Target Centermass

Category: War on Terror

  • Dutch MPs Back Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    Ah, some good news out of the Netherlands.

    An overwhelming majority of the Dutch parliament yesterday supported sending troops on a controversial mission to southern Afghanistan, ending months of political indecision in the Netherlands that had threatened to embarrass Nato and stall peacekeeping efforts.

    One hundred and thirty one of the 150 MPs – many representing the three largest political factions – said they backed the centre-right Dutch government’s proposal to commit up to 1,400 soldiers to the Nato mission.

    Nato officials had expressed concern that a No vote by the Dutch would slow down the roll-out of the operation, which is set to take place during the first six months of the year.

    It could also have embarrassed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general and former Dutch foreign minister, who has identified Afghanistan as Nato’s most important mission.

    “Of course we welcome this decision,” said a Nato spokesman. “We are glad that the Dutch parliament has confirmed the government’s decision to go forward. What we have done in Afghanistan up to now is a success. This decision will help us reinforce the success.”

    The expansion to the south of the country will be spearheaded by 3,300 British troops, as well as 2,200 Canadians, but the Dutch contingent was seen as a key part of the operation, for both symbolic and practical reasons. The breakthrough came as Wouter Bos, leader of PvdA, the Labour opposition, told parliament all but one of his 42-member parliamentary party supported the mission, which also had the support of the Christian Democrats and liberal VVD, the main parties of the centre-right government.

    I was concerned. Perhaps there’s still a touch of life in NATO yet.

  • Tonight’s Reading: Taranto on Today’s Media

    In a lengthy opinion piece, James Taranto takes on the mainstream media for their biased and disingenuous coverage of the Iraqi theater, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan and the supposed blown cover of Valerie Plame.

    While I agree with Taranto that the media have worked themselves into a growing credibility problem through poor journalistic practices — indeed, I have stated often that my opinion of today’s media was a driving factor in my starting this site — and have been afflicted with an internal rotting since the 1968 Tet Offensive, I find myself far less optimistic than Taranto about the current ability of our media to cost us victory in the present conflict. Taranto’s stance is as follows:

    It would be fatuous to deny that this dour drumbeat of defeatism has some effect on public opinion, which after all is driven by the most fickle members of the public. By last fall, polls consistently showed that a majority of Americans thought it had been a mistake to liberate Iraq, though some 70% had favored the war when the shooting began in March 2003. But a majority continue to oppose a precipitous withdrawal. Most Americans, it seems, do not want another Vietnam, which they understand to mean a self-inflicted American defeat.

    The media’s one-sided coverage may actually undermine the antiwar cause. It does a disservice to antiwar politicians by giving them the impression that the public is fully behind them–an echo-chamber effect similar to that which helped John Kerry lose the election of 2004 (see “Kerry’s Quagmire,” July 20, 2005). Thus in December, when Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean responded to the media panic by declaring that “the idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that, unfortunately, it’s just plain wrong,” fellow Democrats scrambled to distance themselves from him.

    And the media’s adversarial approach has proved costly in public trust. In a Pew Center survey conducted in early November, just after the indictment of Scooter Libby, only half of those polled said the press was fair to the Bush administration. The president’s approval rating in the same poll was just 36%, so this was far from a pro-Bush poll.

    […]

    With the mainstream media facing a skeptical public and competition from those with other viewpoints, it seems unlikely that Iraq will turn out to be another Vietnam–a war lost in large part because of the media’s opposition.

    I feel differently, believing very strongly that the media still have sufficient power to seize defeat from the jaws of victory but need more bad news and American blood upon which to base their efforts. As it is, their are forced to steadily beat the drum of quagmire and despair, scantily covering success and heroism while carefully restraining from providing historical perspective that may reflect well on our current endeavors.

    Taranto does provide himself a giant caveat — the wild card of another terrorist strike in the American homeland. Hat tip to In the Bullpen‘s Chad Evans, who gives his thoughts on the possible fallout of Taranto’s wildcard situation.

  • Iran Threatens to Lock out UN

    Long-delayed move.

    Immediate Iraninan counter.

    Iran yesterday threatened to halt snap UN inspections of its nuclear sites and resume uranium enrichment if it is reported to the Security Council as agreed by the council’s five permanent members.

    In an angry response to the move by Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States in the early hours of yesterday, Iran also warned it would hit back in the region if put under severe international pressure.

    […]

    The agreement by the five permanent members of the Security Council to call for the IAEA to refer Iran to the full council, where it could face sanctions, was hailed by Tony Blair.

    “I hope it’s sending a message that the international community is united,” the Prime Minister said.

