Given the increasingly heated rhetoric between India and Pakistan, two questions come to mind, one obvious, the other not so much.  Will this spiral out of control and lead to war, including perhaps a nuclear exchange?  And what will China do?  Specifically, what happens if China comes in on Pakistan’s side?

Remember that the First World War began when a small group of Serbian nationalists committed an act of terrorism on Austrian soil (or at least Austrian-controlled soil).  But things didn’t get out of hand until Russia came in on Serbia’s side and Germany did the same in the case of Austria-Hungary.

If I were President-elect Obama, I’d get Hillary on a plane now, preferably on a joint mission with The Condi.  We can’t wait until January 20th to allow this thing to get completely out of control.  Because the current crisis is no more about terrorism than it was in 1914.

Related posts

• The Foreign Policy Team: No Surprises
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• Mumbai
• Incredibly Bad Idea of the Day

President-elect Obama named his National Security team.  No surprises.

That extends to the reaction:  the MSM is focusing on the “team of rivals” meme, and the netroots are debating whether they should be concered that “centrists” will hold the three key positions.  I think both are missing the key story here, which I and others outlined last night in reaction to the NYT story on the Obama Administration’s plan to mount the most ambitious restructuring of U.S. national security institutions since the Truman Administration.

I’ll have more later on ten key posts, beyond the Deputy Secretaries and Deputy National Security Advisor, to watch for as the transition moves forward.

One other note:  Obama’s press conference reflects the reality that the terrorist attacks in India haven’t really percolated to the top of people’s thinking about U.S. national security.  Yes, Obama did mention it, but in the context of terrorism and not its potential impact on Indian-Pakistani relations.  Equally importantly, nobody in the press bothered to ask a follow-up question.

Related posts

• India-Pakistan: China, Obama,and the Specter of 1914
• Transition Watch: Anger in the Ranks
• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Turning the Supertanker
• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• The Transition

So Jack Bauer, America’s favorite torturer and all around sociopath, is back!

Jack will spend the next 24 hours in the fictional African country of Sangala “saving the children” from what looks like a vicious child soldier-recruiting rebel.  That, of course, will make up for all the horrible stuff he’s done in the past.

So the new and improved Jack. . .

• is now killing caricatures of Africans rather than caricatures of Arabs;
• doesn’t have to worry about beating the hell out of people because he’s in Africa, which of course doesn’t have laws or something;
• can shoot people while standing in the middle of a crowded African street and not worry about hitting innocents;
• loves the kids, even if it means having to shoot people in front of them;
• cannot, even with all his powers, get a nasty American official to open the damn gate.

Wait a second.  Wasn’t last year supposed to be Bauer’s redemption?  Didn’t they even name it “24: Redemption”?  How many times can this guy  be redeemed?  Will next year be “24:  Jack Gets an Indulgence from Pope Innocent IX”?

Instead of “24: Exile,” They should just call it what it is: “24: We Know the Whole Torturing Arabs Thing Doesn’t Seem to Be Working Anymore.”

Of course, rehabilitation of Wacko Jacko doesn’t mean that the producers have completely abandoned their neoconservative conspiracy theorist ways:  Bauer refuses to return to Washington to testify before a Senate committee investigating his past crimes, and it looks like one of the villains, as Diplopundit notes, is the most officious, insensitive foreign service officer in history.  He not only hates Jack, he hates the children.  The bastard.

My only hope is that this storyline will so bore the hell out of the American people that they will flee from “24: Exile” like. . .well, like everyone flees from Jack Bauer whenever he pulls out a gun.

Then, at last, our long national prime time nightmare finally will be over.

UPDATE:  This is actually from Charlie, not Chris.  Not quite sure how that happened, but I can’t change it.

Related posts

• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• The Manchurian President
• The Decline of American Power, Iraq Edition, Part 356
• September 11, 2001
• John McCain Must Be at the Beach. . .

From the Guardian UK (h/t Blood & Treasure):

Eyewitnesses have provided accounts of how the gunmen involved in yesterday’s Mumbai massacre landed undetected in the heart of the port city’s bustling downtown area.

At least some of the terrorists, said to be in their early twenties and armed with AK-47 assault rifles and hand grenades, landed on the coast of Mumbai’s commercial and entertainment neighbourhood in light and fast Gemini boats, powered by small outboard motors.

