ISRAEL FIGHTS TERROR WITH TERROR

PRIME MINISTER PROMISES "EXTREME ACTION"

GAZA BRIDGES, POWER STATIONS DESTROYED

For three months, tensions between Israel and Palestine have been on the rise. More than usual that is. This timeline from the UK Independent :

* 29 March Abbas swears in Hamas government headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyehr.

* 7 April US and EU suspend aid to try to force Hamas to recognise Israel's right to exist.

* 9 April Israel severs all direct contact with the government.

* 17 April Islamic Jihad bomber kills 11 people in Tel Aviv. Hamas calls it self-defence.

* 20 May Palestinian intelligence chief, an Abbas ally, hurt in assassination attempt.

* 7 June Hamas agrees to pull its militia off Gaza streets.

* 9 June Hamas calls off 16-month-old truce, blaming Israeli forces for killing 10 in Gaza.

* 10 June Abbas sets referendum on statehood proposal for 26 July. Hamas rejects it.

* 25 June Palestinian militants kill two Israeli soldiers and abduct Corporal Gilad Shalit.

* 27 June As more than 3,000 Israeli troops and armour surround Gaza, Palestinian militants begin erecting barricades.

Hamas and Fatah finally reach an agreement that will soft-sell recognise the existence of Israel and presumably lead to the establishment of Israel and Palestinian states, side by side. A long overdue outcome desired by an overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians.

An Israel Defence Force outpost on the edge of Gaza is attacked by Palestinian fighters. They supposedly tunnelled three hundred metres under the security fence, popped up out of the ground, blew up an empty tank, killed two IDF soldiers and kidnapped a third, taking the wounded soldier with them back into Gaza.

Palestinians claim the attack on the IDF was an effort to stop Israeli tanks from firing artillery shells into civilian areas of Gaza. Israel in turn claimed they were trying to counter-attack the handmade rockets fired by Palestinians, from within Gaza, aimed at illegal Jewish settler sites.

A swamping tide of propaganda, spin and questionable justifications from both sides now consume the media, in amongst the confirmable truths.

At the time of this posting, Palestinians are setting up IEDs in ambush zones within Gaza, but the IDF has not reported taking any fire. However, essential Gaza infrastructure has already been destroyed by the IDF :

An Israeli army spokeswoman said: "During the night, the Israeli airforce hit three bridges in central Gaza and a power station south of Gaza City. Israeli forces entered the south of Gaza near the village of Dahaniya and the airport and they remain there at the moment."

The destroyed bridges will delay, or stop completely, emergency and rescue vehicles from reaching heavily populated areas of Gaza should there prove to be civilian casualties. The power station supplied electricity to the homes and businesses of more than 700,000 Palestinians.

The IDF spokespeople in the mainstream media say the Gaza invasion is solely about rescuing the soldier and returning him to Israel. But the local Israeli media are getting a different story, and this version is mostly about revenge :

"To exact a price for the kidnapping incident and to restore deterrence," one official told the Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Aronoth.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised : "We won't hestitate to carry out extreme action to bring (the IDF solder) back to his family."

The White House is backing Israel's invasion of Gaza :

"Israel has the right to defend itself and the lives of its citizens. In any actions the government of Israel may undertake the United States urges that it ensures that innocent civilians are not harmed, and also that it avoid the unnecessary destruction of property and infrastructure..."

The variety of Palestinian groups claiming to be holding the IDF soldier hostage want to negotiate a swap for women and children held in Israeli prisons.

A senior minister in the Hamas government refused to condemn the kidnappers for their actions. He thinks taking IDF soldiers hostage is justified :

This soldier...he's a military man. He's a soldier. He's sitting in his tank on the border of the Gaza Strip. He's shelling the children of the Gaza Strip every day, all the time for a one-and-a-half years...

