which were recommended by the 14-member International Advisory Committee of UNESCO’s Memory of the World Programme at a meeting in Lijiang, China, last week. The Programme, set up in 1992 to preserve and promote documentary heritage, much of which is endangered, helps networks of experts to exchange information and raise resources for preservation of and access to documentary material.
A three thousand year old Phoenician inscription from Lebanon, a 6th century Albanian codex, medieval manuscripts on medicine and pharmacy from Azerbaijan, and Austrian Gothic architectural drawings are among 29 documentary collections from 24 countries, which have now been inscribed on the Memory of UNESCO's World Register, bringing to 120 the total number of inscriptions on the Register to date. The additions include for the first time collections from Albania, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Cuba, Italy, Lebanon, Namibia, Portugal, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Some of the collections are almost as old as recorded history itself, like the newly added sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos from Lebanon., The Phoenician inscription, dating from the 13th century BC, is the earliest known example of alphabetical as opposed to hieroglyphic or cuneiform writing; Other ancient collections include the 11,000 palm-leaf and paper manuscripts in Sanskrit from Pondicherry, India, dating from as early as the 6th century A.D; and a Serbian Gospel from 1180 A.D.
Others are as modern as the newly inscribed Astrid Lindgren Archives in Sweden containing nearly all the original manuscripts of the author (1907-2002), including the Pippi Longstocking series. Astrid Lindgren was one of the most influential writers for children and young adults in the 20th century; the Battle of the Somme film of 1916 in the United Kingdom, the first feature-length documentary to record war in action; and a collection of Jewish musical folklore (1912-1947) in Ukraine, consisting of 1,017 wax cylinders and transcriptions are examples of more recent work that UNESCO will now preserve.
UNESCO Director-General, Koïchiro Matsuura, approved the inscriptions, which were recommended by the 14-member International Advisory Committee of UNESCO’s Memory of the World Programme at a meeting in Lijiang, China, last week. The Programme, set up in 1992 to preserve and promote documentary heritage, much of which is endangered, helps networks of experts to exchange information and raise resources for preservation of and access to documentary material.
End of Syrian Aid Leaves Lebanese Army Short of Supplies By RIAD KAHWAJI, BEIRUT http://www.defensenews.com
Syria has cut off all links with the Lebanese Army, leaving the latter with acute shortages in ammunition and spare parts for Soviet-built vehicles, according to Lebanese military sources here.
“As of late June, the Syrian military has ceased all contacts and cooperation with the Lebanese Army,” said a senior military official. “This action has had a severe consequence on the Lebanese military, which has been largely dependent for the past few years on Syrian supplies of ammunition.”
After Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, the official said, the United States and European countries had provided Lebanon with mostly nonlethal weapons before they stopped supplying the country with any hardware, including ammunition for old weapons Lebanon purchased in the mid-1980s.
Aside from “a small contribution from Libya, Syria was the only country that provided Lebanon with good quantities of lethal weapons,” the official said — mostly Soviet-built T-54/55 tanks, 130mm howitzers, some multiple rocket launchers and AK-47 assault rifles.
“Ammunition for most weapons used to be provided by Syria until recently, and whatever the Lebanese Army has in stock would hardly be enough for a week or two in case of an all-out confrontation against a major threat,” he said.
The deterioration of Syrian-Lebanese relations became more apparent to the public Aug. 1 during Lebanese Army Day celebrations, which for the first time in three decades did not include a Syrian military delegation.
“The Syrian command turned down an invitation by the Lebanese Army commander to attend the Army Day celebrations,” the official said. “The Syrians have also suspended all training courses for Lebanese officers and troops at Syrian facilities.”
Observers have interpreted the Syrian military action as part of wider measures taken by Syrian leaders in the past few weeks, apparently to punish Beirut for harsh anti-Syrian statements made by some officials and media here following the February assassination of former Lebanese Premier Raficq Hariri and the subsequent Syrian pullout from Lebanon.
Among other punitive measures, Damascus had closed the borders with Lebanon for hundreds of trucks carrying goods and products from Lebanese ports bound for Arab countries.
Syria’s diminishing role in Lebanon has opened the way for the United States and France to play a bigger role in the country’s affairs, including assisting the military.
“There have been some reports from reliable sources about U.S. efforts to get Egypt to supply the Lebanese Army with arms, ammunition and training,” said Ahmad Timsah, a security analyst based here. “Egypt can provide Lebanon with spare parts and ammunition from its big arsenal of Soviet-era tanks and ammunition factories.”
Both the U.S. and Egyptian embassies in Beirut have declined comment on the reports.
The Lebanese Army Command has been pressing for more U.S. military aid in the form of equipment and defense systems to help modernize the 70,000-man force’s aging vehicles and other hardware.
U.S. Embassy sources here have said that Washington has shown increased interest in the past few weeks in upgrading the Lebanese Army to increase its readiness and capabilities.
Lebanon received annual U.S. military aid from 1983-84 and in the early 1990s. But the United States stopped such aid in 1997, after Lebanon joined ranks with Syria and refused to show more flexibility in peace talks that began with Israel in 1991, said Timsah, a retired Lebanese Air Force brigadier general.
“Currently the Lebanese Army only receives $700,000 in annual U.S. military training funds, plus some assistance in mine-clearing operations in south Lebanon,” said a U.S. diplomat here. “The size of annual military aid should definitely be increased in the coming years.”
The American diplomat pointed out that the Lebanese Army command had displayed a “high level of professionalism” in dealing with recent political conflict in the country, showing that the Army is reliable enough to be counted on in restoring peace and order to Lebanon.
Syria and Lebanon in the 1990s signed a comprehensive treaty that included defense cooperation.
However, the two countries never put any of their pacts in proper use, according to officials at the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council, the body in charge of overseeing the implementation of the treaties between the two countries.
“Syrian and Lebanese officials preferred to maintain relations between the two states on a personal level, rather than go through the proper official channels as called for by the treaties,” said Nasri Khouri, the council’s secretary-general.
“After the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon and personal relations soured between some Lebanese and Syrian officials, cooperation on various levels, including the military, came to a halt because none of the ties were built within their proper framework.”
Khouri said he had frequently suggested to the leaders of both countries methods of normalizing and improving military ties between their two armies. “All my proposals were ignored, and here is the result today. Relations on the military level and all levels between the two states have collapsed.”
Many officials and experts in both countries have called for reforming the ties between the two states and for giving the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council a wider role.
Fouad Seniora, Lebanon’s new prime minister, held talks July 31 with Syrian leaders in Damascus.
After the talks, Seniora announced the start of a new page in relations between the two states, noting that all treaties between the two countries would be reviewed.
As a sign of improved relations, Damascus reopened on Aug. 1 its borders to Lebanese truckers.
Seniora’s visit to Damascus was the first by a Lebanese premier since Syrian forces withdrew from Lebanon in late April, ending 29 years of military presence and political hegemony.
“The Lebanese Army commander was keen to mention in his Army Day speech the need to maintain good relations with the Syrian Army,” Timsah said. “We hope the Syrians see the benefit in maintaining cooperation with Lebanon.”