These inflatable dinghies, according to Indian navy sources quoted by the Headlines Today TV news channel, were launched from a larger vessel, the MV Alfa, which arrived near Mumbai sometime yesterday and anchored offshore a distance from India’s financial capital.

According to TV reports, the navy seized one Gemini craft laden with ammunition, as well as satellite phone, which could give vital clues about the attackers. . . .

“There is no question that the armed men who landed in south Mumbai in the Gemini boats came from a larger boat anchored off shore,” said retired Rear Admiral Raja Menon, a strategic affairs expert. “The larger boat left without waiting for the men to return. The armed men were on a one-way ticket.”

What struck me about this account is not merely the sophistication of an amphibious attack, but also its use of a tactic pioneered by the Sri Lankan-based Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam — perhaps the most vicious terrorist organization in the world today:

In terms of the overall success of the LTTE, the Sea Tigers’ logistics fleet is the most important part of its armoury. It operates two classes of vessels: a fleet of around 11 ocean-going freighters and fast-moving coastal transit boats. Ships from the ocean-going fleet rendezvous with the fast coastal transit boats about 200 km off the northeast coast of the island. . . .

The Sea Tigers have also adapted a wide range of craft for suicide missions. . . .The number of crew members and armament types used in a suicide attack varies from mission to mission. Initially, the Sea Tigers’ suicide craft had a crew of two to ensure that the mission could not be terminated by killing a single operator. More recently, they have carried a crew of three to reduce this possibility further.

This, of course, is not the first time that other terrorists have copied LTTE tactics.  The Tigers are widely credited with having taught the world how to go about suicide bombing:

[T]he Tigers are the fathers of modern-day suicide bombing — not only masters at keeping up a fresh supply of new recruits, but also willing exporters of their expertise. . . .Technically, the Tigers did not invent modern suicide bombing — the first such attack was against the American embassy in Beirut in 1983. They did however turn it into a vicious art form. Tigers adapted explosives so that they could be used on land, sea and air — thanks to the purchase of what Sri Lankan intelligence services say is a small squadron of microlight aircraft. Bombs were disguised to fit around, and even inside, the body.

The LTTE’s first such attack was in 1987, killing 40 Sri Lankan army troops.  Since then, LTTE attacks have killed hundreds, including Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa and former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Given its past history, and given the close relationship between the Indian and Sri Lankan governments (despite the presence of a large Tamil minority in southern India), I have to wonder whether the LTTE is now exporting its naval tactics.

One other note:  why is it that those operating off the Somali coast are known as pirates, but the LTTE naval operations (and this operation in Mumbai) are known as terrorists?

Related posts

• Heightening Contradictions: Mumbai and English
• Where are the Media? Where is the Outrage?
• Whazzup to All the Ladies Hangin’ out in Mumbai
• Triple Damages (Score): L A W S U I T
• The Mother of All Hungamas

Over the years, I’ve spent quite a bit of time in India, but not much in Mumbai.  That said, like any visitor to India’s financial and creative capital, I made sure to the Taj Hotel, which is a national treasure.

Now it’s on fire.  At least 80 people are dead, and countless more are wounded.  My thoughts and prayers are with everyone in that fair city.  I can only hope my friends there are okay.

Right now a domestic group known as the Indian Mujahideen has claimed responsibility, but some analysts think it may be al Qaeda.

Three things to watch as events unfold:

1.  India-Pakistan.  If it turns out that Pakistan-based militants are behind these attacks (or even worse, that the Indians discover evidence linking Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency to those responsible), it could spark a major regional crisis and perhaps even war.  And since both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, that means a major international crisis as well.

2.  Reprisal attacks.  Although Hindus outnumber Muslims by a factor of more than six to one in India, that still means there are 150 million Muslims.  In the past, Muslim violence has led quickly to reprisal attacks against Muslim communities.  In 2002, for example, after a Muslim mob attacked a train in the state of Gujarat, riots by Hindus led to the death of over 2,000 Muslims.  In 1993-1994, Muslim-Hindu riots in Mumbai caused death of over 900 people.  Regardless of whether the instigators of today’s attacks turn out to be from outside India or not, chances are that we will see reprisal attacks in very short order.