I know the whole world did not become touchy for 12,000 Palestinian prisoners kidnapped from their homes....they're imprisoned for several years now. Among them are 400 women, some of them have given birth in prison for their children and we have at least 150 children under 18, teenagers, who are in prison under the Israeli Army and are military prisoners.

UPDATE : Day Three dawns and there's little visible action apart from rumbling tanks and grumbling militants :

Anxious men, women and children packed into rickety carts and cars and fled border areas of southern Gaza in fear for their lives after Israeli troops rolled into the territory.

A pair of Apache helicopters circled high above, firing occasional bursts into empty fields, a warning of the power Israel could yet bring to bear.

In downtown Rafah, Islamic Jihad, among the most defiant and hardline factions comprising the Palestinian resistance, staged a show of its own.

Rather than take the fight to the "Zionist enemy," a dozen masked militants in paramilitary garb, waving assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, paraded back and forth for journalists.

"We will never allow the enemy to enter our cities," one gunman said, shaking his M-16 rifle in the air.

The search for the kidnapped IDF soldier goes on. The kidnappers demand the release of Palestinian women and teenagers held by Israel, who repeats there will be no prisoner swap and no negotiations.

IDF Commander Admits Soldier Rescue Is Just One Reason For Gaza Invasion

Palestinian Authority "Declares State Of Emergency"

Threats To Butcher Captured Israeli Settler Live On TV

Fatah's Abas Calls IDF Invasion "Crimes Against Humanity"

AMNESTY FOR THE INSURGENCY PLAN ANNOUNCED BY THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT

UPDATE : Amnesty For The Insurgency Now Looks Set To Be Delayed Until After US November Elections - US Senators Express Outrage At Thought American-Killing Insurgents Might Not Face Justice


Even up until late last Friday, Bush Co was playing dumb over the incoming plan by the Iraqi government to end the US War On Iraq.

The 28 point plan, announced on Sunday by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is said to be both straightforward and wide-ranging, and is already being well recieved by Iraqis. At least, those who believe the plan will quicken the US pullout of forces from their country. After all, getting the US out of Iraq has always been the chief motivation of the Iraq Insurgency.

The Grand Plan calls for insurgents to stop fighting under a general amnesty, for thousands of Iraqi prisoners to be freed from jails, and in particular US detention camps within the country, and for foreign troops to start detailing their withdrawal plans.

The most contentious issue for Bush Co, and the neocon media wizards who will have to spin the news in a major way, concerns the Iraq government granting amnesty to possibly thousands of Sunni and Shiite insurgents who have fought and killed Americans.

In particular, the amnesty for the insurgency is expected to recognise that any Iraqi who fought the invading coalition forces, but didn't attack their fellow Iraqis, were defending their souvereign country and therefore committed no crime.

The amnesty, therefore, would make the general insurgency legit and even lawful.

This also means, in short, that most of the insurgency actions will be recognised as essentially legal and should see the insurgency itself go down in the history of Iraq as a movement of legitimate armed resistance instead of a bunch of terrorists.

No doubt, the NeoCon spin machine will blame Iran (whether Iran is responsible or not) for the majority of IED attacks on primarily American forces, as this will help lift much of the blame for dead Americans off Iraq's Sunni and Shiite insurgents.

Expect Fox News and the right wingnut blogosphere to hit the afterburners trying to spin this news so it doesn't appear that free and democratic Iraq is handing out 'Do Not Go Directly To Jail' cards to Iraqi fighters who only a year ago were called terrorists and who have inflicted the majority of US casualties and fatalities.

Bush Co knew this amnesty for the insurgency was on its way, which is why more than six months ago, President Bush, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney stopped using the word 'terrorist' to describe all Iraqis who were fighting American forces, and began divvying up the sprawling insurgency into "Saddamists" "Bathhists" "foreign fighters" "Al Qaeda terrorists" and "Sunni and Shiite insurgents".

President Bush has also stopped using his mantra of "We Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists" in recent months, talking more about the wonders and positives of diplomacy, particularly when it comes to dealing with Iran.