Syria has cut off all links with the Lebanese Army, leaving the latter with acute shortages in ammunition and spare parts for Soviet-built vehicles, according to Lebanese military sources here.
“As of late June, the Syrian military has ceased all contacts and cooperation with the Lebanese Army,” said a senior military official. “This action has had a severe consequence on the Lebanese military, which has been largely dependent for the past few years on Syrian supplies of ammunition.”
After Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, the official said, the United States and European countries had provided Lebanon with mostly nonlethal weapons before they stopped supplying the country with any hardware, including ammunition for old weapons Lebanon purchased in the mid-1980s.
Aside from “a small contribution from Libya, Syria was the only country that provided Lebanon with good quantities of lethal weapons,” the official said — mostly Soviet-built T-54/55 tanks, 130mm howitzers, some multiple rocket launchers and AK-47 assault rifles.
“Ammunition for most weapons used to be provided by Syria until recently, and whatever the Lebanese Army has in stock would hardly be enough for a week or two in case of an all-out confrontation against a major threat,” he said.
The deterioration of Syrian-Lebanese relations became more apparent to the public Aug. 1 during Lebanese Army Day celebrations, which for the first time in three decades did not include a Syrian military delegation.
“The Syrian command turned down an invitation by the Lebanese Army commander to attend the Army Day celebrations,” the official said. “The Syrians have also suspended all training courses for Lebanese officers and troops at Syrian facilities.”
Observers have interpreted the Syrian military action as part of wider measures taken by Syrian leaders in the past few weeks, apparently to punish Beirut for harsh anti-Syrian statements made by some officials and media here following the February assassination of former Lebanese Premier Raficq Hariri and the subsequent Syrian pullout from Lebanon.
Among other punitive measures, Damascus had closed the borders with Lebanon for hundreds of trucks carrying goods and products from Lebanese ports bound for Arab countries.
Syria’s diminishing role in Lebanon has opened the way for the United States and France to play a bigger role in the country’s affairs, including assisting the military.
“There have been some reports from reliable sources about U.S. efforts to get Egypt to supply the Lebanese Army with arms, ammunition and training,” said Ahmad Timsah, a security analyst based here. “Egypt can provide Lebanon with spare parts and ammunition from its big arsenal of Soviet-era tanks and ammunition factories.”
Both the U.S. and Egyptian embassies in Beirut have declined comment on the reports.
The Lebanese Army Command has been pressing for more U.S. military aid in the form of equipment and defense systems to help modernize the 70,000-man force’s aging vehicles and other hardware.
U.S. Embassy sources here have said that Washington has shown increased interest in the past few weeks in upgrading the Lebanese Army to increase its readiness and capabilities.
Lebanon received annual U.S. military aid from 1983-84 and in the early 1990s. But the United States stopped such aid in 1997, after Lebanon joined ranks with Syria and refused to show more flexibility in peace talks that began with Israel in 1991, said Timsah, a retired Lebanese Air Force brigadier general.
“Currently the Lebanese Army only receives $700,000 in annual U.S. military training funds, plus some assistance in mine-clearing operations in south Lebanon,” said a U.S. diplomat here. “The size of annual military aid should definitely be increased in the coming years.”
The American diplomat pointed out that the Lebanese Army command had displayed a “high level of professionalism” in dealing with recent political conflict in the country, showing that the Army is reliable enough to be counted on in restoring peace and order to Lebanon.
Syria and Lebanon in the 1990s signed a comprehensive treaty that included defense cooperation.
However, the two countries never put any of their pacts in proper use, according to officials at the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council, the body in charge of overseeing the implementation of the treaties between the two countries.
“Syrian and Lebanese officials preferred to maintain relations between the two states on a personal level, rather than go through the proper official channels as called for by the treaties,” said Nasri Khouri, the council’s secretary-general.
“After the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon and personal relations soured between some Lebanese and Syrian officials, cooperation on various levels, including the military, came to a halt because none of the ties were built within their proper framework.”
Khouri said he had frequently suggested to the leaders of both countries methods of normalizing and improving military ties between their two armies. “All my proposals were ignored, and here is the result today. Relations on the military level and all levels between the two states have collapsed.”
Many officials and experts in both countries have called for reforming the ties between the two states and for giving the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council a wider role.
Fouad Seniora, Lebanon’s new prime minister, held talks July 31 with Syrian leaders in Damascus.
After the talks, Seniora announced the start of a new page in relations between the two states, noting that all treaties between the two countries would be reviewed.
As a sign of improved relations, Damascus reopened on Aug. 1 its borders to Lebanese truckers.
Seniora’s visit to Damascus was the first by a Lebanese premier since Syrian forces withdrew from Lebanon in late April, ending 29 years of military presence and political hegemony.
“The Lebanese Army commander was keen to mention in his Army Day speech the need to maintain good relations with the Syrian Army,” Timsah said. “We hope the Syrians see the benefit in maintaining cooperation with Lebanon.”
Foreign students discover Lebanese life and culture through SINARCSummer institute provides participants with unforgettable experienceBy Leila Diab Special to The Daily StarFriday, August 05, 2005
BEIRUT: For foreign students interested in Arabic language and Lebanese culture, participating in the Summer Institute for Intensive Arabic Language and Culture (SINARC) program has proved an unforgettable experience. According to the institute's director, Dr. Mimi Milki Jeha, SINARC is a six-week intensive language and culture program that allows students to completely immerse themselves in the life and culture of Lebanon.
The schedule includes morning classes in Modern Standard Arabic as well as afternoon classes in Lebanese dialect. Students also have opportunities to attend lectures about Lebanese politics, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Arab feminism, and other relevant topics. The program operates under the auspices of the Lebanese American University.
Outside of class, SINARC coordinates weekend trips to Syria and the cedars. Shorter excursions to Byblos, Beiteddine and Sidon are also part of the program.
"When they leave, the students will have hiked the highest mountains, swum in the deepest seas, gone as far east as Palmyra - and will leave here speaking Arabic fluently" said Jeha.
While 120 students were initially admitted to the program, 55 opted to enroll this year, while the remainder deferred - many citing security concerns.
This summer's participants have been grouped into six classes divided into beginner, intermediate and advanced levels. Many participants come from the most prestigious universities in the U.S., including Duke, Princeton and Harvard. There are also Europeans, Iranians and Canadians of all ages and professions.
On campus, the atmosphere among students and teachers is one of respect and camaraderie. Brigitte Rosas, who lives in Greece, said her teacher, "Professor Bazzi, gave us the taste to learn and continue Arabic."
The instructors seemed to share the same sentiment. Wafaa Kays, who teaches the advanced class, explained how rewarding it has been to see students come to class on their own initiative, without the pressure, and show genuine interest in the language.
Although most students spoke highly of their overall experience, some foreigners pointed out the drawbacks of being a stranger among the Lebanese.
Hafeez Dhalla, a Canadian student of Indian descent who attends Duke University in the U.S., said: "I almost don't feel welcome in most of the places we go." He explained that due to his darker complexion, when he and other students go out, Lebanese approach him assuming that he is a service employee. Dhalla also noted that people's stares sometimes made him uncomfortable.