3.  Domestic politics.  Currently, a coalition led by the Congress Party of India is in power, and its main rival, the Hindu-nationalist BJP, has been in disarray.  The attacks may change that, however, as BJP politicians have not hesitated in the past to use communal violence to whip up Hindu nationalist fervor.

Related posts

• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• The Foreign Policy Team: No Surprises
• India-Pakistan: China, Obama,and the Specter of 1914
• While You Were Away: Pakistan
• The Mother of All Hungamas

I’m surprised that I have seen absolutely nothing in the blogosphere about Jack Goldsmith’s piece in today’s WaPo, which argues that the Obama Administration should forgive and forget when it comes to the Bush Administration’s torture policies:

[Both prosecution and a bipartisan commission are] bad ideas. They would bring little benefit, and they would further weaken the Justice Department and the CIA in ways that would compromise our security. . . .

Second-guessing lawyers’ wartime decisions under threat of criminal and ethical sanctions may sound like a good idea to those who believe those lawyers went too far in the fearful days after Sept. 11, 2001. But the greater danger now is that lawyers will become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment. . . .

When the CIA was asked to engage in aggressive tactics early in the Bush administration, it knew from bitter experience that the political winds would change and that it might be subject to “retroactive discipline.” And so it sought approval from the president and his Cabinet, informed congressional leadership many times about what it was doing and got what it thought were airtight legal opinions from the Justice Department.

But these safeguards failed, and the CIA is once again mired in investigation and controversy. The lesson learned by many at the agency is that politically sensitive counterterrorism actions should be avoided, even if they are deemed legal and even if they have the express approval of political officials. We are going to be living with this skittishness for a long time, to the detriment of our security.

Yet another round of investigations during the Obama administration, even by a bipartisan commission, would exacerbate this problem. It would also bring little benefit. The people in government who made mistakes or who acted in ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate have been held publicly accountable by severe criticism, suffering enormous reputational and, in some instances, financial losses. Little will be achieved by further retribution.

Jack Goldsmith emerged as a hero among critics of the current Administration’s torture policies, largely as a result of his tenure as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.  During his brief time there, Goldsmith stood up to David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney by withdrawing John Yoo’s infamous 2002 memo, which had redefined torture as physical suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury” or mental suffering that had to “result in signifcant psychological harm. . .lasting for months and years.”  Goldsmith deserves significant credit for his courage, and for writing The Terror Presidency, which described in detail his efforts to rein in Addington, Gonzales, and, ultimately, Cheney and Bush.

But he’s dead wrong to suggest that an Obama Administration should forget the past.

The first thing that struck me about Goldsmith’s piece is that, other than the headline (which most likely was written by someone at WaPo, not Goldsmith himself), he bends over backwards not to use the word “torture”: Instead, he uses a number of increasingly ridiculous euphemisms:  “what many view as the Bush administration’s harsh, abusive and illegal interrogation program,” “interrogation and related programs,” “wartime decisions,” “aggressive tactics,” “politically sensitive counterterrorism actions,” “mistakes” and “ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate.”

Goldsmith apparently can’t bring himself to admit that the Bush Administration actually tortured people.  It’s not hard to recognize the reason for his reluctance:  prior to becoming Assistant Attorney General, Goldsmith held other posts, including in the Office of the General Counsel in the Pentagon.  Despite his decision to withdraw the Yoo memo, he could face legal jeopardy should any future investigation recommend prosecution.  So, as he himself acknowledges, it is in his interest to argue against any investigation.

But there are greater problems with Goldsmith’s arguments than merely self-interest.  The first is his suggestion that “Second-guessing lawyers’ wartime decisions under threat of criminal and ethical sanctions may sound like a good idea to those who believe those lawyers went too far in the fearful days after Sept. 11, 2001.”  The irony, of course, is that it was Goldsmith himself who was one of the first to second-guess Addington and Yoo.  His June 14, 2004 decision to withdraw Yoo’s memo was the beginning of the end of the Bush Administration’s unfettered license to do as it saw fit with those it detained.  For Goldsmith now to suggest that others should not do what he already did is at best inconsistent and at worst, smacks of a cover up of other memos or actions that have not yet seen the light of day.