The rebranding of the Iraqi Insurgency months ago was part of the essential groundwork that needed to be laid to get Americans used to the idea that very few Iraqis will face trial or have "justice delivered" for taking part in the resistance.

What will happen to those insurgents, Iraqi or foreigners, who attacked and killed Iraqis remains to be seen.

Prosecuting these killers may also be troublesome for the Iraq government because there is a widespread belief in Iraq, and around the world, that many of the Shiite death squads currently slaughtering Sunnis and causing general mayhem are supported, and derived, from some ranks of the new government.

Iraq PM Presents Reconciliation Plan

Bush Co Reacts Fast : US General In Iraq Outlines Massive Cut In Deployed Troops

BBC : Iraq Strategy Part Of Grand Plan To Benefit Bush Co As US November Elections Draw Closer

THE NEW NEW WORLD ORDER

"OPEC WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS"

IRAN, RUSSIA AND CHINA ALLIANCE STRIKES FEAR INTO THE US & EU

From The Financial Times :

For the first five years of its existence, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation was thought of as little more than a talking shop for central Asian leaders.

Yet since the annual summit in Shanghai last week of the six-nation group – its members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – diplomats have been trying to decide if the organisation is now becoming an important political entity.

This is partly down to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the controversial Iranian president, who visited the Shanghai summit as an observer and talked of his desire for Iran to enter the SCO. His presence prompted speculation that the SCO could provide a diplomatic lifeline to Iran and hamper efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme.

But as high oil prices have intensified the jostling for political power in central Asia, the questions raised by the SCO summit go much deeper. The group appears to underline China’s ever-expanding influence in the region and is taking a more confrontational attitude to the US. Critics in the US have tagged it with labels such as “Oriental Nato” and “Opec with nuclear weapons”.

“The SCO is emerging as a focus of global power which is competing with the US,” says Ariel Cohen, a Russia and Eurasia specialist at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think-tank in the US.

“Its agenda, especially after Ahmadi-Nejad’s performance, is clear: to dictate to the US how things are done, and at what pace.”

The SCO has its roots in a group called the Shanghai Five set up in 1996 to analyse territorial disputes in central Asia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It evolved into the SCO in 2001 with a focus on security and economic co-operation.

Diplomats say the SCO is beginning to establish an identity for itself, partly based on opposition to the US making greater inroads into the region.

Motivated by what regional leaders saw as US involvement in the wave of popular unrest in former Soviet republics in 2005, the group first began to flex its muscles last year when it called on the US to set a date for closing its military bases in central Asia. Uzbekistan later asked the US to leave, while Kyrgyzstan has threatened to evict the US from its last military base in the region unless it increases the rent it pays on aircraft landing and refuelling 100-fold.

At the summit last week the six countries focused on Afghanistan, promising to combine forces to tackle the heroin trade and the deteriorating security position, in what some analysts said was a challenge to the US. Uzbekistan president Islam Karimov criticised the “low effectiveness” of the international coalition forces in Afghanistan and complained that they had not curbed drug smuggling.

“Terrorism and extremism are key factors in the region,” says Hu Jian, deputy director of the SCO Research Centre at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (SASS). “And Afghanistan has been a cradle for terrorism and extremism since the US invasion.”

The SCO is also becoming an ambassador for the Chinese approach to international affairs, which involves a strict policy of non-interference in other countries and eschews comparisons of human rights situations. The summit’s final declaration included favoured Chinese formulations such as opposition to “exporting models of social development” and an emphasis on combating not just terrorism and extremism but also “separatism” – a term China usually uses to refer to pro-independence politicians in Taiwan but which is also directed at some members of Muslim minorities in western China.

For all the bluster at the summit, Professor Hu at SASS insists the SCO is not opposed to the US – China favours “multiple layers of co-operation”, he says – while Mr Cohen points out that China is much less keen on stoking anti-Americanism than some other countries are, in part because of the strong trading links.