Nevertheless, for the most part the students felt that they had truly benefited from the program, and many did not want to leave.
"This fabulous program helped me make my decision to study in Lebanon," said German student Tamar Neuwirth from the beginner's class. She is now enrolled to study psychology at AUB.
BEIRUT: For foreign students interested in Arabic language and Lebanese culture, participating in the Summer Institute for Intensive Arabic Language and Culture (SINARC) program has proved an unforgettable experience. According to the institute's director, Dr. Mimi Milki Jeha, SINARC is a six-week intensive language and culture program that allows students to completely immerse themselves in the life and culture of Lebanon.
The schedule includes morning classes in Modern Standard Arabic as well as afternoon classes in Lebanese dialect. Students also have opportunities to attend lectures about Lebanese politics, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Arab feminism, and other relevant topics. The program operates under the auspices of the Lebanese American University.
Outside of class, SINARC coordinates weekend trips to Syria and the cedars. Shorter excursions to Byblos, Beiteddine and Sidon are also part of the program.
"When they leave, the students will have hiked the highest mountains, swum in the deepest seas, gone as far east as Palmyra - and will leave here speaking Arabic fluently" said Jeha.
While 120 students were initially admitted to the program, 55 opted to enroll this year, while the remainder deferred - many citing security concerns.
This summer's participants have been grouped into six classes divided into beginner, intermediate and advanced levels. Many participants come from the most prestigious universities in the U.S., including Duke, Princeton and Harvard. There are also Europeans, Iranians and Canadians of all ages and professions.
On campus, the atmosphere among students and teachers is one of respect and camaraderie. Brigitte Rosas, who lives in Greece, said her teacher, "Professor Bazzi, gave us the taste to learn and continue Arabic."
The instructors seemed to share the same sentiment. Wafaa Kays, who teaches the advanced class, explained how rewarding it has been to see students come to class on their own initiative, without the pressure, and show genuine interest in the language.
Although most students spoke highly of their overall experience, some foreigners pointed out the drawbacks of being a stranger among the Lebanese.
Hafeez Dhalla, a Canadian student of Indian descent who attends Duke University in the U.S., said: "I almost don't feel welcome in most of the places we go." He explained that due to his darker complexion, when he and other students go out, Lebanese approach him assuming that he is a service employee. Dhalla also noted that people's stares sometimes made him uncomfortable.
Nevertheless, for the most part the students felt that they had truly benefited from the program, and many did not want to leave.
"This fabulous program helped me make my decision to study in Lebanon," said German student Tamar Neuwirth from the beginner's class. She is now enrolled to study psychology at AUB.
Can a Dead Man Walk?
How about half of a dead man?
By Daniel EngberPosted Friday, July 29, 2005, at 10:20 AM PT
The first episode of the war drama Over There includes a grisly scene in which an Iraqi insurgent's legs keep running after the top half of his body gets ripped off by a grenade. Slate's Dana Stevens wonders whether this could really happen: Can your legs keep running if your torso gets blown away?
Maybe, but only for a few steps. The most interesting data on this topic comes from studying felines. Research that began in the early 20th century shows that a cat with a severed spinal cord can be induced to move its paws in rhythmic steps. A cat will even scamper along on a treadmill right after having its brain cut off from the rest of its body.
Cats walk using a neural circuit that's located in the spinal cord. Once the higher levels of the nervous system—the brainstem and the brain—activate this circuitry, the cord makes the cat go. Meanwhile, the cat's brain uses sensory information from its limbs and eyes to control its speed and to avoid obstacles.
Less is known about how the human nervous system controls walking. People who lose all feeling in their legs because of spinal injuries can experience sudden, rhythmic stepping motions in certain postures. Newborn babies will also step spontaneously if they're held upright and moved across a table—even those born with severe brain deformities. Higher-level control of locomotion seems to be more important for humans than for cats. Even if human walking were controlled by the spinal cord, the brain would still be necessary to initiate movement and control balance.
So, could a disembodied pair of legs run a few feet before falling to the ground? It's not impossible. A major spinal injury creates a sudden surge in neural activity, which could turn on a spinal circuit that controls rhythmic stepping. You wouldn't even have to be in midstep when it happened—an injury could conceivably send a pair of legs running from a standing start. But without a brain to oversee the movement and maintain balance, the legs would quickly topple over.
In Over There, the insurgent gets blown in two just above his jeans, and there's no sign of an intact spinal cord peaking out above the waistline. This scenario makes post-traumatic stepping very unlikely, since the parts of the cord that control the legs would have been destroyed. Without the right spinal circuitry, disembodied legs can't go anywhere.
The best data, of course, come from the trenches. A couple of Slate readers referred Explainer to the World War I autobiography of Pvt. Bill Green, as referenced by the historian Pierre Berton. According to Berton, Green watched as a "headless corpse, blood spouting from the severed arteries, actually took two steps forward before toppling in the muck."
How about half of a dead man?
By Daniel EngberPosted Friday, July 29, 2005, at 10:20 AM PT
The first episode of the war drama Over There includes a grisly scene in which an Iraqi insurgent's legs keep running after the top half of his body gets ripped off by a grenade. Slate's Dana Stevens wonders whether this could really happen: Can your legs keep running if your torso gets blown away?
Maybe, but only for a few steps. The most interesting data on this topic comes from studying felines. Research that began in the early 20th century shows that a cat with a severed spinal cord can be induced to move its paws in rhythmic steps. A cat will even scamper along on a treadmill right after having its brain cut off from the rest of its body.
Cats walk using a neural circuit that's located in the spinal cord. Once the higher levels of the nervous system—the brainstem and the brain—activate this circuitry, the cord makes the cat go. Meanwhile, the cat's brain uses sensory information from its limbs and eyes to control its speed and to avoid obstacles.
Less is known about how the human nervous system controls walking. People who lose all feeling in their legs because of spinal injuries can experience sudden, rhythmic stepping motions in certain postures. Newborn babies will also step spontaneously if they're held upright and moved across a table—even those born with severe brain deformities. Higher-level control of locomotion seems to be more important for humans than for cats. Even if human walking were controlled by the spinal cord, the brain would still be necessary to initiate movement and control balance.
So, could a disembodied pair of legs run a few feet before falling to the ground? It's not impossible. A major spinal injury creates a sudden surge in neural activity, which could turn on a spinal circuit that controls rhythmic stepping. You wouldn't even have to be in midstep when it happened—an injury could conceivably send a pair of legs running from a standing start. But without a brain to oversee the movement and maintain balance, the legs would quickly topple over.
In Over There, the insurgent gets blown in two just above his jeans, and there's no sign of an intact spinal cord peaking out above the waistline. This scenario makes post-traumatic stepping very unlikely, since the parts of the cord that control the legs would have been destroyed. Without the right spinal circuitry, disembodied legs can't go anywhere.