The second is Goldsmith’s attempt to further muddy the waters by suggesting that current investigations by Congress, Justice, and the CIA should also look at Congress’s role and potential illegalities approved under the Clinton Administration.  Although I agree with Goldsmith that Clinton-era officials must be held accountable for approving the rendition of drug offenders, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the policies of the Clinton Administration should be put on the same footing as those of its successor.  To assign equal weight to Clinton- and Bush-era policies is not unlike suggesting that someone who smokes pot occasionally should be subjected to the same level of accountability as a drug kingpin.

The third and by far most significant problem with Goldsmith’s piece is his suggestion that any investigation and/or prosecution would lead “many government lawyers to be more risk averse and politically sensitive than ever. . . .The lesson learned by many at the [CIA] is that politically sensitive counterterrorism actions should be avoided, even if they are deemed legal and even if they have the express approval of political officials. We are going to be living with this skittishness for a long time, to the detriment of our security.”

To begin with, Goldsmith’s argument that government lawyers might be more “risk averse” and “politically sensitive” in the future ignores the fact that Bush-era lawyers (with the exception of Alberto Mora and Goldsmith himself) did what they did because they didn’t want the wrath of Cheney, Addington, and Gonzales brought down on their heads.  They understood that challenging the Administration’s stated determination to shred existing laws prohibiting torture and war crimes would quickly end their careers as government lawyers.

Such fears weren’t unfounded.  In some cases, such as that of Jesselyn Radack, who challenged the some of Administration’s actions during the detention of “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, the Administration not only pushed people out of government, but tried to blackball them with potential future employers.  In Radack’s case, they even put her on the no-fly list.

To put it another way, part of the problem with what happened over the past eight years is that so many lawyers were exactly what Goldsmith suggests they shouldn’t be: utterly risk averse and politically sensitive.  They didn’t speak out because they feared the consequences.  It’s not like Goldsmith didn’t understand this — he submitted his letter of resignation two days after he decided to withdraw Yoo’s memo and, in all likelihood, before he could be fired.

Goldsmith’s concern about limiting the ability of the CIA to conduct “politically sensitive counterterrorism operations” is equally supect.  Since Nuremberg, “legality” has never been a sufficent defense for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.  The reality is that senior CIA officials were just as unwilling to stand up to the Administration’s desire to torture those in its custody.  In fact, some in the Agency, including Cofer Black, were eager to “take the gloves off” long before Yoo started drafting memoranda.

And as the recent controversy over the possible appointment of John Brennan to serve as CIA Director demonstrates, even those not directly involved in policy decisions are now viewed as accountable merely for being in the room when some of these decisions were discussed.

In the end, Goldsmith’s arguments simply don’t stand up to closer scrutiny.  They represent little more than a weak apologia for policies that he may slowed but nonetheless did not stop.  In fact, had Goldsmith stayed (and, in fairness, had he not been fired), he would have had to draft a replacement for the memo he withdrew.  Chances are that he would have drafted something not unlike that put forward by Dan Levin, his successor, which stated that the CIA could not be held criminally responsible for actions authorized by the Yoo memo.

It really is a shame that Goldsmith has chosen to tarnish his reputation by trying to protect the very people whom he once so courageously opposed.

Note:  As is usually the case when it comes to questions of the Bush Administration’s torture policies, Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side was indespensible in helping me reconstruct time lines and roles.

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• Was McCain Tortured? Ask Dick Cheney

The NYT’s Transition blog says Rand Beers is being considered for Secretary of Homeland Security.  No idea whether it’s true.

I’ve worked with Rand on several occasions, most extensively during the Kerry Campaign.  He’s a terrific guy — solid, sensible, and, to use the favored Obama team term, without drama.  He’d be a great choice.

Of course, given my track record on predicting appointments, that might be the kiss of death.

Related posts

• Why Hillary Still Might Say No
• When Stupidity Strikes
• Uganda or Digital Television?
• Transition: Constant Leaks or Conscious Tactic?
• Transition Watch: Mona Sutphen

Eric Holder, Greg Craig:  Looks like there’s more to Obama than just rhetoric when it comes to torture and closing Guantanamo.