Washington, he says, should respond to the SCO’s rise by strengthening ties with more friendly nations in the region, such as Kazakhstan.

Despite the surge of interest in the group, however, some analysts believe the influence of the SCO is being greatly overestimated.

Kirill Nourzhanov, an expert on central Asia at the Australian National University, said the organisation had so far proved to be little more than a photo opportunity for high ranking leaders. It has only a very small secretariat with no real working bodies, “no common economic space” and very little military co-operation, he says.

In Moscow, he adds, the SCO is considered a relatively unimportant channel for diplomacy in the region.

“They just get together now and again and make it known that they don’t like the US, and that’s about where it stops,” he says. “The image of a mighty and organically anti-western military alliance is misleading.”

THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

CONTROLLING THE MEDIA AS CONFLICT ESCALATES

TALIBAN WARNS ALL AFGHANS THAT NATO COLLABORATION WILL SEE THEM BECOME TARGETS

In another sure sign the war in Afghanistan is going to broaden and intensify in the months ahead, tight restrictions are now being imposed on the media and how they report on the conflict.

During a media conference in Kabul, a 24 point plan was issued to local and foreign television, radio and newspaper journalists on how they should, or shouldn't, be covering the war in Afghanistan. The set of guidelines is believed to have been issued by an intelligence organ, presumably guided by NATO officers skilled in information warfare.

The main points in the paper press journalists not to conduct interviews with Taliban leaders and avoid raising fingers of accusation at the foreign troops presently stationed in all parts of the war-shattered country. The paper says that in the present circumstances, reports regarding Taliban's attacks and interviews of their leaders would weaken the morale of the people. At the same time, editors and general managers of newspapers, news agencies and private radio and TV channels have been directed not to criticise the foreign troops.

Local media in particula are being told they have to agree to new restrictive guidelines on how they report the war in their country. The Afghanistan government wants no media to give any coverage at all to the Taliban and intends to ban journalists from interviewing anyone connected to the militant group.

...media organisations has been asked not to highlight suicide attacks, Taliban statements regarding killing of Afghan and foreign forces and lawlessness in some provinces. Although media outfits and journalism is not as strong as in the neighbouring countries, local media personnel usually face problems in coverage of events in this impoverished state which is in the stage of institution building. This is the first time, since the ouster of Taliban in 2001, that media organistaions and journalists are overtly asked to follow "dos" and "don'ts" in fulfilling their professional responsibilities.

A free press is, of course, one of the hallmarks of a true democracy, and banning journalists from interviewing the enemy, restricting their access to the war zones and trying to control what is, and isn't, reported goes against everything the Afghans have been fighting for since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.


Trucks from Pakistan shipping in NATO food and fuel supplies are now being targeted by Taliban fighters.

One fuel truck blew up yesterday as it crossed into Afghanistan. A bomb is believed to have been secured to the vehicle before it left Pakistan.

Six people were killed and ten other vehicles were destroyed in the subsequent explosions, as other fuel and cargo vehicles in the convoy were consumed by the blast.

There have been several Taliban attacks on trucks supplying logistics to US bases in Afghanistan but this was one of the biggest.

(The Taliban) has warned all Afghans working with us-led forces in Afghanistan that they could be targets.

On Thursday last week 10 Afghans, including five interpreters working at a us-led coalition base in troubled Kandahar province, were killed by a bomb placed on a bus taking people to work.

The past months have seen an upsurge in rebel attacks on afghan and foreign forces, especially in southern and southeastern Afghanistan.