The best data, of course, come from the trenches. A couple of Slate readers referred Explainer to the World War I autobiography of Pvt. Bill Green, as referenced by the historian Pierre Berton. According to Berton, Green watched as a "headless corpse, blood spouting from the severed arteries, actually took two steps forward before toppling in the muck."
But Why Can't Hillary Win?
Sen. Clinton's electability problem.By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Friday, July 29, 2005, at 1:39 PM PT
Don't like Hillary? Join the club!Political insiders mostly agree: Despite being an early front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton faces long odds of ever being elected president. But if she can't win, why can't she?
One facile argument, often voiced by Hillary-loathers on the right, is that she's too far to the left. The "real" Hillary is closer to Howard Dean than Bill Clinton, a recent piece in the National Review asserted. Wrong! An unhedged supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton stands at the hawkish, interventionist extreme of her party on foreign policy. Despite her pandering vote against CAFTA, she's a confirmed free-trader and deficit hawk. On the cultural issues that often undermine Democrats, she seeks common ground, sometimes with flat-earth conservatives like Rick Santorum, and has been nattering about the "tragedy" of abortion. Even Hillary's notorious government takeover of health care was misconstrued as an ultra-lib stance. In opting for a mixed, private-public managed-competition plan, the then-first lady was repudiating the single-payer model long favored by paleo-liberals. Her plan was flawed in many ways, but it wasn't what Ted Kennedy wanted.
In fact, Sen. Clinton's political positioning couldn't be better for 2008. Despite being a shrewdly triangulating centrist on the model of her husband, she remains wildly popular with the party's liberal core: It seems to share the right's erroneous view of her as a closet lefty and draws closer to her with every inane conservative attack. There's no other possible candidate in either party so well poised to claim the center without losing the base.
A related objection, which one hears from various corners, is that Hillary is "too polarizing" a figure to win. "I'm one of the few in the semi-inner circle who don't think she can win," her adviser Harold Ickes Jr. told Time just after the 2004 election. "It would be a brutal, bruising fight. It would make this year's race look like kindergarten." Ickes is surely correct that any contest involving Hillary will get nasty and ugly. Conservatives would find it absurdly easy to whip up their base against her. But why should that spell automatic defeat for a Democratic nominee? Howard Dean, who creates intense polarization among the factions within his own party, would probably be doomed as a nominee. But a disciplined centrist who can unify her side while leading her own base into furious battle—the way Ronald Reagan did—may be just the kind of polarizer who can win.
What, then, of the complaint that Hillary is doomed by association with her husband, or perhaps by their marital issues? This problem encompasses various assumptions—that voters don't want to be embarrassed by the name Monica Lewinsky again, that they don't accept Hillary's marriage as authentic, or that another 50,000 late-night comedy jokes about her horndog husband would somehow crush her chances. The conservative attack machine would surely make the most of all these vulnerabilities. But let's not forget that Bill is an asset as well. Swing voters feel positively about his presidency, and increasingly about his post-presidential role. Many would welcome his policy acumen, experience, and political wisdom back to the White House. And, let's admit it—our culture plainly can't get enough of naughty celebrities. Would Florida and Ohio really choose a dull opportunist like Bill Frist over four more years of excellent Clinton drama?
Another theory that doesn't impress me is that misogyny would keep Hillary out of the White House. America hasn't yet had a really good female presidential candidate even in the primaries (I'm talking about you, Liddy Dole). On what basis do we assume that the country wouldn't elect the right woman? Britain, where there remains far more overt sexism in public life, made Margaret Thatcher prime minister more than two decades ago. Other, far more traditional, societies, including Muslim ones, have been led by women. Hillary does bring out weird phobias in some of her more wacko antagonists. But these foamers aren't voting Democratic in any case. And the primitive misogynists would surely be outnumbered by those eager to smash the ultimate glass ceiling.
Yet Hillary does face a genuine electability issue, one that has little to do with ideology, woman-hating, or her choice of life partner. Plainly put, it's her personality. In her four years in the Senate, Hillary has proven herself to be capable, diligent, formidable, effective, and shrewd. She can make Republican colleagues sound like star-struck teenagers. But she still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likability. As hard as she tries, Hillary has little facility for connecting with ordinary folk, for making them feel that she understands, identifies, and is at some level one of them. You may admire and respect her. But it's hard not to find Hillary a bit inhuman. Whatever she may be like in private, her public persona is calculating, clenched, relentless—and a little robotic.
With the American electorate so closely divided, it would be foolish to say that Hillary, or any other potential nominee, couldn't win. And a case can be made that the first woman who gets elected president will need to, as Hillary does, radiate more toughness than warmth. But in American elections, affection matters. Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 with candidates Main Street regarded as elitist and aloof, to a candidate voters related to personally. Hillary isn't as obnoxious as Gore or as off-putting as Kerry. But she's got the same damn problem, and it can't be fixed.
Sen. Clinton's electability problem.By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Friday, July 29, 2005, at 1:39 PM PT
Don't like Hillary? Join the club!Political insiders mostly agree: Despite being an early front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton faces long odds of ever being elected president. But if she can't win, why can't she?
One facile argument, often voiced by Hillary-loathers on the right, is that she's too far to the left. The "real" Hillary is closer to Howard Dean than Bill Clinton, a recent piece in the National Review asserted. Wrong! An unhedged supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton stands at the hawkish, interventionist extreme of her party on foreign policy. Despite her pandering vote against CAFTA, she's a confirmed free-trader and deficit hawk. On the cultural issues that often undermine Democrats, she seeks common ground, sometimes with flat-earth conservatives like Rick Santorum, and has been nattering about the "tragedy" of abortion. Even Hillary's notorious government takeover of health care was misconstrued as an ultra-lib stance. In opting for a mixed, private-public managed-competition plan, the then-first lady was repudiating the single-payer model long favored by paleo-liberals. Her plan was flawed in many ways, but it wasn't what Ted Kennedy wanted.
In fact, Sen. Clinton's political positioning couldn't be better for 2008. Despite being a shrewdly triangulating centrist on the model of her husband, she remains wildly popular with the party's liberal core: It seems to share the right's erroneous view of her as a closet lefty and draws closer to her with every inane conservative attack. There's no other possible candidate in either party so well poised to claim the center without losing the base.
A related objection, which one hears from various corners, is that Hillary is "too polarizing" a figure to win. "I'm one of the few in the semi-inner circle who don't think she can win," her adviser Harold Ickes Jr. told Time just after the 2004 election. "It would be a brutal, bruising fight. It would make this year's race look like kindergarten." Ickes is surely correct that any contest involving Hillary will get nasty and ugly. Conservatives would find it absurdly easy to whip up their base against her. But why should that spell automatic defeat for a Democratic nominee? Howard Dean, who creates intense polarization among the factions within his own party, would probably be doomed as a nominee. But a disciplined centrist who can unify her side while leading her own base into furious battle—the way Ronald Reagan did—may be just the kind of polarizer who can win.