A reminder:  please be sure to resubscribe to Undip if you haven’t — if you subscribed before Sunday, you’ll need to subscribe again.  You also can subscribe to our new comments feed here.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Related posts

• Transition: Constant Leaks or Conscious Tactic?
• Transition Watch: Mona Sutphen
• The Foreign Policy Team: No Surprises
• Nighly Transition Open Thread
• Why Hillary Still Might Say No

If you’ve ever wondered what it’s like for those standing up to the ChiComs, if you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to be under house arrest,  watch this extraordinary samizdat videos from Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan, two Chinese human rights activists who also are husband and wife.  Hu currently is in jail and Zeng is constantly harassed.

You can find more here and here.  A version that shows the highlights of all four videos can be found here.

Today, there’s word that Hu and Zeng may be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

This year’s Nobel peace prize will most likely be awarded to a Chinese dissident to highlight China’s human rights record in the wake of the Olympic Games, according to experts who closely follow the workings of the award.

A likely candidate to receive the prize, the winner of which will be announced on October 10 in Oslo, is Hu Jia, a Chinese activist who has campaigned on democracy, the environment and the rights of HIV/Aids patients. Hu is serving three-and-a-half years in jail for “inciting to subvert state power”.

“The prize will go this year to a Chinese dissident and I believe the most likely [recipient] will be Hu Jia, perhaps together with his wife [Zeng Jinyan],” said Stein Toennesson, director of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, and a close observer of the peace prize. “He has become the most well known Chinese dissident now and it has been a very long time since anyone [related to China] has won the prize.” The last occasion was the Dalai Lama in 1989.

The list of those nominated is always fodder for entertainment.  This year’s list includes 164 individuals and 33 organizations.  No Jerry Lewis, but believe it or not, Vladimir Putin was nominated.  So was the Esperanto language.  I know a certain professor friend of mine in St. Louis who will be delighted to hear about the latter.

In all seriousness, let’s hope that this is not merely a rumor, but the truth.  Human rights activists in China are all but forgotten, swept aside by the glitz and glamour of the Olympics.

Related posts

• Tape-Delayed Blogging the Opening Ceremonies
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics
• While You Were Watching McCain Implode: China Rises
• While We Were Putting Lipstick on That Pig. . .
• Where’s My Cane, Sonny?

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• Goldsmith’s Tortured Apologia
• Was McCain Tortured? Ask Dick Cheney

I just finished Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side.  I’ve blogged a bit on it already, and if I have the time, will try to offer some additional observations later this week.  In the meantime, Alan Jacobs over at The American Scene wonders why conservative media outlets have chosen to ignore the book:

[I]f you. . .see the book only as an anthology of information in the public record — newspaper articles, interviews with named figures, books by former Bush administration officials, government documents, and so on — it’s still a convincing demonstration of how certain high-ranking leaders ignored international law and overturned decades (even centuries) of American practices towards enemy combatants.

Yet I have seen almost no response to this book in the conservative press. What’s up with that? The Dark Side has been reviewed in most major newspapers and magazines, but not from any of the conservative organs I’ve seen. Have I missed something? And if not, what are we to make of this silence?

Do conservatives think Mayer’s book is so bad that it’s unworthy of response? (If so, they’re wrong.) Are they just trying to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable truths, and would prefer not to think about what the Bush administration has done in prosecuting its war on terror? Or — perhaps the most interesting possibility — do they agree that Mayer has accurately described the administration’s actions but simply judge those actions very differently, as necessary and even commendable responses to the Islamist threat?

Keep in mind that Jacobs himself is a conservative, so he is not looking for an excuse attack his movement colleagues. If his last thesis is the correct one, then conventional conservativism no longer regards civil liberties and the rule of law as important as national security.

I do find it interesting that many of the conservative voices now arguing that the Paulson-Bernanke bailout plan as an unconscionable expansion of government power didn’t seem to have a problem with government overreach when it involved torture, rendition, and other abuses.  Their acquiesence then helped lay the groundwork for a similar expansion today.

To put it another way, conservatives had no problem with the Administration’s application of the theory of a unitary executive when it involved war powers.  So why are they suddenly surprised that the Administration now wants to take a similar approach toward the economy?