Six Canadians Wounded When Convoy Hit By Suicide Bomber

Canadians Give Vivid Eyewitness Accouns Of Recent Attacks

US Military Expects Long, Dangerous Fight in Afghanistan, Softens Up US For Further Casualties

Afghanistan In Chaos : Claims Insurgency, Uprising Against US/NATO Forces Is Spreading Through Areas Hostile To Taliban

THE WAR ON TERROR CREATES ITS OWN NEW ENEMIES

"THE SMOKE FROM THE FIRE OF IRAQ IS DRIFTING OVER LEBANON"

An eye-opening, shocking story from the Washington Post takes us into Tripoli, Lebanon, to see how the 'War On Iraq' franchise of the 'The Long War' against terror is spreading its influence, and power to recruit new jihadists, well beyond the borders of the current conflict.

The war in Iraq has generated some of the most startling images in the Middle East today: a dictator's fall, elections in defiance of insurgent threats and carnage on a scale rarely witnessed.

Less visibly, though, the war is building a profound legacy across the Arab world: fear and suspicion over Iraq's repercussions, a generation that casts the Bush administration's policy as an unquestioned war on Islam, and a subterranean reserve of men...declare that the fight against the United States in Iraq is a model for the future.

In the West, we are told by the likes of President Bush, UK's Prime Minister Blair and Australia's Prime Minister Howard that the 'War On Terror' is not a War Against Islam.

But for seemingly millions of people across the Middle East, and greater Asia, this is exactly what the War On Terror has become. And this belief seems to be spreading deeper, and wider, and radicalising more and more Muslims as the 'War On Iraq' continues well into its fourth and the civilian casualities and atrocities mount.

The war in Iraq has generated some of the most startling images in the Middle East today: a dictator's fall, elections in defiance of insurgent threats and carnage on a scale rarely witnessed.

Less visibly, though, the war is building a profound legacy across the Arab world: fear and suspicion over Iraq's repercussions, a generation that casts the Bush administration's policy as an unquestioned war on Islam, and a subterranean reserve of men...declare that the fight against the United States in Iraq is a model for the future.

It is as though a script written well before the September 11th attacks on the US is now being acted out, page by page. As this WP story points out, while there was anger and resentement against US foreign policy across the Middle East before the 'War On Iraq', the call to arms to fight in a region-wide resistance wasn't getting many takers. That doesn't seem to be the case now.

Bush told us that Iraq was "the central front of the War On Terror" long before the lengthened 'War On Iraq' made into a reality.

...Tripoli, is one of the most visible manifestations of the war, a rough-and-tumble city being transformed by growing radicalism and religious fervor that may long outlast the death of Zarqawi and the U.S. presence in Iraq, now in its fourth year. Here, and elsewhere, that militancy may prove to be the inheritance of both the war and the Bush administration's professed aim of bringing democratic reform to the region.

"....why does the Islamic current reach its goals? Because it expresses the people's sentiments against the Americans. It's a reaction to American policy. They are planting the seed of hatred that is going to last generations."

Grievances against the United States are nothing new in a city like Tripoli. For a generation, activists across the spectrum have bitterly criticized U.S. policy. What has shifted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the perception of that policy.

The critique is no longer about perceived double standards -- of excessive support for Israel, of backing Arab dictatorships. Today, it is more generalized, universal and uncompromising. Popular sentiment here and elsewhere holds that U.S. policy amounts to a war on Islam, and in the language of Abu Haritha and others, the conflict is framed as one between the faithful and infidels, justice and injustice.

"The targeting of Iraq can be considered the first step in targeting the entire Middle East to impose a new order in the region...

Some see an American hand in Iraq's entropy; in their analysis, the United States and Israel are fanning the flames of sectarianism as a way to further divide the Arab world and create a region even more balkanized than today's. Others see a more deep-seated hostility in U.S. actions, a scorched-earth campaign to hasten an apocalyptic battle or, in Salih's words, the "politics of chaos."

"America is with the Shiites in Iraq and against the Shiites in Lebanon, with the Sunnis in Lebanon and against the Sunnis in Iraq and Palestine. It is against the Shiites in Iran. Where is America?" Shaaban asked. "It needs Einstein to resolve it."

The whole story is well worth a read.