    But Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, responded angrily, amid signs that Russia and China are stalling over the issue.

    He said: “We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy. If these countries use all their means … to put pressure on Iran, Iran will use its capacity in the region.”

    It was not clear what regional capacities he meant. Analysts and diplomats say Iran, with its links to Islamist parties and militants, has the means to create trouble for the West in Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere.

    You know, this is a rather tiring dance.

    Tucked into the story is this little tidbit.

    It also emerged yesterday that Iran has given the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a sensitive document that appears linked to nuclear warhead designs in a show of apparent openness designed to stave off being reported to the Security Council.

    Diplomats said the one and a half page document, which described how to cast fissile uranium into the hemispherical shape of warheads, was given to IAEA inspectors last week.

    This is good news, assuming that Iran’s thirst for thermonuclear warfare technology took precedent over their acquiring the copying machine.

  • 100th British Soldier Dies in Iraq

    The casualty-figure coverage and round-number obsession is not limited to merely American troops, as the media and anti-war folks are now using the sad century mark for British deaths in Iraq.

    Two British soldiers have died in southern Iraq this week, bringing the number of the UK force to die during the conflict to 100, a Ministry of Defence statement said.

    On Tuesday morning, an explosion killed a solider in Basra province. Three other soldiers were wounded in the same incident — one seriously.

    Another British soldier died Monday morning after his patrol came under fire in Maysan province.

    The defense ministry did not give the identity of the 100th soldier, nor of the others hurt in Tuesday’s blast, all from the 7th Armoured Brigade, the main British force in Iraq. The three injured soldiers were being treated at a British base.

    Anti-war campaigners in Britain seized on the 100th death to once again demand Britain pull out of Iraq.

    The Stop The War Coalition was due to hold a vigil at parliament Tuesday evening to read out the names of the dead.

    Left-wing Member of Parliament George Galloway, one of those reading out the names, told CNN it was a “melancholy milestone.”

    “We have just sent thousands of new soldiers to Afghanistan, if anything an even more dangerous mission. Events are marching in the direction of the vindication of the anti-war movement.

    I’m afraid Galloway is unsurprisingly confused. Simply put, dangerous does not imply wrong. Had the likes of Galloway held sway in the Great Britain of the ’40s, well, red armbands would be all the rage in London today and reality TV would still suck.

    As to the media attention to casualties at the expense of true war coverage, I’ll again quote Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff, who blogged the following:

    Have you ever read a history of war that focused almost entirely on casualty figures (with an occasional torture story and grieving parent thrown in), to the exclusion of any real discussion of tactics, operations, and actual battles? I haven’t. But that’s what our self-proclaimed “rough drafters” of history are serving up with respect to Iraq.

  • Dutch Debate Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    The Dutch parliament is set to vote on a commitment of troops to the more volatile southern provinces of Afghanistan and, surprisingly, Kofi Annan is campaigning in favor of the deployment.

    UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is urging the Dutch parliament not to leave Canadian and British soldiers in the lurch in southern Afghanistan. Annan warns international efforts in Afghanistan may fail if the Dutch balk at the deployment of over 1,000 troops.

    “No one can afford to see a destabilized Afghanistan in the region,” said Annan, speaking in The Hague. “We saw what it meant when Afghanistan was destabilized in the hands of the Taliban and terrorists. Do we want to go back to that?”

    Yes, it isn’t very often that I find myself in complete concurrence with dear ol’ Kofi. Let’s cherish this moment.

    Okay, that’s enough cherishing.

    The Dutch government supports the move, but public opposition is growing over the increasing risks to troops in Afghanistan.

    Dutch parliamentarians will vote on the issue on Thursday.

    The Dutch forces would be part of a NATO-led mission. The Afghanistan operation is reviving bitter memories of other peacekeeping missions and stirring fresh debate among the people of the Netherlands.

    It was just over 10 years ago that Dutch peacekeepers faced frustration and horror as they tried to operate in Srebrenica under a restrictive UN mandate. They ended up looking on as Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys.

    This time, the public and politicians are asking a lot of questions.

    I’ve said before that such questions and concerns are understandable in light of earlier Dutch involvement in a NATO misadventure.

    Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah even flew to The Hague to plead his nation’s case for Dutch help. Later, upon his arrival in London for an international conference on the future of his country, Abdullah hinted at his frustration.

    “It’s good that these debates are underway,” he said, “but signs of hesitation will not help anybody.”

    I don’t want too hang too much on the Dutch, who most assuredly have their own domest radical Islamist issues, but a vote against military involvement would only serve to strengthen my concerns about the future value of prolonging NATO’s existence.