What conservatives have consistently failed to understand is that this is one of the least conservative Presidencies on record.  It has overseen the single greatest expansion of government authority in history — not merely in terms of war powers, but also with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the expansion of wiretapping and other forms of intrusion into the lives of average Americans, and the unchecked growth of government spending.  No previous Administration — Republican or Democrat — comes close.

In fact, the only field where government authority retreated was regulation.  From the environment to the economy, this Administration has loosened existing controls over big business.  The end result, of course, is the Great Crash we’re facing today.  And the Bush Administration’s solution?  Extend executive authority in order to bail out its friends.  It is consistent with their past policies of imperial overreach.

The Administration’s actions are both disgraceful and fundamentally unconservative.

Since it’s going to take us decades to clean up this mess, it might be a good idea to slow down a little and make sure that the decisions our leaders make over the next week don’t end up doing more harm than good.

Related posts

• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes
• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• Henry Paulson Is As Big A Liar as John McCain
• Goldsmith’s Tortured Apologia
• Where’s Colin Powell When You Need Him?

I’m pleased to announce that I am now a contributor to the Huffington Post.  You can find my first column, entitled “Ambassador for All War Crimes Except Our Own,” here.

Please digg it/buzz it up, and share it with friends!

And as always, thanks for reading.

Related posts

• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• Wonk’d: The ALDAC “Controversy”
• White House Responds to Karadzic Arrest
• Where Dipnote Could Actually Be Useful

The Bush Administration is now suggesting that the $700 billion price tag for bailing out Wall Street may be off because some of the assets purchased could be resold at a profit.

Just remember that this is the same gang of idiots and liars who  told us that the Iraq war would start paying for itself within a few weeks of the invasion.

Related posts

• The Margin Call
• The Bailout Bill: A Threat to Constitutional Rule
• Overnight Election Open Thread
• Bailout: Fear and Loathing in the Halls of Congress
• You Have Got to Be Kidding Me

From today’s Los Angeles Times:

A long-delayed plan to send dozens of U.S. military advisors to Pakistan to train its army in counterinsurgency could begin in a matter of weeks under a new agreement on a training base, according to the top U.S. military officer.

Excuse me, Bush Administration, sorry for intruding.  I don’t mean to be a pest.  Would you mind if I just asked one little question here?  Great!  How about two?  Three?  No more than that, I promise.  Thanks!

Okay, here it goes.  Again, sorry for the bother.

ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE?

ARE YOU SMOKING CRACK?

DON’T YOU MORONS REMEMBER HOW VIETNAM STARTED?

Okay, thanks.  Yeah, I did mean the caps.  Sorry about that.  You can go back to finding more dangerously nuke-ridden failed states to “advise.”

Related posts

• Wonk’d: Why the UN Human Rights Council Blows
• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• While You Were Filing for Bankruptcy: Pakistan
• Was McCain Tortured? Ask Dick Cheney
• Thought for the Day

This morning, The Washington Postdated confirms that yesterday’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was the work of a group known as the Soldiers’ Brigade of Yemen, an affiliate of al Qaeda, using techniques that they may have learned while fighting in Iraq:

[T]he first vehicle exploded near a guard post. Cameras then recorded attackers taking positions nearby, until a second vehicle packed with explosives detonated near a sidewalk. . . . The use of two vehicle bombs — one to breach the perimeter of a compound, a second to drive inside and explode — is a tactic used by the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Matt Duss over at Think Progress demonstrates how this blows away yet another justification for the Iraq war — the “we’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here” idea, also known as the flypaper theory:

Those who have been following the Iraq debate might remember “flypaper theory,” which was one of the earliest exponents of the “incoherent post hoc justifications for the Iraq war” genre. The idea was that there was some limited number of terrorists in the Middle East, and the presence of an occupying U.S. army would lure them to Iraq, whereupon they could all be conveniently killed, presumably as soon as they stepped off the bus.

This plan was prevented from working only by the fact that it was staggeringly dumb. The U.S. occupation radicalized scores of young Muslims, many of whom traveled to Iraq, where they learned terror warfare and were galvanized in the global jihad. And now they’ve begun returning home, to share the tactics and technology developed in a laboratory we provided for them by invading Iraq.

Of course, that doesn’t even take into account the role of torture, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other such obscenities in helping to radicalize Muslims as well.