BUSH IN BAGHDAD

TELLS IRAQIS THEY'RE NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR REBUILDING AND SECURITY

50,000 US TROOPS TO STAY IN PERMANENT BASES

Before flying into Baghdad for a five hour visit yesterday, US President George W. Bush met with his top advisors and war commanders at the Camp David retreat.

It was a media show more than anything else. Bush knew he was about to leave for Baghdad and wanted to make his chief point of the day twice. Once to the US media, and again to the government and people of Iraq.

That point being that the future of Iraq was now in the hands of Iraqis.

''The best way to win this war against an insurgency is to stand up a unity government which is capable of defending itself, but also providing tangible benefits to the people,'' Bush said after the meeting.

''Ultimately, the Iraqi people are going to have to make up their mind. Do they want to live in terror, or do they want to live in peace?''

The handover of all responsibility for Iraq, from the US to the new Iraqi government, is well underway, despite ongoing insurgent attacks on civilians and potable water and electricity being far below even pre-war levels of availability.

Oil, Bush said, was the key to the future prosperity of Iraq, but attacks on the oil infrastructure and a massive oil smuggling blackmarket remain huge problems and are unlikely to be resolved any time soon.

"It's in our interest that Iraq succeed," Bush told Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

It sure is. By the time Bush leaves the White House in early 2008, the US will have poured more than $US500 billion into removing Saddam Hussein from power and attempting to establish democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

"I've come to not only look you in the eye," Bush told al-Maliki, in Baghdad.

"I've also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it keeps its word,"

Bush made it crystal clear that he now regards the well-being and future of Iraq as being the responsibility of Iraq's government and all Iraqis.

The March To Victory has well and truly begun.

Exactly how and when President Bush will claim victory in Iraq will be backed by a massive PR/spin campaign, which seems already underway, with the killing of al-Zarqawi as the first headline grabber, and Bush's triumphant visit to Iraq being the next.

Less well publicised was the news that the US is going to keep some 50,000 troops (almost one-tenth of its entire deployable force) in Iraq for at least the next three years, in a series of permanent, hardened bases scattered across the country.

Bush Discusses Iraq With Top Commanders As US Senate Okays Billions More War Dollars

Anbar : The Most Violence Province In Iraq : "They Are Willing To Kill Their Own Children"

BUSH PLANS NEXT STAGE OF WAR ON IRAQ....WITH IRAQ GOVERNMENT

From the New York Times :

"President Bush's two-day strategy session starting Monday at Camp David is intended to revive highly tangible efforts to shore up Iraq's new government, from getting the electricity back on in Baghdad to purging the security forces of revenge-seeking militias....

"Three years of efforts to accomplish those goals have largely failed...

"...the decision to hold a joint cabinet meeting on Tuesday, between Mr. Bush's top advisers and the newly appointed cabinet of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq via a video link from Baghdad, was intended to set an agenda for the new government that could begin to win the loyalty of disaffected Iraqis.

"It is also an effort to hand off leadership to Mr. Maliki's government...

"Mr. Bush on Friday made clear that the American commitment to the country will be long-term. Officials say the administration has begun to look at the costs of maintaining a force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come, roughly the size of the American presence maintained in the Philippines and Korea for decades after those conflicts.

"The pipelines that feed oil to generating plants have been systematically attacked by insurgents who aim to shut down the grid and black marketeers seeking to steal the fuel and sell it for profit...."

AL QAEDA'S LONG ROAD TO WORLD WAR

Michael Scheuer, a twenty two year veteran of the CIA, writes in the Asia Times :

In recent weeks, media reports from both Iraq and Afghanistan have suggested the appearance of a slow evolution of the Islamist insurgents' tactics in the direction of the battlefield deployment of larger mujahideen units that attack "harder" facilities.

These attacks are not replacing small-unit attacks, ambushes, kidnappings, assassinations and suicide bombings in either country, but rather seem to be initial and tentative forays toward another stage of fighting.