What, then, of the complaint that Hillary is doomed by association with her husband, or perhaps by their marital issues? This problem encompasses various assumptions—that voters don't want to be embarrassed by the name Monica Lewinsky again, that they don't accept Hillary's marriage as authentic, or that another 50,000 late-night comedy jokes about her horndog husband would somehow crush her chances. The conservative attack machine would surely make the most of all these vulnerabilities. But let's not forget that Bill is an asset as well. Swing voters feel positively about his presidency, and increasingly about his post-presidential role. Many would welcome his policy acumen, experience, and political wisdom back to the White House. And, let's admit it—our culture plainly can't get enough of naughty celebrities. Would Florida and Ohio really choose a dull opportunist like Bill Frist over four more years of excellent Clinton drama?
Another theory that doesn't impress me is that misogyny would keep Hillary out of the White House. America hasn't yet had a really good female presidential candidate even in the primaries (I'm talking about you, Liddy Dole). On what basis do we assume that the country wouldn't elect the right woman? Britain, where there remains far more overt sexism in public life, made Margaret Thatcher prime minister more than two decades ago. Other, far more traditional, societies, including Muslim ones, have been led by women. Hillary does bring out weird phobias in some of her more wacko antagonists. But these foamers aren't voting Democratic in any case. And the primitive misogynists would surely be outnumbered by those eager to smash the ultimate glass ceiling.
Yet Hillary does face a genuine electability issue, one that has little to do with ideology, woman-hating, or her choice of life partner. Plainly put, it's her personality. In her four years in the Senate, Hillary has proven herself to be capable, diligent, formidable, effective, and shrewd. She can make Republican colleagues sound like star-struck teenagers. But she still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likability. As hard as she tries, Hillary has little facility for connecting with ordinary folk, for making them feel that she understands, identifies, and is at some level one of them. You may admire and respect her. But it's hard not to find Hillary a bit inhuman. Whatever she may be like in private, her public persona is calculating, clenched, relentless—and a little robotic.
With the American electorate so closely divided, it would be foolish to say that Hillary, or any other potential nominee, couldn't win. And a case can be made that the first woman who gets elected president will need to, as Hillary does, radiate more toughness than warmth. But in American elections, affection matters. Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 with candidates Main Street regarded as elitist and aloof, to a candidate voters related to personally. Hillary isn't as obnoxious as Gore or as off-putting as Kerry. But she's got the same damn problem, and it can't be fixed.
Yasser Arafat, Thief?
Atlantic, September 2005In a long piece titled "How Arafat Destroyed Palestine," David Samuels asserts that Yasser Arafat and his cronies stole more than half of the $7 billion that the Palestinian Authority received in foreign aid. He also points out that the so-called Authority doesn't exist—instead, there's "a vast archipelago of randomly located government ministries, competing security-services headquarters, and prisons that operate according to no coordinated plan."
Atlantic, September 2005In a long piece titled "How Arafat Destroyed Palestine," David Samuels asserts that Yasser Arafat and his cronies stole more than half of the $7 billion that the Palestinian Authority received in foreign aid. He also points out that the so-called Authority doesn't exist—instead, there's "a vast archipelago of randomly located government ministries, competing security-services headquarters, and prisons that operate according to no coordinated plan."
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
The same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.
August 1, 2005 IssueThe American ConservativeDeep BackgroundIn Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.A CIA internal review of the agency’s performance prior to 9/11 is harshly critical of former CIA Director George Tenet, former Director of Operations James Pavitt, and the former chief of the Counterterrorist Center, Cofer Black, for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. Pavitt, who was reluctant to take on risky missions against bin Laden encouraged by the National Security Council during the second term of President Bill Clinton, is particularly criticized. The report, completed by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, is especially acerbic regarding the failure of the agency to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States. Black did not share information on the two men with the FBI agents assigned to the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA and also turned down a request for a formal memorandum to be sent to FBI Headquarters. The report will be finalized and given to Congress after those criticized in it add their own comments. Pavitt, as head of the Operations Directorate, has publicly accepted full responsibility for the agency’s failure, but Black has not acknowledged any deficiencies in his performance. Tenet has not yet responded.There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shi’ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shi’ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers.Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates.
August 1, 2005 IssueThe American ConservativeDeep BackgroundIn Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.A CIA internal review of the agency’s performance prior to 9/11 is harshly critical of former CIA Director George Tenet, former Director of Operations James Pavitt, and the former chief of the Counterterrorist Center, Cofer Black, for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. Pavitt, who was reluctant to take on risky missions against bin Laden encouraged by the National Security Council during the second term of President Bill Clinton, is particularly criticized. The report, completed by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, is especially acerbic regarding the failure of the agency to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States. Black did not share information on the two men with the FBI agents assigned to the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA and also turned down a request for a formal memorandum to be sent to FBI Headquarters. The report will be finalized and given to Congress after those criticized in it add their own comments. Pavitt, as head of the Operations Directorate, has publicly accepted full responsibility for the agency’s failure, but Black has not acknowledged any deficiencies in his performance. Tenet has not yet responded.There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shi’ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shi’ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers.Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Al Gore, Businessman
What's on the former Veep's agenda these days? TIME Archive : The Making of a Comeback (2002
Politics had been the family business, Al Gore's friends have always traced the awakening of his own interest in it to his senior thesis at Harvard: "The Impact of Television on the Presidency, 1947-1969." The small screen had created a new, unforgiving standard in politics, the young Gore wrote, one that rewards the smooth performer and dooms the stilted one. His 99-page paper turned out to be a prescient analysis of some of the forces that would conspire to deny him the White House three decades later. But while Gore's political career may be over, his fascination with television is taking a new turn. Gore has reincarnated himself as an activist entrepreneur and is about to mount what could be his most ambitious campaign yet: to transform the medium itself.
"I've never been particularly motivated by money," Gore told TIME last week, "but, you know, I like to make a good living, and I truly believe you can do well and do good at the same time." This week's launch of Current TV, his new 24-hour youth cable network, will test that proposition. The cable channel claims it will do nothing less than democratize television, giving anyone with a digital camera and a computer the kind of power that used to be enjoyed only by the mainstream media. Current TV will invite a young army of "citizen journalists" to submit edgy 15-second-to-15-minute video segments that the network is calling "pods." The idea is that no one knows better than young people what will hold the attention of the elusive, tech-savvy 18-to-34-year-old demographic.
In Gore's new office at the network's quasi-industrial San Francisco studio, there are no photos or other White House mementos to suggest that this is the man who, as he likes to put it, "used to be the next President of the United States." But anyone who knew him then would recognize the giant whiteboards he always kept handy for scrawling his inspirations on. Those much remarked-upon earth tones of his presidential campaign have been traded for the head-to-toe man-in-black look that passes for the uniform of the new media executive. But the Treo 650 still hangs at his belt in the fashion statement of the incorrigible techno-geek that he has always admitted to being.
Current TV is only one of the ventures that Gore has undertaken in the afterlife he created for himself as a businessman who is out to change the world. The former Vice President, 57, is chairman of Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that he started last year with former Goldman Sachs Asset Management CEO David Blood. For a partnership that no one seems able to resist calling Blood & Gore, they have a serious and high-minded investment philosophy. Generation aims to find and invest in companies that will pay off by virtue of enlightened approaches on energy, the environment, employee relations and other policies that will benefit society as well as their bottom lines.
