Wednesday, June 30, 2010

New York Times: After Afghan Shift, Top U.S. Civilians Face Tricky Future

After Afghan Shift, Top U.S. Civilians Face Tricky Future

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/asia/01diplo.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

WASHINGTON — As General David H. Petraeus takes command in Afghanistan, the two top American civilian officials in the war face an uncertain and tricky future, working with a newly empowered military leader, under the gaze of an impatient president who has put them on notice that his fractious war council needs to pull together.

Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special representative to the region, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, both hung on to their jobs in the uproar that followed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s career-ending quotes in Rolling Stone magazine.

But privately, at least one senior White House official suggested using General McChrystal’s exit as an excuse for a housecleaning, according to senior officials. That was rejected as too disruptive during a military campaign that relies heavily on civilian support, these people said.

In recent days, other administration officials have begun floating the idea that Ambassador Eikenberry might be replaced by Ryan C. Crocker, the highly regarded former ambassador in Iraq who forged a close partnership with General Petraeus during the successful Iraq troop increase. Such a prospect is viewed as remote, given Mr. Crocker’s prestigious new post at Texas A&M University. But the fact that his name is being invoked underlines the challenges that confront Ambassador Eikenberry, as he adapts to a new partner — one who has strong ideas about how soldiers and diplomats should work together in war.

It also illustrates the remarkably powerful role that General Petraeus will assume in the nine-year-old war, setting him up as almost a viceroy in Afghanistan and a key broker in negotiations between President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan over an eventual political settlement.

Before General Petraeus’s arrival, some critics said the White House had created a problem by recruiting several forceful, ambitious personalities and giving them jobs with overlapping responsibilities. Administration officials acknowledge that, as one said, “there are obviously a number of substantial personalities on the team.” But the White House believes that the current lineup can mesh, and that a difficult war demands this much talent.

Still, the McChrystal blow-up has reverberated through the State Department. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton instructed Ambassador Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke to take a hard look at the civilian team, two officials said. She is not wedded to the current lineup if it continues to bog down in internecine battles, they said.

“You can’t have a major shift in a civ-mil structure without having the civilian side take a step back and look at everything,” said a senior State Department official, using the jargon for a civilian-military campaign.

General Petraeus, whose appointment was approved 99-0 by the Senate on Wednesday, took pains at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday to back a unified civilian and military effort. He noted then that he had telephoned Mr. Holbrooke and would rendezvous with Ambassador Eikenberry in Brussels, so the two could land in Kabul together.

“Holbrooke has been my wingman, to a great degree,” General Petraeus said in an interview. “We have had, and do have, a very good relationship.” That role, he said, will now fall to Ambassador Eikenberry.

Ambassador Eikenberry was highly critical of the Pentagon’s proposal last year to send 60,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, which led to a difficult relationship with General McChrystal. But in fact General Petraeus was the true architect of the plan.

The ambassador, a retired lieutenant general and former commander in Afghanistan, graduated from West Point in 1973, a year ahead of General Petraeus, but they did not know each other at the academy. The two share a scholarly bent: General Petraeus holds a Ph.D. from Princeton, while Ambassador Eikenberry has master’s degrees from Harvard and Stanford.

While they were never assigned together, their careers intersected twice. In Iraq, General Eikenberry led an assessment of Iraqi security forces while General Petraeus was commanding the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul. When General Eikenberry was commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus led an assessment of Afghan National Security Forces.

General Petraeus declined to discuss personnel issues, while Ambassador Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke turned down requests for an interview. Mr. Crocker, now the dean of the George Bush School of Government at Texas A&M, did not return a call for comment.

For Mr. Holbrooke, the new landscape is challenging in other ways. Officials said his job security was less in doubt than it was six months ago, when his ouster was the subject of Washington chatter. Yet he has arguably become a less central player: Jacob J. Lew, a deputy secretary of state, manages much of the civilian influx in Afghanistan that Mr. Holbrooke helped shape, while the embassy in Kabul is carrying it out. Mr. Holbrooke’s current portfolio has played to his weaknesses, his own allies admit. He is best as a high-level negotiator, and not as comfortable with the nitty-gritty work of helping Afghanistan build an economy.

These days, Mr. Holbrooke has become a globe-trotting diplomat, trying to retain flagging European allies while seeking to draw influential Muslim countries like Egypt into helping Afghanistan. At a recent conference of 35 countries in Madrid, Mr. Holbrooke drummed up more support from allies for the Afghan government’s campaign to reintegrate Taliban fighters into mainstream society.

Mr. Karzai’s longer-term effort to reconcile with Taliban leaders, and his negotiations with Pakistan, could propel Mr. Holbrooke back into a central role. Were these talks to become more serious, several officials said, Mr. Holbrooke’s negotiating skills could be put to use, as a broker and guardian of American interests. For now, though, as evidence of General Petraeus’s influence, he will do most of the shuttling between Kabul and Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

On his last visit to the region, Mr. Holbrooke met with Mr. Karzai and with senior Pakistani officials, including the chief of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Mr. Holbrooke’s past run-ins with Mr. Karzai, several officials said, have not hindered his ability to deal with the Afghan leader, and Pakistani officials said they trusted him. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, said that Mr. Holbrooke took time to understand Pakistan’s concerns. “Ambassador Holbrooke is liked by some, admired by others and seen as effective, even by those who may not like him,” Mr. Haqqani said.

Still, General Petraeus is indisputably the key player, and he has wasted no time asserting his control. On a secure videoconference call last Saturday, a person familiar with the call said, General Petraeus threw his support behind a costly, and controversial, plan to install temporary generators to supply more electricity to Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold that is the next major American military target.

Mr. Holbrooke and Ambassador Eikenberry swiftly assented.

ABCNEWS: Iranian Defector: I've Escaped from CIA In Latest Videos, Nuclear Scientist Claims He's Retuning to Iran; U.S. Says He's Here on Own Will

Iranian Defector: I've Escaped from CIA

In Latest Videos, Nuclear Scientist Claims He's Retuning to Iran; U.S. Says He's Here on Own Will

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iranian-defector-escaped-cia/story?id=11053597

The Iranian nuclear scientist in the middle of the high stakes battle between Washington and Tehran has released two new videos, claiming to have "escaped" U.S. intelligence and says he's on his way back to Iran.

The scientist, Shahram Amiri, who, according to U.S. intelligence officials resettled in the U.S. last year after working for several years as a CIA spy, has claimed that he escaped "U.S. intelligence officers in Virginia." He says he is now in a "safe place" but that he is in "danger and could possibly be arrested again by U.S. intelligence officers at any moment."

"In case anything happens to me or if I do not make it back home safely, the responsibility will solely rest on the officials of the United States," Amiri says in a video posted to YouTube, which says was recorded June 14.

A U.S. official tried today to quickly rebuke Amiri's claims.

"The guy's ability to make and release messages is clear proof that he hasn't been held in the United States against his will, says that theory's absurd. That's not the way it works—we don't have to compel people to defect. Maybe he's just trying to build a story for the folks back home. The fact that he can say what he wants doesn't make his statements true. He's shown to the world that he has the power to make choices—even bad ones."

The latest video aired today on Iranian state television and continues the propaganda efforts of Tehran to show Amiri was kidnapped and brought to the U.S. against his will.

To view the two latest Amiri videos, click here and here.

In fact, U.S. officials say, Amiri was a key CIA spy inside the Iranian nuclear weapons program and helped reverse the CIA's understanding of the Iranian program. According to one intelligence official briefed on the operation, Amiri directly contradicted the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Tehran had suspended their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Amiri, according to the official, proved to the Americans that the program had not been suspended.

CIA director Leon Panetta acknowledged this week to ABC News that the CIA no longer believed the conclusions of the 2007 NIE, saying that Tehran continues "to work on designs" for a nuclear weapon.

"I think they continue to develop their know-how," Panetta said. "They continue to develop their nuclear capability."