  • Security Council to Review Iran Nuke Case

    Well, it’s about time the UNSC agreed to take a closer look at the Iranian quest for nukes. Actually, it’s well past time and, even now, too meekly begun.

    The United States and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before that powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.

    China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed on to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog to transfer the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions or take other harsh action.

    Foreign ministers from those nations, plus the United States, Britain and France, also said the Security Council should wait until March to take up the Iran case, after a formal report on Tehran’s activities from the watchdog agency.

    Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all nuclear powers themselves, can veto an action voted by the full council membership.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers discussed Iran at a private dinner at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. After the four-hour meeting, which spilled over into the early hours Tuesday, a joint statement called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to report the Iran case when it meets in Vienna on Thursday.

    Foreign ministers from Germany and the European Union also attended the dinner and agreed to what amounted to a compromise – take the case to the Security Council but allow a short breather before the council undertakes what could be a divisive debate.

    A short breather? I’m sure the Iranian nuclear program will use the interim just for catching its collective breath, hoping cooler heads prevail. That, or perhaps March will give the Iranians all the time they need to become a nuclear menace.

  • Mexico Denies Soldiers Involved in Drug Standoff

    After a dangerous showdown at the West Texas border between the long arm of the local law and drug-lugging interlopers donning military uniforms, Mexico has issued the expected denials of involvement by actual soldiers.

    Mexican soldiers were not involved in a standoff with law enforcement officers from the United States on the Rio Grande near Sierra Blanca, Texas, on Monday, Mexican consul Juan Carlos Foncerrada Berumen said Tuesday.

    Berumen said Mexican military uniforms may have been used by drug smugglers to confuse “public opinion” and damage relations between the two countries.

    Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said his deputies along with officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety were on patrol at about 2 p.m. when they began chasing three vehicles they suspected were carrying illegal drugs.

    The officers chased the vehicles to the Rio Grande when they came across several men who appeared to be soldiers “in a Humvee with what appeared to the officers as being 50-caliber machine guns,” officials said.

    No shots were fired and no injuries were reported, but the lives of the law enforcement officers were threatened, officials said.

    Officers, who responded to the scene, said when they arrived at the border the men dressed in military uniforms drew their guns and pointed the automatic weapons toward them.

    Officials said one vehicle that was being chased was seized and that 1,400 pounds of marijuana was left behind by the driver, who fled across the river. Another vehicle made it back into Mexico. The third vehicle became stuck in the river and set ablaze by the men dressed as soldiers after people dressed in civilian clothing unloaded bundles of drugs from the vehicle.

    […]

    In November, the Hudspeth sheriff’s department reported a similar incident involving soldiers from Mexico. Whether the men on the Mexican side of the border were soldiers from the Mexican military remains in dispute.

    The Mexican border is an ongoing, make that growing, problem for the U.S., with pockets of lawlessness spreading while most American politicians continue to treat the matter as a political hot potato. See also the following:

    Please don’t think that my only concern about our southern border is crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. No, my major concern about the sieve that is our border is its possible exploitation by our radical Islamist enemies. I hope you haven’t forgotten this story, and have given thought to what may have already successfully penetrated into the U.S.

    The border must be secured, and it may very well mean a very visible presence of our own military.

  • Six Killed in Southwest Iran Bombings

    Today brings us another tale of civilians killed by bombings in Iraq Iran.

    Bombs killed six people and wounded more than 30 others Tuesday in Ahvaz, a southwestern city with a history of violence involving members of Iran’s Arab minority, Iranian state media reported.

    The bombs exploded outside a bank and a state environmental agency building in Ahvaz, the capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province, which borders Iraq, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a planned visit to Ahvaz Tuesday, citing a forecast calling for heavy rain, IRNA reported. The report did not say whether the blast had any bearing on the cancellation.

    Ahmadinejad and his entire Cabinet had been expected to meet in Ahvaz as part of a series of visits to provincial capitals to address key local issues.

    State TV said the bombs killed six people and wounded 34 others.

    It should be noted that this is not a new occurrence, though it is interesting that today’s bombings would certainly seem to be tied to Ahmadinejad’s scheduled visit.

    Ahvaz was also the scene of bombings in June and October that the government blamed on Iranian Arab extremists whom it claimed were trained abroad and maintained ties to foreign governments, including Britain.

    The October bombings killed six people and those in June killed at least eight. Britain has denied any connection to the Khuzestan unrest.

    Nezam Molla Hoveizeh, a Khuzestan lawmaker, said Tuesday that the bombers were “dissidents based outside our borders,” IRNA reported. Hoveizeh did not elaborate on the allegation.