1 2 3 4 Next >>
Monday, August 01, 2005
Bombers Next Door
Four dead and four others safely in custody, but British police worry this is only the beginning.
No one doubted there could be more like them. Four of the men blew themselves up, and the other four were run to ground from England to Italy, only eight days after they had fled their dud bombs. The quick arrests, thanks to closed-circuit-TV images and fast police work, were reassuring. But Scotland Yard said it would be foolhardy to suppose that the conspirators behind the attacks intend to stop there. Someone must have recruited, organized and equipped the two terror cells. The bombing suspects mirrored Britain's large immigrant population: East Africans, Pakistanis, a Jamaican, they included a school aide, a business student, a transit worker, a counterman from a family fish-and-chips shop. How many other malcontents might Al Qaeda have already groomed into other sleeper cells? "This is not the B team," said London's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, of the July 21 bombers before their capture. "These were not amateurs ... They only made one mistake," he added. "We were very, very lucky." London cops were on high alert last Thursday after getting word that more bombings were imminent. When the day passed with many arrests but no attacks, they speculated that their increased visibility might have deterred an attack, said a source close to Scotland Yard.
Investigators have found no hard evidence so far that the members of the July 7 and July 21 cells even knew one another. Presumably the plotters didn't want an investigation of one leading to the other. Three of the July 7 bombers were British natives of Pakistani descent, and all four had spent much of their lives in and around the northern city of Leeds. The July 21 suspects appear to have been children of refugees from the Horn of Africa—Somali, Eritrean, Ethiopian—who had lived in England for several years; one had only recently become a British citizen. There were hints last week that London police were chasing a third cell, this one of French-speaking Muslims.
Police have yet to figure out who directed the attacks, though they've publicly blamed Al Qaeda. The inquiry keeps coming back to the gritty London neighborhood of Finsbury Park, home of the North London Central Mosque, where a fiery Egyptian preacher known as Abu Hamza al-Masri was a principal prayer leader from 1996. He had two prosthetic hands and one sightless eye—war wounds from Afghanistan, he told people. Until his removal two years ago, he preached venomously anti-Western sermons to jihad recruits like shoebomber Richard Reid and the convicted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Abu Hamza was finally arrested in May 2004 and charged with incitement to murder, along with other offenses.
British and American counterterrorism officials, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, tell NEWSWEEK they're actively pursuing possible ties between Abu Hamza's followers and the bombings. One name that has resurfaced is that of Richard Reid: he's said to have been acquainted with at least one of the July 21 suspects, an Eritrean named Muktar Said Ibrahim. Another is that of Abu Hamza's top lieutenant, Haroon Rashid Aswat, a British-born ethnic Indian who is wanted in the United States for allegedly trying to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon for his boss. In the days before the July 7 attacks, calls were logged between a phone used by one of the bombers and one that was registered to Aswat. Counterterrorism officials say Aswat's phone was found in Britain, but two weeks ago Aswat was arrested in Zambia, where he is awaiting extradition—whether to Britain or the United States has yet to be decided.
CONTINUED
1 2 Next >
Four dead and four others safely in custody, but British police worry this is only the beginning.
No one doubted there could be more like them. Four of the men blew themselves up, and the other four were run to ground from England to Italy, only eight days after they had fled their dud bombs. The quick arrests, thanks to closed-circuit-TV images and fast police work, were reassuring. But Scotland Yard said it would be foolhardy to suppose that the conspirators behind the attacks intend to stop there. Someone must have recruited, organized and equipped the two terror cells. The bombing suspects mirrored Britain's large immigrant population: East Africans, Pakistanis, a Jamaican, they included a school aide, a business student, a transit worker, a counterman from a family fish-and-chips shop. How many other malcontents might Al Qaeda have already groomed into other sleeper cells? "This is not the B team," said London's top police officer, Sir Ian Blair, of the July 21 bombers before their capture. "These were not amateurs ... They only made one mistake," he added. "We were very, very lucky." London cops were on high alert last Thursday after getting word that more bombings were imminent. When the day passed with many arrests but no attacks, they speculated that their increased visibility might have deterred an attack, said a source close to Scotland Yard.
Investigators have found no hard evidence so far that the members of the July 7 and July 21 cells even knew one another. Presumably the plotters didn't want an investigation of one leading to the other. Three of the July 7 bombers were British natives of Pakistani descent, and all four had spent much of their lives in and around the northern city of Leeds. The July 21 suspects appear to have been children of refugees from the Horn of Africa—Somali, Eritrean, Ethiopian—who had lived in England for several years; one had only recently become a British citizen. There were hints last week that London police were chasing a third cell, this one of French-speaking Muslims.
Police have yet to figure out who directed the attacks, though they've publicly blamed Al Qaeda. The inquiry keeps coming back to the gritty London neighborhood of Finsbury Park, home of the North London Central Mosque, where a fiery Egyptian preacher known as Abu Hamza al-Masri was a principal prayer leader from 1996. He had two prosthetic hands and one sightless eye—war wounds from Afghanistan, he told people. Until his removal two years ago, he preached venomously anti-Western sermons to jihad recruits like shoebomber Richard Reid and the convicted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Abu Hamza was finally arrested in May 2004 and charged with incitement to murder, along with other offenses.
British and American counterterrorism officials, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, tell NEWSWEEK they're actively pursuing possible ties between Abu Hamza's followers and the bombings. One name that has resurfaced is that of Richard Reid: he's said to have been acquainted with at least one of the July 21 suspects, an Eritrean named Muktar Said Ibrahim. Another is that of Abu Hamza's top lieutenant, Haroon Rashid Aswat, a British-born ethnic Indian who is wanted in the United States for allegedly trying to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon for his boss. In the days before the July 7 attacks, calls were logged between a phone used by one of the bombers and one that was registered to Aswat. Counterterrorism officials say Aswat's phone was found in Britain, but two weeks ago Aswat was arrested in Zambia, where he is awaiting extradition—whether to Britain or the United States has yet to be decided.
CONTINUED
1 2 Next >
Israel prepares for war on al-Qaida
Battle plan drawn up for eradication of terror group
WASHINGTON -- Israel has drawn up a battle plan to eradicate Osama bin Laden's terrorist network within a few years – a plan that is being studied by military and intelligence leaders by other nations involved in the war against Islamic terrorism, .
Battle plan drawn up for eradication of terror group
WASHINGTON -- Israel has drawn up a battle plan to eradicate Osama bin Laden's terrorist network within a few years – a plan that is being studied by military and intelligence leaders by other nations involved in the war against Islamic terrorism, .
Forceful ReasonFallaci issues a wake-up call to Europe.
By Lorenzo Vidino
“Oriana Fallaci" is not a household name in the United States, but it cannot be uttered in Europe without generating a heated reaction. Even though her 2002 book, The Rage and the Pride, was translated into English (by Fallaci herself) and sold many copies in the U.S., it was on the other side of the ocean that intellectuals, politicians, and ordinary citizens passionately debated the views of the celebrated Italian journalist.