Iran's nuclear ambitions have been the subject of international debate. The Obama administration recently called for increased U.N. sanctions. Amiri, once a star scientist for the Iranian nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, has become the center of efforts of both countries to characterize Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Tehran has said that its nuclear program is for energy purposes only and denies ambitions for a nuclear weapon.

Both the Iranian intelligence agency and the CIA have posted dueling videos of the scientist in past several weeks. In one video, Amiri claims the U.S. kidnapped, drugged and tortured him, in the other he says he is happy to be in the U.S.

Behind the scenes, the situation has become so grave that American officials fear Amiri could re-defect, according to the people briefed on the situation.

CIA officials pushed for Amiri to flee the country out of fear that his disclosures might have exposed him to Tehran as a spy.

Amiri vanished last June during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. The Iranian government claimed then that their scientist, a professor at Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, had been kidnapped by the CIA. In fact, say U.S. officials, the CIA, with the help of the Saudi government, whisked Amiri to the U.S., where he was to permanently resettle.

A few months after Amiri arrived, the Obama Administration announced that U.S. intelligence had discovered a second, hidden nuclear enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Qom.

Both the CIA and the White House have refused to comment on Amiri.

Complicating the defection is the fact that he left behind a wife and child. Since arriving in the U.S., and being secluded in Arizona, U.S. officials say Amiri has struggled with his decision to flee Iran.

Then came the alleged threats by Iranian intelligence, which set off the bizarre battle of dueling videos that were released earlier this month. The first, which was broadcast on Iranian state television, shows Amiri speaking to a computer camera and announcing that the U.S. had drugged and kidnapped him and forced him to Tucson, Arizona.

He appeared to be looking down at a script as he spoke.

According to the two current U.S. officials, Amiri called home earlier this year because he missed his family. On a second call, Iranian intelligence answered and threatened to harm his son, unless he taped an internet video saying he'd been kidnapped. Amiri, fearing for his family, agreed, according to a person briefed on the case.

"He missed his son," said the person. "And he couldn't help calling home to speak to him."

Within days, the CIA learned that Amiri had given the Iranians a video and moved quickly to produce a version of its own. The second video shows Amiri well-dressed and manicured with a globe - turned to North America - and chess set behind him as he appears to read from a teleprompter. He says, in Farsi, that he is happily living in the U.S. and going to school. He also denied having worked in the Iranian nuclear program and made a plea to his wife and son. "I want them to know that I never abandoned then, and that I will always love them."

According to one U.S. official, the CIA intended to produce the video and launch it on the internet before the Iranians had a chance to air their version.

Instead, the video languished at CIA headquarters for weeks, according to a senior intelligence official. Then, earlier this month, Iranian state television aired the Amiri video. Within a day, the CIA posted their Amiri video on YouTube, with a user identification of "shahramamiri2010."

The Iranian government has since formally requested the U.S. government to return Amiri, accusing the Americans of holding him against his will. A spokesperson for the State department has acknowledged that the U.S. government has received the request, but has had no further comment.

USATODAY:Report: al-Qaeda to launch online English newspaper

Report: al-Qaeda to launch online English newspaper

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-30-terrorist-newspaper_N.htm

NEW YORK (AP) — al-Qaeda is preparing to launch its first online propaganda newspaper in English, a move that could help the terror group recruit inside the U.S. and Europe.

The group has begun promoting the paper, called Inspire, with animated online graphics promising "special gift to the Islamic nation." Counterterrorism officials and terror analysts say it will be run by al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, which has been linked to the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt of a U.S.-bound airliner.

The launch suggests that, as al-Qaeda's core has been weakened by CIA drone airstrikes, the group hopes to broaden its reach inside the U.S., where officials have seen a spate of homegrown terrorists.

The new publication "is clearly intended for the aspiring jihadist in the U.S. or U.K. who may be the next Fort Hood murderer or Times Square bomber," Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar and former CIA officer, said.

At the heart of that effort is Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born cleric now living in Yemen. Authorities say his online sermons, in English, have inspired several recent terrorist plots in the United States. al-Qaeda's advertisement says al-Awlaki will contribute to the first issue.

Until now, al-Qaeda has relied on Arabic websites to carry its message. Now it appears to be capitalizing on its recent success recruiting inside the U.S.

Using propaganda on the Internet, the terrorist group has been able to attract Americans such as Bryant Neal Vinas and Najibullah Zazi, two admitted al-Qaeda terrorists. Both were radicalized in New York and traveled to Pakistan to join the fight against the U.S.

In a recent terrorism case in New Jersey, prosecutors say two U.S. citizens watched al-Awlaki's videos on their cellphones and took inspiration in his call for smaller, single acts of terrorism.

The newspaper's launch was first reported by Fox News.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Washington Post(Ignatius):For the G-20, order is restored with America's leadership

For the G-20, order is restored with America's leadership

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062402999.html

As the Group of 20 prepares for its economic summit this weekend in Toronto, the mood is one that would have surprised many observers a year ago: The United States is once again in the driver's seat on global economic policy, with China emerging as a potent partner.

A year ago, China was wondering whether it had made the wrong bet in relying on the United States to manage the global economic system. The financial meltdown of 2008 was so disastrous that the Chinese feared the U.S.-built financial architecture was, quite literally, out of control.

Restoring confidence in the soundness of the global economy -- especially among policymakers in Beijing -- has been among the Obama administration's most important tests over the past year, beyond containing oil spills or even fighting the Taliban. And to a greater degree than skeptics thought possible, the U.S. rescue operation has been successful. "It worked," trumpeted President Obama in the opening paragraph of his June 16 letter to fellow G-20 summiteers.

The strongest endorsement of this line came from China, in its decision last weekend to allow more flexibility for its currency, the renminbi. China had been reluctant to take this step because it wasn't sure how long the financial fires would burn.

China's foreign-exchange decision should be read as a statement that global markets have stabilized, U.S. officials argue. Yes, it's only a partial currency float, and the benefits for the United States will be offset by the sharp fall of the euro in recent weeks, which could make Germany the new trade menace, replacing China as the creator of destabilizing surpluses. But it's a start.

The Chinese appear to have accepted U.S. arguments that their export-led economy is not stable over the long run. The new watchword for the Chinese is "balanced growth," according to U.S. officials. To boost domestic demand and rely less on exports, Beijing launched a massive economic stimulus program in late 2008. Now comes the decision to partially free their currency from its peg to the dollar, which over time will make Chinese exports more costly and imports cheaper -- and thereby reduce China's huge trade surpluses.

What's encouraging is that China seems ready for a broader partnership with Washington on economic and political issues. That's the message of China's decision this month to back a new round of United Nations economic sanctions against Iran. Beijing concluded that it wasn't in China's interest to stand apart from the global consensus against Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons. China sees itself increasingly as a stakeholder in global security, U.S. officials believe.

One important Obama channel to Beijing has been Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state who has close relations with the Chinese leadership. As it happens, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner once worked for Kissinger and stays in touch with him. So when the Chinese seek an explanation of U.S. strategy, Kissinger can tell them authoritatively that the United States wants China as a partner in building the global economic and security framework over the next decade. This is a bargain that a wary Beijing may finally be ready to make.

The European debt crisis that exploded in May was a reminder of how fragile the financial system remains. Europeans had been guilty of schadenfreude a year ago, chiding the United States for its errant ways in the subprime crisis -- and overlooking their own financial weaknesses.

The European Union now has a trillion-dollar bailout program to rescue Greece, Spain and other debt-burdened nations. And it has followed the United States in conducting stress tests on its major banks, so that investors will have greater confidence that their money is safe. In recent days, Europeans, embracing these U.S.-style policies, have seemed to be turning a corner.

It was popular a year ago to speak of the post-American era and of the collapse of the "Washington consensus" about free markets and globalization. But over the past year, the world has rallied behind resilient U.S. financial institutions and the American approach to economic management. Much of the necessary repair work has been done, with one nagging exception -- the lack of a credible long-term plan to control the deficit. Hopefully, that's coming.