To put it another way, the Bush Administration have spent  billions upon billions of dollars on the Iraq War, largely based on the bankrupt theory that we are building an island of democracy that will de-radicalize the Middle East.  In reality, we have made things far worse than they would have been had we never invaded, so much so that we have unthinkingly created another generation of terrorists, in the process weakening ourselves to such a degree that we may not be able to fight back the next time the come “over here.”

Imagine how bad things would be if Bush had taken a similar approach to the economy.

Oh.  Wait.

Never mind.

Hat tip:  Obsidian Wings

Related posts

• U.S. Embassy in Yemen Attacked
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight
• Controlympics: Pollyanna George
• Compare and Contrast
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own

You may not have heard, but the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen was attacked today, apparently by a group known as Islamic Jihad in Yemen.  Reports differ as to whether they are affiliated with al Qaeda.

At least sixteen people — six Yemeni police officers, six of the attackers, and four civilians died as a result of the attack.  None of the Americans or foreign nationals working at the embassy were harmed, but this does represent the second time that the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa has come under attack.  In March, the Yemeni branch of al Qaeda fired mortars, missing the Embassy and instead hitting a nearby girls’ school.

Here’s what the embassy spokesman said after the attack:

The first explosion happened about 9:15 a.m. Wednesday (0615 GMT/2.15 am ET) and was followed by several secondary blasts, said U.S. Embassy spokesman Ryan Gliha. . . . Gliha was at the embassy at the time of the attack and said he felt the compound shake.

“We were all ordered to assume what we call a duck-and-cover position which is a position where we guard ourselves and bodies from potential debris,” Gliha told CNN.  “From that vantage point, I can’t tell you much after that except we did feel several explosions after the main explosion that shook the ground.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said during his daily briefing today that the attack had the goal of breaching the Embassy’s walls.  Jeff Stein at Spy Talk notes that, given the number of people involved, at least one former intelligence agent thinks that the purpose may have been not to kill those working there but to take hostages, along the lines of what happened in Iran in 1979:

It seems like the team was large enough to do more than just blow something up. Tactically it would have been interesting: Think Tehran-like embassy takeover, in the middle of a presidential election, hostages being executed on live TV.  It would have to be a resolved by an assault, which the Yemenis are not trained to do.

As I’ve said before, I have long believed that Americans fail to understand or appreciate the heroism and courage of our foreign service officers.  The same goes for the foreign nationals who serve so ably in every American post.  As McCormack noted in his briefing today,

People understand, as we’ve seen today, that American personnel serving overseas serve in some dangerous places or places that have the potential to be dangerous. We’ve seen that borne out once again today. But we manage that risk. And we’re not going to take any steps or do anything that we think unduly puts any of our personnel or their family at risk.

Unfortunately, attacks like these will only make our diplomats’ jobs even harder.  After every such incident, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security finds ways to make it harder for terrorists to attack.  That’s a good thing — no one wants to endanger unduly our diplomats — but it also creates a new problem:  it cuts off our diplomats even further from the countries they’re covering.  The reality is that nothing will make our embassies completely safe.

Related posts

• The Decline of American Power, Iraq Edition, Part 356
• Ten Years Ago Today. . .
• Huge Bombing at Islamabad Marriot
• While You Were Watching the View. . .
• While You Were Away: Pakistan

We’re trying out a new feature here at Undip:  “What You Might Have Missed,” which will highlight stories that other stories have kept off the front page.

Today, it’s the transfer of authority from Gen. David Petraeus to Gen. Ray Odierno in Baghdad.  Petraeus will now head Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military activity from Egypt to Pakistan, an arc that includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What I find particularly interesting about this story is that Petraeus and Odierno had completely different approaches to the occupation of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.  When Petraeus led the 101st Airborne, he was praised for applying counterinsurgency doctrine in Mosul in a way that helped keep the region calm — until he left.

In Mosul, a city of nearly two million people, Petraeus and the 101st employed classic counterinsurgency methods to build security and stability, including conducting targeted kinetic operations and using force judiciously, jump-starting the economy, building local security forces, staging elections for the city council within weeks of their arrival, overseeing a program of public works, reinvigorating the political process, and launching 4,500 reconstruction project. . . . [I]n the book Fiasco, Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks wrote that “Mosul was quiet while he (Petraeus) was there, and likely would have remained so had his successor had as many troops as he had–and as much understanding of counterinsurgency techniques.” Ricks went on to note that “the population-oriented approach Petraeus took in Mosul in 2003 would be the one the entire U.S. Army in Iraq was trying to adopt in 2006.”