' The Rage and the Pride is either loved or hated; the positions Fallaci takes in it leave no middle ground. Outraged by the events of 9/11, Fallaci criticizes both Muslims (bent, according to her, on conquering the West and annihilating its culture) and Europeans (described as spoiled, hypocritical, and blind to the mortal threat represented by Islamic expansionism). Fallaci's views as expressed in the Rage and the Pride caused an uproar in politically correct Europe, death threats and lawsuits included. Now, two years later, Fallaci has published a new book, entitled La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason), which continues the discourse she began in The Rage and the Pride.
As its title suggests, The Force of Reason is not dictated by the (sometimes excessive) fury that inspired The Rage and the Pride, but it gives a more accurate explanation of why Europe has decided not to defend its identity and to surrender to what she calls the "Islamic invasion." With the sarcasm and uniquely direct style that characterizes her work, Fallaci carefully examines the historic and political reasons that have led Europeans to vilify their own culture, consistently embrace anti-Americanism, and pander to every request from the increasingly powerful Muslim communities that populate the dying Old Continent. Her analysis does not leave much hope for the future of Europe, although she takes a far more optimistic position on her adoptive country, the United States (Fallaci currently lives in New York).
The long introduction to The Force of Reason recounts the intellectual lynching to which Fallaci was subjected following the publication of The Rage and the Pride. The PC establishment, which she refers to as the "Modern Inquisition," crucified her, submerging her with lawsuits and accusations of being racist and fomenting a religious war. But all of this publicity just played into Fallaci's hands, as sales of The Rage and the Pride soared into the millions. But what has really struck Fallaci in the wake of The Rage and the Pride are the letters she has received from readers throughout the world.
One of the most significant was written by an Italian, who thanked her for "helping me to understand the things I thought without realizing I was thinking them." And this is Fallaci's goal: provoking Europeans into realizing what is going on right under their noses and getting rid of their fear to say something that goes against the PC dogma. According to Fallaci, the "Modern Inquisition" has managed to keep individuals in fear of expressing what they believe: "If you are a Westerner and you say that your civilization is superior, the most developed that this planet has ever seen, you go to the stake. But if you are a son of Allah or one of their collaborationists and you say that Islam has always been a superior civilization, a ray of light...nobody touches you. Nobody sues you. Nobody condemns you."
Fallaci has her own interpretation of the massive Islamic immigration that is rapidly changing the face of European cities. She sees it as part of the expansionism that has characterized Islam since its birth. After reminding the reader how Islamic armies have aimed for centuries at the heart of Europe (a part of history that is not taught anymore in Europe, since it would offend the sensitivity of Muslim pupils), reaching France, Poland, and Vienna, she lays out her case, claiming that the current flood of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa is part of a carefully planned strategy. Fallaci uses the words of Muslim leaders to support this thesis.
In 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory." In other words, says Fallaci, what Islamic armies have not been able to do with force in more than 1,000 years can be achieved in less than a century through high birth rates. She cites as evidence a 1975 meeting of Islamic countries in Lahore, in which they announced their project to transform the flow of Muslim immigrants in Europe in "demographic preponderance."
The "sons of Allah," as Fallaci calls them, do not make a secret of their plans. A Catholic bishop recounted that, during an interfaith meeting in Turkey, a respected Muslim cleric told the crowd: "Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you. Thanks to our Islamic laws we will conquer you." But what really makes Fallaci's blood boil is the West's inability to even acknowledge this aggression. A large part of her book is dedicated to analyzing how the main European countries pander to the arrogant demands of radical Muslim organizations, how they are unable to defend their Jewish citizens from acts of Islamic militant violence (often blamed on neo-Nazis and almost never on the Muslim perpetrators, even when the evidence clearly proves otherwise), and said countries' unwillingness to be proud of their cultures and identities.
But when and why did Europe become so weak and submissive in the face of its new Islamic masters, a "province of Islam," as Fallaci calls it? She points the finger squarely at the 1973 oil crisis. Europeans were so afraid of losing their supplies of oil that they decided to pander to the requests of OPEC, discarding Israel and beginning an intense dialogue with Arab countries. From that year on, intellectuals, the media, and politicians have been showered with money for their support of Arab and Islamic causes and numerous lobbying organizations have been created in several European countries. A publication with the ominous title of "Eurabia [about which Bat Yeor has written at length] was created in Paris, and the European parliament established the Parliamentary Association for the Euro-Arabian Cooperation, all part of an Arab-financed effort to influence European politics.
The last chapters of The Force of Reason are dedicated to explaining why Europe's three main political and social forces (Left, Right, and the Church) gave in to what she calls "the Islamic invasion." While Fallaci accuses the Left and Right mostly of ignorance and opportunism, her harshest words are left for the Church. Fallaci has been known throughout her long career for her strong anti-clericalism (she is a long-time leftist, daughter of an Italian partisan who fought the Fascists), but describes herself as a "Christian atheist." While stating that she does not believe in God, she claims that the West cannot ignore its Christian origin and identity. Even if we deny God's existence, Fallaci says, Christianity has shaped the Western world. It defines "who we are, where we are coming from, and where we are going."
But the Church, she says, is not able — or worse, not willing — to defend Christianity. Fallaci accuses the Church of helping the expansion of the "Islamic empire," lobbying for more Muslims to come to Europe. She points out that Christianity offers its churches as shelters to Muslim immigrants, who immediately turn them into mosques, as it has happened repeatedly in France and Italy. It continuously apologizes for the Crusades, but never expects an apology for what Muslims are doing now to Christians in Sudan or Indonesia.
Amid Fallaci's bleak vision for Europe, however, a ray of hope comes from America. In a very emotional last chapter, Fallaci describes her admiration in witnessing the 2004 New Year's Eve celebrations in Times Square. In a sharp contrast with the fear-constrained Europeans, thousands of New Yorkers decided to defy the Code Orange terror alert and party hard in the face of the terrorists. Proud to honor itself, young and determined, America is perceived by Fallaci as the only hope for the West. In this unprovoked cultural war that has been waged on the West, America should lead the way, but it cannot do it alone. According to Fallaci, the West has not realized that it is under attack, and that this war "wants to hit our soul rather than our body. Our way of life, our philosophy of life. Our way of thinking, acting and loving. Our freedom. Do not be fooled by their explosives. That is just a strategy. The terrorists, the kamikazes, do not kill us just for the sake of killing us. They kill us to bend us. To intimidate us, tire us, demoralize us, blackmail us."
Movingly passionate, The Force of Reason is a desperate wake-up call for the West and for Europe in particular. In Italy, despite a complete silence from the media (who have decided not to make the same mistake they made with The Rage and the Pride, when their criticism made the book's sales skyrocket) the book has sold a half million copies in just two weeks. A translation into English is imminent, making The Force of Reason readily accessible for those in the U.S. who want to learn more about the dire situation Europe faces.