Obama gets little credit for economic success at home, where the unemployment rate remains shockingly high. But if you listen carefully in Toronto, you will hear a few sighs of relief, including among some important Chinese leaders.

Washington Post (Ignatius):What would reconciliation look like for the U.S. and Taliban?

What would reconciliation look like for the U.S. and Taliban?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802758.html?sub=AR

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

KABUL

Even as the United States and the Taliban continue to pound each other on the battlefield, the two adversaries appear to be conducting parallel internal debates about what an eventual political reconciliation might involve.

Each side wants to bargain from a position of maximum strength, and for the foreseeable future that means trying to inflict maximum pain. Each seems to be betting that the staying power of the other is limited -- by domestic politics, regional dynamics and the cost of the conflict in money and blood. The main advantage of the Taliban, arguably, is that its fighters are a permanent part of the landscape.

U.S. military commanders here see signs that their aggressive "capture or kill" operations have rocked the Taliban -- and pushed some of the insurgents to consider negotiations with President Hamid Karzai. This Special Forces campaign involves 125 to 150 operations each month, a senior military official here said Saturday, adding that in the past four months, 525 insurgents had been detained or killed, including 130 who are district commanders or higher.

"The argument within the Taliban is about resolving the conflict," says the military official, citing prisoner interrogations and other intelligence. "They want to figure out what the conditions would be," he explained, including: "How do we do it? Will we be part of the [Afghan] government? Will we fear for our lives?"

Taliban prisoners have told U.S. interrogators that this pounding in Afghanistan -- coupled with attacks by Predator drones on their havens in Pakistan -- has taken a psychological toll. According to the senior military official, lower-level fighters complain, "Hey, we're doing all the dying out here," and ask their commanders, "How much longer can we put up with this?"

But top administration officials, starting with President Obama, expressed skepticism over the weekend that Taliban leader Mohammad Omar is willing to make any serious compromises yet. CIA Director Leon Panetta cautioned Sunday on ABC's "This Week": "We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation." The U.S. strategy is to keep firing away, in the hope that the enemy will be more pliable by 2011, when Obama plans to begin withdrawing American troops.

The inner circle of the administration has begun its own debate about a strategy for Afghan political reconciliation. Obama has publicly supported reconciliation, but with some significant preconditions. And while he has said that this process should be "Afghan-led," the United States also wants to steer the process in the direction most favorable to its interests.

Complicating the situation for both the United States and the Taliban are the recent discussions between Karzai and Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the Pakistani army chief. The Pakistanis would like to broker any settlement in Afghanistan. They appear to have had some success in convincing Karzai that, given Obama's July 2011 timetable to begin withdrawal, Pakistan is his most reliable long-run partner.

The Taliban has developed its own version of a "population-centric" strategy to win Afghan hearts and minds. The military official in Kabul cited intelligence reports that Omar has ordered his fighters to curb corruption, reduce civilian casualties and run more effective local courts. Taliban leaders who were unpopular or ineffective have been recalled from the battlefield, the U.S. official said.

Both the United States and the Taliban have set heavy preconditions for negotiations, which for now have stymied serious dialogue. Washington insists that Taliban fighters disarm, renounce any links with al-Qaeda and accept the human-rights provisions of the Afghan constitution. The Taliban demands the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

For now, those demands have produced an impasse. But some U.S. advocates of reconciliation see signs that Omar may be ready to distance the Taliban from al-Qaeda. One official cites an interview, conducted in March by Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad that appeared in Asia Times Online, in which an anonymous Taliban official describes Osama bin Laden as "just an individual" and said the United States was using him as an excuse to avoid real talks.

In the Pashtun culture, reconciliation is possible when there is a gundi, or balance of power, that conveys mutual respect and security. So far, neither the United States nor the Taliban has a reconciliation strategy that could be articulated so succinctly.

**US officials: Al-Qaida operative tied to NY plot[adnan shukrijumah in pakistan?]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gT-Kwm3eHQPp5qw5B5yzpuy07XuwD9GLRMMG0

**US officials: Al-Qaida operative tied to NY plot[adnan shukrijumah in pakistan?]

By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK — U.S. counterterrorism officials have linked one of the nation's most wanted terrorists to last year's thwarted plot to bomb the New York City subway system, authorities said Wednesday.

Current and former counterterrorism officials said top al-Qaida operative Adnan Shukrijumah met with one of the would-be suicide bombers in a plot that Attorney General Eric Holder called one of the most dangerous since the 9/11 terror attacks.

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have named Shukrijumah in a draft terrorism indictment but on Wednesday the Justice Department was still discussing whether to cite his role. Some officials feared that the extra attention might hinder efforts to capture him.

Shukrijumah's involvement shows how important the subway bombing plot was to al-Qaida's senior leadership. Intelligence officials believe Shukrijumah is one of the top candidates to become al-Qaida's next head of external operations, the man in charge of planning attacks worldwide.

Current and former counterterrorism officials discussed the case on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about it.

Shukrijumah, 34, has eluded the FBI for years. The Saudi-born terrorist studied at a community college in Florida, but when the FBI showed up to arrest him as a material witness to a terrorism case in 2003, he already had left the country. The U.S. is offering a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture.

Intelligence officials began unraveling the subway plot last year, when U.S. intelligence intercepted an e-mail from an account that al-Qaida had used in a recent terrorist plot, officials said. The e-mail discussed bomb-making techniques and was sent to an address in Denver, setting off alarms within the CIA and FBI from Islamabad to the U.S.

Najibullah Zazi and two friends were arrested in September 2009 before, prosecutors said, they could carry out a trio of suicide bombings in Manhattan. Zazi and Zarein Ahmedzay have pleaded guilty and admitted planning to detonate homemade bombs on the subway during rush hour. A third man, Adis Medunjanin, awaits trial.

A fourth suspect, a midlevel al-Qaida operative known as Ahmed, traded the e-mails with Zazi, who was frantically trying to perfect his bomb making recipe, officials said. The U.S. wants to bring the Pakistani man to the U.S. for trial on charges that are not yet public.

Pakistani officials also have arrested a fifth person, known as Afridi, who worked with Ahmed, officials said.

The FBI and U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn had no comment Wednesday.

The meeting with Shukrijumah is among many new details officials told The Associated Press about how the men hooked up with al-Qaida. The new account provides a rare glimpse into al-Qaida's recruiting process.

The trio's lengthy odyssey took them from their homes in Queens to the mountainous, lawless frontier in northwest Pakistan, the front line of the U.S. war on terrorism.

Prosecutors have said the men, motivated by their anger at the U.S. war in Afghanistan, traveled to Peshawar, Pakistan, in the summer of 2008 to fight against U.S. forces.

The men stayed at the house of Zazi's uncle before splitting up, officials told the AP. Zazi remained in Peshawar while Ahmedzay and Medunjanin headed into Afghanistan to a Taliban stronghold where they hoped to join the fight against the Americans, officials said.

But Ahmedzay and Medunjanin never made it. They were stopped at a roadblock and briefly detained by Pakistani police who were suspicious of the Ahmedzay's Western looks and their U.S. passports. The two men talked their way out of the bind, however, and Pakistani police never contacted the U.S. about it, officials said.

Undeterred, the men regrouped in Peshawar and were recruited to meet an al-Qaida facilitator at local mosque in Peshawar. While al-Qaida was eager to recruit Americans, the group was also deeply suspicious of the trio and wanted to make sure they were not U.S. spies.

Once they passed that initial test, Ahmed drove them to North Waziristan and delivered them to a rudimentary terrorist camp. The three received weapons training, but al-Qaida had bigger plans for the men than the Afghanistan front line.

Salah al-Somali, then the head of external operations, and Rashid Rauf, a British militant linked to a 2006 jetliner bomb plot, explained to the three men that they were more useful as suicide bombers in the United States.

It was at that camp that counterterrorism officials believe Ahmedzay, and perhaps the other two men, met Shukrijumah, one of al-Qaida's up-and-coming figures. In 2004 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft called Shukrijumah a "clear and present danger" to the United States. Captured terrorist Abu Zubaydah told U.S. authorities that Shukrijumah was among the most likely candidates to attack the U.S. or Europe.