Contrast that with Odierno’s time commanding the 4th Infranty Division during the same period:

Odierno’s tenure as 4th ID commander in Iraq and his unit’s actions there have subsequently come under criticism from several sources. Many officers from the 1st Marine Division were critical of 4th ID’s belligerent stance during their initial entry into Iraq after the ground war had ceased and the unit’s lack of a ‘hearts and minds’ approach to counter-insurgency. Several authors have echoed similar criticisms shared with them by other military personnel in the theater. In his unit’s defense Odierno strenuously argued that the situation was that such an approach was required and subsequent insurgent activity justified the actions of 4th ID as former insurgents began to join the fight against Islamic extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda, in 2007.

To this day, Odierno rejects these arguments, saying that the situation then required an aggressive approach.  That said, Odierno did spend the past few years helping Petraeus craft the surge, and it’s doubtful that Petraeus would support the choice of someone he thought could not build on his success.

There’s an old saying in sports that you’re much better off being the guy who replaces the guy who replaced the legend.  Odierno doesn’t have that luxury.  If he fails, he may find that he’s on a short leash, as Petraeus, Gates, and Bush are unlikely to let Iraq to fall back into chaos.

Photo: Outgoing commander Gen. David Petraeus hands over the Multi-National Force Iraq flag to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates as Gen. Ray Odierno looks on during a Change of Command ceremony at Camp Victory on September 16, 2008 in Baghdad, Iraq. David Petraeus, the American general who presided during “The Surge”, the increase in American military presence believed to have been critical to reduced violence in the beleaguered country, handed over his command today to Gen. Ray Odierno. (Getty Images via Daylife)

Related posts

• Transition Watch: Iraq
• Diplospeak Translator: Partying Like It’s 2011
• Controlympics: Pollyanna George
• You Have Got to Be Kidding Me
• Wonk’d: Why the UN Human Rights Council Blows

In today’s Washington Postdated, former Bush flack-hack and occasional thoughtful conservative Michael Gerson goes off the rails again, suggesting that Obama has made three mistakes during his campaign that just might prove to be fatal.

1.  Obama made the mistake of choosing in Joe Biden a thoughtful, experienced, and capable running mate instead of a crazy, inexperienced, and frequently vicious unknown.

He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governor who wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi. When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side.

Apparently it is better to score easy points by creating a celebrity while sating your red (moose) meat base than it is to think about what is necessary to govern a large and complex nation.

2.  Obama made the mistake of turning his convention speech into a thoughtful discussion of the issues that matter to the American people instead of a rehash of his inspirational stumps:

In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. And John McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed “judgment.” His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn’t have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden “to the cave where he lives.”

Apparently it is better to speak blandishments than talk about the real problems facing this country.  The irony, of course, is that much of the commentariat before the speech — including Republicans — could not stop talking about how Obama needed to talk policy.  After the speech every commentator — even Pat Buchanan, for crying out loud — called the speech one of the finest of his career and an extraordinary challenge to McCain.  All that was forgotten by Gerson and other folks, largely because the next day, John McCain opened up that big ol’ can of crazy known as the Sarahnator.

3.  Obama is now making the mistake of getting tough on McCain for being such a lying liar who lies about his giant sack of lies.

Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter — which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician — an image now in tatters.

That’s right — it’s Obama’s fault for challenging the lies, because it makes him look like a typical politician.  Forget the fact that McCain has sullied his honor.  It’s far more relevant that Obama chose to fight back, thus hurting his reputation as a change agent.

If Michael Gerson wants to put on a pair of beer goggles when he looks at John McCain, that’s his prerogative.  But he shouldn’t expect the rest of us to believe him.

Related posts

• The True Experience Test
• Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps
• Framing, the Media, and the McCain Campaign
• Yesterday’s Best Speech
• What’s Wrong with this Picture?

Has Bush just gotten us into another war?  According to a number of press