By Lorenzo Vidino
“Oriana Fallaci" is not a household name in the United States, but it cannot be uttered in Europe without generating a heated reaction. Even though her 2002 book, The Rage and the Pride, was translated into English (by Fallaci herself) and sold many copies in the U.S., it was on the other side of the ocean that intellectuals, politicians, and ordinary citizens passionately debated the views of the celebrated Italian journalist.
' The Rage and the Pride is either loved or hated; the positions Fallaci takes in it leave no middle ground. Outraged by the events of 9/11, Fallaci criticizes both Muslims (bent, according to her, on conquering the West and annihilating its culture) and Europeans (described as spoiled, hypocritical, and blind to the mortal threat represented by Islamic expansionism). Fallaci's views as expressed in the Rage and the Pride caused an uproar in politically correct Europe, death threats and lawsuits included. Now, two years later, Fallaci has published a new book, entitled La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason), which continues the discourse she began in The Rage and the Pride.
As its title suggests, The Force of Reason is not dictated by the (sometimes excessive) fury that inspired The Rage and the Pride, but it gives a more accurate explanation of why Europe has decided not to defend its identity and to surrender to what she calls the "Islamic invasion." With the sarcasm and uniquely direct style that characterizes her work, Fallaci carefully examines the historic and political reasons that have led Europeans to vilify their own culture, consistently embrace anti-Americanism, and pander to every request from the increasingly powerful Muslim communities that populate the dying Old Continent. Her analysis does not leave much hope for the future of Europe, although she takes a far more optimistic position on her adoptive country, the United States (Fallaci currently lives in New York).
The long introduction to The Force of Reason recounts the intellectual lynching to which Fallaci was subjected following the publication of The Rage and the Pride. The PC establishment, which she refers to as the "Modern Inquisition," crucified her, submerging her with lawsuits and accusations of being racist and fomenting a religious war. But all of this publicity just played into Fallaci's hands, as sales of The Rage and the Pride soared into the millions. But what has really struck Fallaci in the wake of The Rage and the Pride are the letters she has received from readers throughout the world.
One of the most significant was written by an Italian, who thanked her for "helping me to understand the things I thought without realizing I was thinking them." And this is Fallaci's goal: provoking Europeans into realizing what is going on right under their noses and getting rid of their fear to say something that goes against the PC dogma. According to Fallaci, the "Modern Inquisition" has managed to keep individuals in fear of expressing what they believe: "If you are a Westerner and you say that your civilization is superior, the most developed that this planet has ever seen, you go to the stake. But if you are a son of Allah or one of their collaborationists and you say that Islam has always been a superior civilization, a ray of light...nobody touches you. Nobody sues you. Nobody condemns you."
Fallaci has her own interpretation of the massive Islamic immigration that is rapidly changing the face of European cities. She sees it as part of the expansionism that has characterized Islam since its birth. After reminding the reader how Islamic armies have aimed for centuries at the heart of Europe (a part of history that is not taught anymore in Europe, since it would offend the sensitivity of Muslim pupils), reaching France, Poland, and Vienna, she lays out her case, claiming that the current flood of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa is part of a carefully planned strategy. Fallaci uses the words of Muslim leaders to support this thesis.
In 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory." In other words, says Fallaci, what Islamic armies have not been able to do with force in more than 1,000 years can be achieved in less than a century through high birth rates. She cites as evidence a 1975 meeting of Islamic countries in Lahore, in which they announced their project to transform the flow of Muslim immigrants in Europe in "demographic preponderance."
The "sons of Allah," as Fallaci calls them, do not make a secret of their plans. A Catholic bishop recounted that, during an interfaith meeting in Turkey, a respected Muslim cleric told the crowd: "Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you. Thanks to our Islamic laws we will conquer you." But what really makes Fallaci's blood boil is the West's inability to even acknowledge this aggression. A large part of her book is dedicated to analyzing how the main European countries pander to the arrogant demands of radical Muslim organizations, how they are unable to defend their Jewish citizens from acts of Islamic militant violence (often blamed on neo-Nazis and almost never on the Muslim perpetrators, even when the evidence clearly proves otherwise), and said countries' unwillingness to be proud of their cultures and identities.
But when and why did Europe become so weak and submissive in the face of its new Islamic masters, a "province of Islam," as Fallaci calls it? She points the finger squarely at the 1973 oil crisis. Europeans were so afraid of losing their supplies of oil that they decided to pander to the requests of OPEC, discarding Israel and beginning an intense dialogue with Arab countries. From that year on, intellectuals, the media, and politicians have been showered with money for their support of Arab and Islamic causes and numerous lobbying organizations have been created in several European countries. A publication with the ominous title of "Eurabia [about which Bat Yeor has written at length] was created in Paris, and the European parliament established the Parliamentary Association for the Euro-Arabian Cooperation, all part of an Arab-financed effort to influence European politics.
The last chapters of The Force of Reason are dedicated to explaining why Europe's three main political and social forces (Left, Right, and the Church) gave in to what she calls "the Islamic invasion." While Fallaci accuses the Left and Right mostly of ignorance and opportunism, her harshest words are left for the Church. Fallaci has been known throughout her long career for her strong anti-clericalism (she is a long-time leftist, daughter of an Italian partisan who fought the Fascists), but describes herself as a "Christian atheist." While stating that she does not believe in God, she claims that the West cannot ignore its Christian origin and identity. Even if we deny God's existence, Fallaci says, Christianity has shaped the Western world. It defines "who we are, where we are coming from, and where we are going."
But the Church, she says, is not able — or worse, not willing — to defend Christianity. Fallaci accuses the Church of helping the expansion of the "Islamic empire," lobbying for more Muslims to come to Europe. She points out that Christianity offers its churches as shelters to Muslim immigrants, who immediately turn them into mosques, as it has happened repeatedly in France and Italy. It continuously apologizes for the Crusades, but never expects an apology for what Muslims are doing now to Christians in Sudan or Indonesia.
Amid Fallaci's bleak vision for Europe, however, a ray of hope comes from America. In a very emotional last chapter, Fallaci describes her admiration in witnessing the 2004 New Year's Eve celebrations in Times Square. In a sharp contrast with the fear-constrained Europeans, thousands of New Yorkers decided to defy the Code Orange terror alert and party hard in the face of the terrorists. Proud to honor itself, young and determined, America is perceived by Fallaci as the only hope for the West. In this unprovoked cultural war that has been waged on the West, America should lead the way, but it cannot do it alone. According to Fallaci, the West has not realized that it is under attack, and that this war "wants to hit our soul rather than our body. Our way of life, our philosophy of life. Our way of thinking, acting and loving. Our freedom. Do not be fooled by their explosives. That is just a strategy. The terrorists, the kamikazes, do not kill us just for the sake of killing us. They kill us to bend us. To intimidate us, tire us, demoralize us, blackmail us."
Movingly passionate, The Force of Reason is a desperate wake-up call for the West and for Europe in particular. In Italy, despite a complete silence from the media (who have decided not to make the same mistake they made with The Rage and the Pride, when their criticism made the book's sales skyrocket) the book has sold a half million copies in just two weeks. A translation into English is imminent, making The Force of Reason readily accessible for those in the U.S. who want to learn more about the dire situation Europe faces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)