The trio completed about two weeks of training and left the camp with the promise of returning. But only Zazi made the trip back to the Waziristan to take a course on explosives.

Zazi flew to New York in early 2009 and moved to Denver, armed with bomb-making notes from Pakistan. Unlike the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks they chose the target, not Osama bin Laden.

The e-mails that tipped off U.S. intelligence triggered "Operation High Rise," an FBI investigation that had to come together within days. Agents scrambled as Zazi sped toward New York on Sept. 9, armed with about 2 pounds of the powerful explosive TATP.

He was stopped on the George Washington Bridge, but authorities failed to find the TATP stashed in a bag in the trunk. Spooked after the traffic stop, Zazi gave the TATP to Ahmedzay, who flushed it down the toilet.

That week, the FBI raided the homes of all three friends, bringing a swift end to the plot.

___

Associated Press writer Tom Hays contributed to this report.

Obama on Government, Medicare, Social Security, Etc.

And there have always been those who said no to these policies and these ideas. I mean, you look back on the history books. There were people who said that Social Security was socialism, said that Medicare was a government takeover. There were automakers who said that installing seat belts was unnecessary, unaffordable, and would ruin the auto industry. There were skeptics who thought that cleaning our water and our air would bankrupt our economy. Right here in Wisconsin -- if you look at the lake now and look at the lake, what it was like 30 years ago, 40 years ago. And there were people who said, well, there’s nothing we can do about all the sludge and drudge and whatever is going on in there.

Dennis Blair(Feb.2,2010):"What it Will Take to Stop Al-Qaeda"(Kill,Capture Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri)

http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/blair_assessment_senintel0210.pdf

What It Will Take to Stop Al-Qa’ida [Qaeda]
Al-Qa’ida’s ability to deploy additional operatives into the Homeland to conduct attacks will
depend heavily on whether the United States and its partners maintain enhanced counterterrorism
efforts against the group’s activities in the FATA and on US, European, and Pakistani efforts to
identify and disrupt operatives.
• We assess that at least until Usama [Osama] Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri are dead or captured,
al-Qa’ida will retain its resolute intent to strike the Homeland. We assess that until
counterterrorism pressure on al-Qa’ida’s place of refuge, key lieutenants, and operative cadre
outpaces the group’s ability to recover, al-Qa’ida will retain its capability to mount an attack.
• Sustaining defensive US security measures will remain a critical component of mitigating
threats to the Homeland. Enhanced law enforcement and security measures in the United States and overseas, including immigration controls, visa requirements, and aviation and
border security, continue to deter terrorists from undertaking plots, complicate terrorists’
ability to enter the United States, and stop terrorist activity before plans reach the execution
phase.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

CSMONITOR:Denny Blair,February,2010:bin Laden, Zawahiri Must Be Killed or Captured

Gary Brooks Faulkner: Was 'American ninja' working for CIA?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 06.16.10

And you can bet that the US still wants very badly to catch Osama bin Laden. US officials long have downplayed Mr. Bin Laden's importance to Al Qaeda, saying that even absent him, Islamist extremism would persist. But in February, then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told Congress in an annual estimation of threats to the US that “we assess that at least until Usama Bin Ladin and [aide] Ayman al-Zawahiri are dead or captured, al Qa’ida will retain its resolute intent to strike the [US] Homeland.”

ABCNEWS(2007):Nuclear Rumor:Unsung Bomb Squad Heroes: Volunteered to Die to Disarm Rumored Nuke in New York

Unsung Bomb Squad Heroes: Volunteered to Die to Disarm Rumored Nuke in New York

March 02, 2007 11:34 AM

According to a new book by ABC News reporters: In October 2001, the fires were still burning at Ground Zero when New York City was faced with the threat of a nuclear bomb planted inside the city, a threat so dire that no city official, including the mayor, was informed of it by the secret team assigned to prevent the device from going off.

Some details of the still-classified incident have crept out over time, but until now it never has been reported that a handful of senior New York City Police Department bomb technicians, including at least one grandfather, had volunteered to disarm the device.

They did so knowing they would likely die trying because even if the bomb did not go off, radiation poisoning could kill them.

Click here to go to the Web site for "Bomb Squad."

"We figured someone might say no," now-retired Inspector Charlie Wells told ABC News reporter Richard Esposito, according to "Bomb Squad: A Year Inside the Nation's Most Exclusive Police Unit," a new book by Esposito and ABC News Nightline producer Ted Gerstein. "I mean, you couldn't really order a guy," Wells added.

But no one took a step back.

Bomb Squad Lieutenant Jerry Sheehan, Detective First Grade Kevin Barry, Detective First Grade Joe Putkowski and Detective First Grade Dennis Mulchahy all volunteered, according to the book's authors. None will speak of the incident.

At the time they volunteered, the CIA had a source with what appeared to be firsthand information that al Qaeda had procured or had made a nuclear device, and that device either was already in place or on its way to New York or the Capitol.

The incident was one of two nuclear scares the nation faced that month. The first was quickly made public and discounted as a rumor. This second threat -- to New York and Washington, D.C. -- was kept so secret that in New York City only one police inspector and one police lieutenant were informed by federal officials of the details of the plot, according to the officials involved in the plan to disarm the device.

"The bottom line was 99.9 percent of the federal team wasn't going to make it here," Wells recalled. "At best, that team would be several hours away, and hey, if they had to choose between Washington and New York..." His voice trailed off.

Huffington Post(May,2009):Will Al-Qaeda Nuke America?

Will Al-Qaeda Nuke America?

Posted: May 13, 2009 06:20 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/will-al-qaeda-nuke-americ_b_203229.html

It has been nearly eight years since Al-Qaeda struck the United States on September 11, 2001. In the aftermath of that transformational event, some have speculated that a future strike on the U.S. by Osama bin Laden would be more devastating, involving perhaps a nuclear weapon. This apocalyptic scenario has been the plot of various novels, including my own nuclear terrorism thriller, "King of Bombs" (information at http://www.kingofbombs.com). However, the passage of nearly a decade has lulled some into a state of complacency. Could it be that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were right in deciding to invade Iraq? After all, it was their rationale (after no weapons of mass destruction were found) that fighting in Iraq meant the United States did not have to fight Al-Qaeda in the homeland. Could that be why Al-Qaeda has not launched a second attack on the homeland, after eight years?

In evaluating the possibility of future Al-Qaeda operations in the United States, it is useful to look back at an earlier plot that predated 9/11. On February 26, 1993 an Islamist radical cell linked to what would eventually be known as Al-Qaeda detonated 1,500 pounds of explosive material, consisting of oil and nitrates, in the underground parking garage at the World Trade Center. The resulting explosion killed six and injured more than 1,000. As destructive as this attack was, it did not fulfill the tactical and strategic objectives of the perpetrators.

The intention of the attackers was to bring down one of the Twin Towers in such as manner that it would topple over its twin, resulting in mass casualties and destruction. However, many mistakes were made by the plotters, ensuring that the detonation would not bring about the collapse of the building, while leaving a trail of forensic clues which would lead to the eventual apprehension of most of the plotters of the attack.

It would be more than eight years before Al-Qaeda struck again, with vastly more devastating results. Until 9/11, there was a level of complacency that inhibited American policymakers from correctly evaluating the threat of a jihadist cell striking at the American homeland, despite repeated and successful Al-Qaeda attacks directed at American targets overseas. This intellectual myopia on the part of U.S. decision-makers would be described in the official report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission as a "failure of imagination." Could history be repeating itself?

The American government, during the Clinton and subsequent Bush administrations, failed to recognize that Al-Qaeda was a transnational terrorist organization unlike any other. Furthermore, policymakers ignored clear threats by the leadership of Al-Qaeda to attack the American homeland. Several of these warning were issued personally by Osama bin-Laden to international journalists.

Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has launched dozens of attacks throughout the world. This figure does not include Iraq and Afghanistan, where the number certainly runs into the hundreds, if not thousands. The jihadist followers of Osama bin-Laden have struck targets in diverse regions including Europe, North and East Africa, Turkey, the Philippines and Indonesia. On October 12, 2002 a jihadist group linked to Al-Qaeda attacked three targets on the Indonesian Island of Bali, including a bar frequented by European and Australian tourists, killing more than 200. On March 11, 2004 Al-Qaeda set off multiple bombs on Spanish trains in Madrid, killing nearly 200. On July 7, 2005 Al-Qaeda operatives trained in Pakistan detonated bombs that struck London's transit system, resulting in 52 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. These are but a few of a long list of murderous terrorist operations successfully carried out by Al-Qaeda since 9/11.

Based solely on operational tempo, Al-Qaeda's capability to mount attacks worldwide appears intact. There are indications that it may even have grown substantially. Experts who monitor Al-Qaeda believe two factors have contributed to the enhancement of this terrorist organization's capacity. In the first place, Al-Qaeda has developed a sophisticated capability to utilize the Internet as a recruitment tool as well as an operational asset. Thousands of jihadist websites spread the message of Osama bin-Laden's Islamist ideology to a large segment of disaffected Muslims, especially among immigrants in Europe. Secondly, the Iraq war is believed by many to have energized Al-Qaeda, and attracted support and sympathy throughout the Islamic world.

Some defenders of the Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq maintain that the war has made America safer, by attracting jihadists who would otherwise come to America to wage warfare. However, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2005, then CIA Director Porter J. Goss stated that, "these jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks."

In 2007 the National Intelligence Estimate, reflecting the consensus view of America's intelligence gathering agencies, concluded that Al-Qaeda had reconstituted its command and control infrastructure in sanctuary areas inside Pakistan, astride the border with Afghanistan. Ominously, the NIE concluded that:

"We assess that Al-Qaeda's homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles. We assess that Al-Qaeda will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability."

Looking back at the 8-year interval between the attacks on the World Trade Center and the subsequent eight years, we observe a number of key characteristics about Al-Qaeda and its leadership. Osama bin-Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are utterly committed to the victory of their interpretation of Islam, which means the reestablishment of a united Islamic caliphate ruled under strict shariah law. An essential preliminary to achieving this historic triumph, in their view, is the expulsion of all "infidel" influence within the Islamic world, meaning principally the United States, and the emasculation of America's economic power. While this goal seems preposterous to an American mind, within the context of Islamist radicalism Osama bin-Laden has articulated a rational and cogent strategy for achieving his aims.

Al-Qaeda and its senior leadership think in terms of a long timeframe for achieving their goals. Patience characterizes their operational planning, particularly involving major targets. Thus, in their mode of thinking, eight years was a reasonable period of time to improve upon their first attack on the World Trade Center mounted in 1993.

The 9/11 attack displayed ruthless execution and bold planning. It also established a benchmark for future attacks on America, with a far higher threshold of destruction required then what Al-Qaeda customarily inflicts during its attacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia. Anytime since 9/11, Al-Qaeda could have attacked transit systems, shopping malls and other "soft targets" in the United States. However, such terrorist incidents would be purely tactical, lacking any strategic consequences. Al-Qaeda has probably determined that any future attack on America, to be viewed as successful and strategic, must exceed the level of carnage inflicted on 9/11 by a significant degree. That is probably why the National Intelligence Estimate released in 2007 emphasized the likelihood that Al-Qaeda is planning to hit the American homeland again, possibly with a weapon of mass destruction.

When Osama bin-Laden attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11, he had a strategic objective clearly in mind. Mass casualties were the means to his goal, rather then the ends. By inflicting a shock on the American psyche of such dramatic proportions, he sought to induce the United States to militarily intervene in Afghanistan, repeating the experience of the former Soviet Union. He anticipated that a long, drawn-out war of attrition would demoralize the United States, cripple her economy and lead to its collapse, replicating what occurred to the Soviet Union. What he did not anticipate was that the U.S. would only send a small expeditionary force to Afghanistan, while devoting the bulk of its military resources towards the subjugation of Iraq, whose ruling regime had no connection with the events of September 11, 2001. In that sense, the strategic value of the consequences of 9/11 for Al-Qaeda probably exceeded their highest expectations.

In planning for its next attack on the United States, Al-Qaeda would seek to inflict a loss of such staggering proportions that it would again impel the United States into behaviors that would serve its ultimate existential goals. To achieve such an aim with conventional means, such as ordinary explosives or airplanes (as on 9/11) is probably an unlikely scenario. As suggested by the NIE on Al-Qaeda planning for a future operation on U.S. soil, it is likely that Osama bin-Laden is exploring ways of utilizing a weapon of mass destruction in a future attack.

The NIE speculates on the means of WMD that Al-Qaeda may be focusing on. Though biological and chemical weapons are possibilities, they are unlikely to be used by Al-Qaeda. These weapons are notoriously difficult to employ, as demonstrated in a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway involving nerve gas. More importantly, while such weapons may, under certain circumstances, be deadly, they limit their effect to people, while leaving property intact. Al-Qaeda's methodology and doctrine stresses physical damage along with loss of human life. The iconic image of the twin towers dissolving on 9/11 was more valuable to Al-Qaeda then the actual number of fatalities. For those same reasons, a radiological weapon, commonly dubbed a "dirty bomb," also would not be of much interest to Al-Qaeda.

If Al-Qaeda is planning a future attack on America that will exceed 9/11 in its impact, there is a high probability that this operation would involve the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major urban center within the continental United States. The capacity for even a crude nuclear weapon to inflict vast carnage and destruction within a densely populated city is unmatched by any other weapon or scenario that Al-Qaeda could conceivably employ. Captured documents and other anecdotal information point to a very high level of longstanding interest by Osama bin Laden in nuclear weapons.

In recent years, both Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have issued repeated warnings that America would face attacks worse than 9/11, unless it fulfilled all of Al-Qaeda's demands, including withdrawal of its physical presence from anywhere defined as Islamic territory. In an Internet broadcast message, al-Zawahiri warned, "You are facing the Islamic rage ... what awaits you, should you press on, is far worse than anything you have seen."

In a macabre video marking the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden offered a chilling message. Warning the American people that they were responsible for the continuation of the Iraq war by virtue of having reelected President Bush, he went on to propose two alternatives for ending America's involvement in Iraq: "The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. The second way is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam...I invite you to embrace Islam."

By fulfilling all of the theological requirements for a future attack on America, it appears that Osama bin-Laden is laying the groundwork for something "far worse" than 9/11. While his call for Americans to "embrace Islam" seems irrational to a Western mindset, in the context of Osama bin-Laden's world this is a supremely rational act for a jihadist warrior to undertake. Having provided fair warning and an opportunity to convert to his enemy, he no longer feels any moral restraint on inflicting the ultimate destruction on the American homeland.

As reflected in the NIE referred to earlier, the American intelligence community has high confidence that if Al-Qaeda ever acquired a nuclear weapon, they would unquestionably use it against an American target. Those within leadership circles who downplay the threat of nuclear terrorism from Al-Qaeda claim that it is beyond the capability of Al-Qaeda to manufacture or otherwise obtain such weapons. Unfortunately, there is much expert opinion that holds a contrary view.

It may be difficult for Al-Qaeda to acquire an intact nuclear weapon, though not inconceivable. It is known that during the break-up of the former Soviet Union, much of that nation's nuclear arsenal was insecure. Rumors have circulated for many years that during that chaotic period, Al-Qaeda obtained several Soviet nuclear weapons through the black market. It is impossible to know if that in fact happened, though another possible source of intact nuclear weapons is Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state that happens to be where the top Al-Qaeda leadership is believed to be in hiding. At present, a radical Islamist uprising is underway in significant parts of Pakistan, eroding the stability of the nation's fledgling civilian government.