    Official Iranian fingers were quickly pointed in the direction of the Brits.

    The explosions follow bitter exchanges between Tehran and London.

    In recent months, Iran has repeatedly accused Britain of provoking unrest in Khuzestan, which borders that part of Iraq where 8,500 British soldiers are based as part of the U.S.-led military coalition.

    At the same time, Britain has opposed Iran’s nuclear activities, supporting moves to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, and has accused Tehran of allowing Iraqi insurgents to receive explosives technology that has been used to attack British soldiers.

    Both countries have denied the claims and counterclaims.

    Frankly, I have no faith whatsoever in the Iranian denials, and I can only hope that, with the looming nuclear crisis, both Britain and the U.S. are hard at work fomenting unrest in Iran.

  • Iranian Nuke Crisis: the Dance Continues

    The song remains the same, though the tempo seems to be taking a slight uptick. It is difficult to tell whether Iran or its multitude of dance partners is leading this tripping of the light mushroomic.

    Iran threatens to ramp up nuclear program

    Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the UN Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, Tehran’s senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.

    The comments by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh reflected Iran’s unwillingness to bow to growing international pressure, especially in the West, to end all nuclear enrichment activities.

    Iran recently announced it was resuming limited nuclear enrichment. The process can be used to provide fuel for nuclear reactors or, if taken far enough, material for nuclear weapons.

    Step, and then the counter.

    Bush commits US to defence of Israel in face of Iran threat

    George Bush yesterday committed the US to the defence of Israel against threats from Iran, saying he would not allow the world to be “blackmailed” by an Iranian nuclear weapon.

    […]

    “I am deeply concerned about Iran, as should a lot of people be concerned about Iran. I am concerned when the country of Iran’s president announces his desire to see that Israel gets destroyed,” Mr Bush said, referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map”.

    He added: “Israel’s our ally. We’re committed to the safety of Israel, and it’s a commitment we will keep.

    “Secondly, I’m concerned about a nontransparent society’s desire to develop a nuclear weapon. The world cannot be put in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon. I believe it is very important for the Iranian government to hear loud and clear from not only the United States, but also from other nations around the world.”

    Quite. Freakin’. Right.

    And the song continues. I can almost picture Dubya crooning to Iranian president/puppet/madman (pick your poison) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

    Strangers in the night exchanging veiled threats
    Wond’ring in the night
    What were the chances we’d be launching bombs
    Before the night was through.

    Something in your eyes burned so insanely,
    Something in the way you spoke so vainly (apocalyptic),
    Something in my heart,
    Told me I must stop you.

    Doobie doobie doo …

    [With mucho apologies to Frank. That, and the rhyme and rhythm suck]

  • Iran Turns up Heat in Nuclear War of Words

    Because the Iranian nuclear ambitions cannot be allowed to just simmer on the back burner for a day or two.

    Iran yesterday warned Israel it would be making a “fatal mistake” if it took military action against Tehran’s nuclear programme.

    The warning came as part of escalating verbal warfare between the two regional rivals, with Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s Iranian-born defence minister, saying Israel would not let Iran acquire nuclear capability.

    “We are giving priority at this stage to diplomatic action, but we cannot tolerate a nuclear option for Iran and we must prepare ourselves,” Mr Mofaz said.

    Iran’s Foreign Ministry yesterday branded Mr Mofaz’s comments “a form of psychological warfare”.

    A spokesman said: “Israel knows how much of a fatal mistake it would be [to attack Iran]. This is just a childish game by Israel.”.

    But speakers at a seminar in Israel yesterday voiced suggestions ranging from a show of military force to bombing Iran’s nuclear installations.

    “Only a show of force by the entire world, including the United States and, afterwards, Israel, will be effective in doing away with Iran’s acquiring nuclear capability,” said Yitzhak Ben-Rafael, an army reserves general who teaches at Tel Aviv University.

    Ephraim Sneh, an MP from the opposition Labour Party, said: “The state of Israel is on a collision course with the Iranian regime.”

    One could just as easily make the argument that it would almost assuredly be a fatal mistake for Israel if there were no action taken against Iran.

    The story also included this mildly interesting tidbit.

    Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Iraqi cleric, said yesterday that his Mahdi army would help to defend Iran if it were attacked by a foreign nation.

    “The Mahdi army is beyond the Iraqi army. It was established to defend Islam,” he said.

    This little two-bit thug has been allowed to be a repeated pain in the arse for far too long. There is humor to be found, however, in his delusions of grandeur about his little rabble.