A more likely scenario involves Al-Qaeda making its own nuclear bombs. Though challenging, this would be within the capability of an organization with the proven sophistication of Al-Qaeda. Much of the information on making nuclear devices is within the public domain, and it is known that Osama bin-Laden met personally with two senior scientists involved with Pakistan's nuclear weapons establishment, prior to 9/11. The barrier to building a nuclear bomb is not technical know-how but materials. Atomic weapons require fissile materials, either uranium 235 or plutonium. These materials require a national industrial infrastructure to create, so Al-Qaeda cannot fabricate fissile materials on its own.

Unfortunately, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a vast quantity of fissile materials became dangerously insecure, vulnerable to theft or being sold by the Russian Mafia. The U.S. Congress recognized the danger, and provided funding for a program that assists the Russians in improving security at facilities that store nuclear weapons and fissile materials. In the many years that this program has been in existence, only half of the insecure Russian nuclear sites have had their security upgraded. At the present rate of funding and implementation, it may be another 10 years before the remaining nuclear sites are secure, though the Obama administration has demonstrated a far higher level of concern on this issue than the previous Bush presidency. In addition, there are many other sites throughout the world, including the United States, which store fissile materials under less than optimum security. It would be an act of extreme optimism to believe that Al-Qaeda will sit and wait ten years until all these nuclear sites have upgraded their security arrangements. Possibly, Al-Qaeda might already have such materials in its possession. Depending on the design of the bomb, as little as 35 pounds of uranium 235 would be needed to build a device with a yield similar to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Should Al-Qaeda actually build such a weapon, it is highly unlikely that it would be detected by present security protocols and technology, should a jihadist cell seek to surreptitiously insert it into the United States. Contrary to public perception, nuclear weapons emit little radiation, which can be easily shielded. Once inside American borders, Al-Qaeda could deliver a nuclear bomb to any city by van or SUV.

Should a nuclear bomb ever be detonated in an American city, the carnage would defy our imagination. It is estimated that a ten-kiloton device, less powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, detonated in mid-town Manhattan during the workday, would immediately kill approximately 500,000 people. A similar number would be fated to die in the following days and weeks from the effects of radiation poisoning. Beyond the immensity of the carnage and destruction, America would be irreversibly transformed. Fear would dominate the country, with tens of millions of Americans contemplating the evacuation of their cities, uncertain if other bombs exist and would be detonated. Economic paralysis would ensue as the borders closed, while the financial markets, already weakened by the current Global Economic Crisis, would completely collapse. Civil liberties would be largely suspended, as the nation entered a new Dark Age, in which survival would take precedence over liberty. Likely, America's relationship with the world would be radically transformed in manner that suited Al-Qaeda's ultimate agenda.

In an interview conducted with the journalist Robert Fisk in 1997, Osama bin-Laden made his ultimate objective regarding the United States unambiguously clear. "I pray to God that He permits us to turn America into a shadow of itself," the Al-Qaeda leader told Fisk.

While knowledgeable national security specialists take seriously the threat of weapons of mass destruction being employed in any future Al-Qaeda atrocity on American soil, outside their small circle this vital issue of national survival has barely seeped into the public consciousness Yet, should Al-Qaeda actually detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city, the entire world as we know it would cease to exist.

New York Times:Qaeda Figure Is Reported Killed in Pakistan

Qaeda Figure Is Reported Killed in Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/asia/30pstan.html?ref=world

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Eight militants, including an Egyptian allied with Al Qaeda, were killed Tuesday in what residents and a Pakistani security official said was a United States drone strike in the South Waziristan tribal area near this country’s Afghan border.

The United States has intensified its campaign of drone attacks against suspected militants in the border areas of Pakistan, but most have been concentrated in North Waziristan, an area that Western officials consider the most important refuge for militants with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Tuesday’s attack was the second within a few weeks in South Waziristan after a lull that lasted months. Last October, Pakistan invaded part of South Waziristan to drive out militants; many who fled north are now returning south.

The drone was believed to have fired two missiles at a compound in a village near Wana, the regional capital. The Egyptian, Hamza al-Jufi, had lived in Wana for many years, said a fighter in the area who visited the site after the attack and spoke by telephone. Most of the other militants killed in the strike lived nearby, though two came from another province, Punjab, the fighter said.

The fighter said that the eight bodies were mutilated beyond recognition but that no one else was wounded in the strike, which leveled the compound in the village, Ghwakhwai. According to some accounts Mr. Jufi was leading a group called Jundullah, or Army of God, which Pakistani security officials said was involved in sectarian violence around the port city of Karachi.

On June 19, militants affiliated with Jundullah barged into the city courts there and freed three of their members from police custody while one arrested militant and a policeman were killed in an exchange of fire. The freed militants had been arrested by the police and were suspected of involvement in episodes of sectarian violence in Karachi.

According to security officials, the militants were working under Mr. Jufi, a well-known figure in South Waziristan who was said to have survived a drone attack in 2008. The area around his base of Wana is controlled by the Waziri commander Maulvi Nazir, who has been accused of sheltering foreign fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda and of sending militants to Afghanistan to fight American-led forces there.

New York Times:Israeli Rules Out Palestinian State by 2012

Israeli Rules Out Palestinian State by 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/middleeast/30mideast.html?ref=world

TEL AVIV — In remarks that could further strain peace efforts, Israel’s foreign minister said Tuesday that there was no chance that a Palestinian state would be established in the next two years.

“I’m an optimistic person, but there is absolutely no chance of reaching a Palestinian state by 2012,” said the minister, Avigdor Lieberman. “One can dream and imagine, but we are far from reaching understandings and an agreement.”

Mr. Lieberman spoke at a joint news conference in Jerusalem with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister.

Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, in a grouping called the quartet, have called for a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians by 2012. George J. Mitchell, President Obama’s special representative to the region, was to arrive in Israel later on Tuesday.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, responded indirectly to Mr. Lieberman from the West Bank town of Ramallah, saying that he believed in the peace process and that he hoped that a deal would emerge as soon as possible.

“We will make every effort to reach a solution, because time is not on anyone’s side,” he said during a news conference with Mr. Lavrov. “Achieving peace is in the best interest of Israel, the Palestinians and the whole world.”

Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has repeatedly said his goal is to set up the institutional foundations of a state by the end of next year.

Currently, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, represented by the Western-backed Fatah movement, are not even negotiating face to face, but are holding indirect, American-brokered talks.

Hamas, the Islamic militant organization that controls Gaza and does not recognize Israel, is not involved in the negotiations.

Mr. Lavrov defended his country’s decision as the only member of the quartet to keep open ties with Hamas. He said Russia was trying to persuade Hamas to abandon its armed struggle.

Mr. Lavrov also made comments to Itar-Tass, the Russian news agency, in which he called for a meeting of Russia, the United States, Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss the delivery of nuclear fuel for an Iranian medical reactor.

The Iranians, who maintain that their nuclear program is for civilian and not military purposes, had hoped to fend off the most recent round of international sanctions by agreeing to ship some of their low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for fuel that could be used to power the medical reactor.

“He is trying to reduce the chance of war, trying to dampen voices of those in Israel who believe in military action against Iran if sanctions fail,” said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Middle East analyst, of Mr. Lavrov calling for such a meeting while in Jerusalem.

Israel has hinted that it would carry out a strike against Iran if diplomatic efforts failed and the Iranians seemed close to developing nuclear weapons.

New York Times:Spying Suspects Seemed Short on Secrets

Spying Suspects Seemed Short on Secrets

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/europe/30spy.html?ref=global-home

WASHINGTON — The suspected Russian spy ring rolled up by the F.B.I. this week had everything it needed for world-class espionage: excellent training, cutting-edge gadgetry, deep knowledge of American culture and meticulously constructed cover stories.

The only things missing in more than a decade of operation were actual secrets to send home to Moscow.

The assignments, described in secret instructions intercepted by the F.B.I., were to collect routine political gossip and policy talk that might have been more efficiently gathered by surfing the Web. And none of the 11 people accused in the case face charges of espionage, because in all those years they were never caught sending classified information back to Moscow, American officials said.

“What in the world do they think they were going to get out of this, in this day and age?” said Richard F. Stolz, a former head of C.I.A. spy operations and onetime Moscow station chief. “The effort is out of proportion to the alleged benefits. I just don’t understand what they expected.”

As cold war veterans puzzled over the rationale for Russia’s extraordinary effort to place agents in American society, both Russian and American officials signaled that the arrests would not affect the warming of relations between the countries.

At a meeting with former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday, Vladimir V. Putin, the prime minister and a former spy himself, said, “Your police have gotten carried away, putting people in jail.” But he played down the episode: “I really expect that the positive achievements that have been made in our intergovernmental relations lately will not be damaged by the latest events.”

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, struck a similar note. “I do not believe that this will affect the reset of our relationship with Russia,” he said. “We have made great progress in the past year and a half working on issues of mutual concern.” Asked if the White House found it offensive for its partner to be spying on the United States, he said the case was “important,” but a law enforcement matter.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, the police in Cyprus arrested the man known as Christopher R. Metsos, the last of the spying suspects to be detained, and American officials disclosed that they had moved to make arrests over the weekend because one of the people suspected of being Russian agents, who called himself Richard Murphy, was planning to fly out of the United States on Sunday night, possibly for good.

After years of painstaking surveillance, the F.B.I. did not want any of its targets to escape, and “you can’t take down one without taking down all of them,” one law enforcement official said.

The F.B.I. on Sunday arrested 10 people in Yonkers, Manhattan, New Jersey, Boston and Virginia and charged them with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Most were also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering.

American officials said they believed that most of the accused spies had been born in Russia and had been given sophisticated training before resettling in the United States, posing as married couples. They connected with various Americans of influence or knowledge, including a “prominent New York-based financier” described as a political fund-raiser with personal ties to a cabinet official, a former high-ranking national security official, and a nuclear weapons expert.

But they were instructed not to seek government jobs, because spy bosses in Moscow thought their cover stories would not stand up under a serious background investigation. So they were assigned to feed to Moscow what amounted to briefing papers on economics issues, American government players and diplomatic and military affairs.

One, the agent known as Cynthia Murphy, talked to New York contacts and reported on “prospects for the global gold market” that her bosses (whose spelling in English-language messages was imperfect) told her were “v. usefull” and passed to the Russian Ministry of Finance.

Before a visit to Moscow by President Obama last year, Ms. Murphy and her ostensible husband, Mr. Murphy, were instructed to size up American intentions from their home in Montclair, N.J. “Try to outline their views and most important Obama’s goals which he expects to achieve during summit in July and how does his team plan to do it (arguments, provisions, means of persuasion to ‘lure’ [Russia] into cooperation in US interests),” the spy bosses in Moscow asked, according to the charging papers.

Another time, Moscow offered vague instructions that might have been directed to journalists: “Try to single out tidbits unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources close to State department, Government, major think tanks.”

But why would Russian intelligence ask for such information from people settled in New Jersey rather than, say, Russian Embassy experts or specialists in Moscow or Washington?

“It’s a Hail Mary pass,” said Milton A. Bearden, who served for three decades in the C.I.A.’s clandestine service and ran its Soviet and East European division as the Soviet Union fell.

“Maybe I end up next to a guy that is the minority staff director on some committee and we do barbecues, or I coach his kid in Little League,” Mr. Bearden said. “How can you lose?”

For the Russian government, he said, supporting the so-called illegals operation was probably relatively inexpensive, particularly because some suspected agents were self-supporting, as court papers show.

One, Ms. Murphy, reported an annual income of $135,000 as a financial planner, her affidavit says. And another, Anna Chapman, owned her own real estate firm in Manhattan, which her lawyer said in court was valued by his client at $2 million.

If anything, the challenge for Moscow in an operation of such duration was to make sure its agents remained loyal amid the comforts of daily suburban American life. After the collapse of Communism, Mr. Bearden said, several Czech “sleeper agents” in the United States refused to go home, saying they felt they had become Americans.

“What’s their life like, and particularly if it goes on for years?” said Burton Gerber, a former chief of the C.I.A.’s Soviet division, of the suspected Russian agents. For couples with children, for example, they may be “very guilty spies,” Mr. Gerber said, and yet influenced by P.T.A. and after-school sports.

“At some stage, do you begin to think of yourself more as American than Russian?” he said. “Without feeling a sense of betraying Russia, they may just want to lead quiet lives.”

Dawn.com:Pakistan key to Afghan reconciliation: Petraeus

Pakistan key to Afghan reconciliation: Petraeus

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-pakistan-key-to-afghan-reconciliation-petraeus-060-rs-01

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s involvement in a reconciliation agreement in Afghanistan is essential and the United States needs to further this developing partnership between the two neighbouring countries, Gen David Petraeus told his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

But the new US commander for Afghanistan also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had denied reports that he recently met a top leader of anti-Kabul network, Sirajuddin Haqqani.

“Pakistani involvement in some form of reconciliation agreement, I think that that is essential,” Gen Petraeus told the committee’s chairman Senator Carl Levin.

Senator Levin wanted the general to comment on recent media reports that Pakistani officials had approached the Karzai government with a proposal that includes delivering the Haqqani network, which US believes runs a major part of the insurgency in Afghanistan and is an ally of Al Qaeda, into a power-sharing arrangement.

“Clearly, we want to forge a partnership or further the partnership that has been developing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those countries are always going to be neighbours. And helping them develop a constructive relationship would be an important contribution,” the general said.

But he also warned not to expect these recent contacts between Pakistan and Afghanistan to lead to an immediate reconciliation between the Afghan government and the Taliban insurgents.

“Now, whether that is possible, such an agreement, I think is going to depend on a number of factors that will play out over the course of the summer, including creating a sense among the Taliban that they are going to get hammered in the field and perhaps should look at some options,” said the general.

On Sunday, both President Barack Obama and CIA Director Leon Panetta also expressed scepticism about the likelihood that Taliban leaders would accept a proposal for reconciliation.

But President Obama also noted that the attempt to draw Afghanistan and Pakistan into a closer partnership was a useful step.

When the senator asked Gen Petraeus if he knew about a reported meeting between President Karzai and Sirajuddin Haqqani, Gen Petraeus said Mr Karzai denied meeting any leader of the Haqqani Network.

“In talking to President Karzai in the vehicle on the way over here, he assured me that he has not met a Haqqani group leader, by the way in recent days or, I think, at any time,” the general said.

On Saturday, Al Jazeera reported that President Karzai recently met Mr Haqqani to discuss a power-sharing agreement. The meeting was reportedly orchestrated by Pakistani intelligence and army officials, who want the Haqqani Network to be included in a new set-up in Afghanistan.

Dawn, however, reported on June 15 that Pakistani officials were indeed trying to broker a deal between the Afghan government and the Haqqanis, although the sources who spoke to Dawn did not confirm a meeting between President Karzai and Mr Haqqani.

US intelligence officials who spoke to the media noted that President Karzai would have little incentive to admit that such a meeting took place, if in fact it did. But they also cast doubt on the Al Jazeera report.

These officials, however, do not dispute press reports and say that the Pakistanis are attempting to broker a deal between the Haqqanis and the Afghan government. Instead, they disputed the notion that Mr Karzai could have had a face-to-face meeting with Mr Haqqani. One senior intelligence official pointed to Mr Karzai’s heavy American security detail as an obstacle to such a meeting.

Gen Petraeus noted that in recent past lower and mid-level Taliban leaders had indeed sought to reintegrate with the Afghan government and there had been “more in recent days, small numbers here and there”.

The general said that the reintegration decree that President Karzai approved on Tuesday would help codify this process.
“But whether or not very senior leaders can meet the very clear conditions that the Afghan government has laid down for reconciliation, I think, is somewhat in question. So in that regard, I agree with Director Panetta,” he said.

When Senator John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee, asked Mr Petraeus if he was concerned that the ISI continued to work with the Haqqani and other Taliban groups, the general said it was difficult to give a categorical answer to this question.

“What we have to always figure out with Pakistan is: are they working with the Taliban to support the Taliban or to recruit sources in the Taliban? And that’s the difficulty, frankly, in trying to assess what the ISI is doing in some of their activities in Fata, in contacts with the Haqqani network, or the Afghan Taliban,” he said.

“There are no questions about the longstanding lengths. Let’s remember that we funded the ISI to build these organisations when they were the Mujahideen and helping to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan,” he added.

“And so certainly, residual links would not be a surprise. The question is what the character of those links is and what the activities are behind them.”

New York Times: Petraeus Pledges Look at Firepower in Afghanistan

Petraeus Pledges Look at Firepower in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/asia/30petraeus.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that he would take a new look at the rules governing the use of heavy firepower in the Afghan war, which have cut down on United States airstrikes and civilian casualties but have been bitterly criticized by American forces who say they have made the fight more dangerous.

Calling the protection of his troops a “moral imperative,” General Petraeus signalled in his Senate confirmation hearing to take command in Afghanistan what could be his first significant shift in policy since President Obama last week fired the top commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

The Senate Armed Services Committee later voted to approve General Petraeus and referred his nomination to the full Senate, which was expected to confirm him as early as Tuesday evening.

“I want to assure the mothers and fathers of those fighting in Afghanistan that I see it as a moral imperative to bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform,” General Petraeus said. “Those on the ground must have all the support they need when they are in a tough situation.”

Saying that he had consulted the Afghan leadership on the need to adjust course and that they agreed with his view, he added: “I mention this because I am keenly aware of concerns by some of our troopers on the ground about the application of our rules of engagement and the tactical directive. They should know that I will look very hard at this issue.”

At confirmation hearings, he also said that a July 2011 deadline for the start of withdrawals of American troops from Afghanistan was only “the beginning of a process” and that the United States commitment to the country was an “enduring one.”

In a hearing that was expected to lead to bipartisan confirmation of General Petraeus as the new American commander in Afghanistan, the general gave a ringing endorsement of President Obama’s strategy in the now nine-year-old war, saying the fight was still necessary to keep Al Qaeda and other insurgents from establishing sanctuaries to launch attacks on the United States.

General Petraeus, who arrived at the jammed 9:30 a.m. hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building to a phalanx of cameras, is to leave on Wednesday for an expected confirmation by NATO in Brussels on Thursday and anticipates arriving in Kabul by Friday. In an opening statement, Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, strongly supported the July 2011 date for the beginning of withdrawals of United States troops from Afghanistan but also said that progress there was “spotty” and that he remained “deeply concerned” by reports that relatively few Afghan Army troops were in the lead in operations in the south.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, declared in his opening statement that Afghanistan was “not a lost cause,” and that “the Afghans do not want the Taliban back.”

The hearing comes at a time of rising violence in Afghanistan, as an expanded troop contingent wages a wider, more aggressive fight. It also comes at a time of growing doubts — in Congress, among ordinary Americans and even among some in the military — that the war can be won.

Mr. Obama drew widespread praise for his choice of General Petraeus to assume command in Afghanistan after the departure of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal Jr.

But the article in Rolling Stone magazine that led to General McChrystal’s dismissal cast a harsh light on a sometimes-fractious relationship between the military and the nation’s civilian leadership, and also within the administration, on the best path ahead in Afghanistan.

The July 2011 date has been a major source of friction. Some military commanders, and allies in Congress like Mr. McCain, say that deadline is unrealistic and sends a deeply harmful message that the United States lacks a long-term commitment to Afghanistan.

General Petraeus has previously sought to soften the import of that date and was expected to do so again on Tuesday.

“As the president has stated, July 2011 is the point at which we will begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government will take more and more responsibility for its own security,” General Petraeus wrote in answers to questions submitted in advance to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “As the president has also indicated, July 2011 is not a date when we will be rapidly withdrawing our forces and switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.”

Mr. McCain, who is opposed to the deadline, later pressed General Petraeus on how deep his support for the date actually was.

Referring to the extensive review of Afghanistan strategy that occurred at the White House last fall, Mr. McCain asked: “At any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the president, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

“There was not,” General Petraeus replied.

But General Petraeus, under questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, swiftly endorsed the president’s deadline, as he had in Congressional hearings two weeks ago.

“Not only did I say I supported it, I said I agreed with it,” General Petraeus told Mr. Reed. The deadline, he said, was a “message of urgency to compliment this message of enormous commitment” of nearly 100,000 American forces in Afghanistan.

Mr. Reed then asked if the Taliban were simply waiting out a United States withdrawal, why were they so active on the ground militarily?

“Great point,” General Petraeus responded. He said the Taliban were fighting to try to regain much of what they lost in Marja, an insurgent center that is still not under control by the United States. “They’re also fighting to break our will, this is a contest of wills,” General Petraeus added. “They sense concern in various capitals around the world and of course they want to increase that concern.”

Debate over the merits of the July 2011 deadline dominated the morning hearing, including in sharp questioning by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Mr. Graham, who derided the deadline as a political decision to placate Democrats unhappy about the war, noted that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as quoted in the book “The Promise” by Jonathan Alter, said that “in July 2011, you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out, bet on it.”

Mr. Graham pressed General Petraeus: “Is he right?”

General Petraeus, caught between disagreeing with the vice president or announcing a large withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan next summer, took a very large side-step. At a national security meeting at the White House last week, he said, “the vice president grabbed me and said, ‘You should know I am 100-percent supportive of this policy.’ “

Beyond that, General Petraeus said, “I am hosting Vice President Biden tonight at our quarters in Tampa, and we will have a chance to continue that conversation.” (General Petraeus, as the commander of United States forces in the Middle East, has his headquarters in Tampa, Fla.)

Finally, General Petraeus said, Defense secretary Robert M. Gates “has told me he had never heard” Mr. Biden make the remark in the book. General Petraeus said in his written answers that a plan to reintegrate some Taliban fighters was being reviewed with Mr. Karzai. He said that it “offers the potential to reduce violence and provide realistic avenues to assimilate Pashtun insurgents back into Afghanistan society.”

He also addressed the need for a review of the rules of engagement governing coalition forces, referring to them by the abbreviation ISAF.

“There is an inherent tension in counterinsurgency operations between engaging the enemy and protecting the population,” his prepared answers noted. “In fact, in the past few days, I have had a good discussion with President Karzai on this topic, noting that, if confirmed, I would continue the emphasis on reducing loss of civilian life in the course of operations to an absolute minimum, while also ensuring that we provide whatever assets are necessary to ensure the safety of ISAF and Afghan forces when they are in a tough spot. As we have done in numerous after action reports and through other feedback mechanisms in recent months, we will need to continue to educate our leaders on the implementation of the R.O.E. moving forward.”

Asked for a general outline of changes he would make to the rules, which are classified in their detail, he answered only that he would “assess the effect of our R.O.E. on the safety of our forces and the successful conduct of our mission.”

General McChrystal had been a central face and salesman of the counterinsurgency doctrine — supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations — that includes the assumption that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive. And he applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground.

The rules have shifted risks from Afghan civilians to Western combatants. They have earned praise in many circles, hailed as a much needed corrective to looser practices that since 2001 have killed or maimed many Afghan civilians and undermined support for the American-led war.

But the new rules have also come with costs, including a perception now frequently heard among troops that the effort to limit risks to civilians has swung too far, and endangers the lives of Afghan and Western soldiers caught in firefights with insurgents who need not observe any rules at all.

American military officials say that the troop buildup in Afghanistan is starting to show results. Commandos have captured or killed scores of insurgent leaders. Military officials say that the troop surge, not yet complete, is allowing them to confront the Taliban in places where that had not been possible. They say they need more time.

But the more intense fighting has also produced a higher toll of American and allied casualties. The number of American dead in Afghanistan has passed 1,000, and casualties are coming much faster than before. The last two years have been more deadly than the first seven. The Taliban have been resurgent in nearly every province.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill say that it is time to start looking for a way out.