Al-Qaeda believes that it and its allies can only defeat the United States in a "long war", one that allows the Islamists to capitalize on their extraordinary patience, as well as on their enemies' lack thereof.

Before his death in a firefight with Saudi security forces, the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Hajar Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin, wrote extensively about how al-Qaeda believed the military fight against the US and its allies would unfold. He envisioned a point at which the mujahideen would have to develop semi-conventional forces. He identified this period as the "Decisive Stage".

Muqrin told his insurgent readers that the power of the US precluded any expectation of a quick victory. He wrote that the war would progress slowly through such phases as initial manpower mobilization, political work among the populace to establish trust and support, the accumulation of weaponry and other supplies, the establishment of bases around the country and especially in the mountains, the initiation of attacks on individuals and then a gradual intensification of the latter until a countrywide insurgency was under way.

Each of these steps was essential and none could be skipped, Muqrin maintained; the steps would prolong the war, thereby allowing the mujahideen to grow in numbers, experience and combat power.

As these steps were traversed by the mujahideen, Muqrin argued that the resources, political will, morale and manpower of the insurgents' enemies would be eroded and their forces would assume more static positions in order to limit the attrition they suffered.

In this stage of the insurgency, Muqrin predicted that the US and its allies would conduct far fewer large-scale combat operations in the countryside and would turn toward conducting smaller raids on specific targets, while simultaneously hardening their bases and protecting their supply routes and lines of communication.

At this point, Muqrin wrote, the mujahideen could begin the final stage of preparation for victory, "which is building a military force across the country that becomes the nucleus of a military army".

..Muqrin wrote, "I mean the need for these troops to be knowledgeable about regular warfare, the army formations [and] their function in urban areas. I do not mean following the suit of the regimes ..."

The purpose of these forces?

"Through these regular forces," Muqrin explained, "the mujahideen will begin to attack small cities and publicize the conquest and victories in the media to lift the morale of the mujahideen and the people in general and break the morale of the enemy."

Muqrin continued: "The reason the mujahideen should target the small cities is that when the enemies' soldiers see these [small] cities falling into the hands of the mujahideen it will destroy their morale and they will realize that they are no match for the mujahideen."

The larger insurgent units that have been sporadically operating in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past year may signal the initial, limited success of Muqrin's call for the building of semi-conventional mujahideen units.

BUSH PLANS NEXT STAGE OF WAR ON IRAQ....WITH IRAQ GOVERNMENT

From the New York Times :

WASHINGTON, June 10 — President Bush's two-day strategy session starting Monday at Camp David is intended to revive highly tangible efforts to shore up Iraq's new government, from getting the electricity back on in Baghdad to purging the security forces of revenge-seeking militias, White House officials said.

Three years of efforts to accomplish those goals have largely failed. Billions of dollars have been spent on both electricity and security, yet residents of Baghdad get only five to eight hours of power a day, and the American ambassador acknowledged on Friday that the city is "more insecure now than it was a few months ago."

One of the senior officials involved in the strategy session characterized it as a "last, best chance to get this right," an implicit acknowledgment that previous American-led efforts had gone astray.

He said the decision to hold a joint cabinet meeting on Tuesday, between Mr. Bush's top advisers and the newly appointed cabinet of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq via a video link from Baghdad, was intended to set an agenda for the new government that could begin to win the loyalty of disaffected Iraqis. It is also an effort to hand off leadership to Mr. Maliki's government and, in an analogy used by several American officials, to begin to let go of the bicycle seat and find out if the Iraqi government can stay upright with less American support.

For Mr. Bush, the session comes at a critical moment in Baghdad and in Washington. His efforts to prop up two interim prime ministers with similar pledges of support largely failed. At home, he is trying to create a sense of political progress at a time when some Democrats — and some in his own party — are calling for significant numbers of American troops to come home by the end of this year, a debate that will be taking place in Congress this week during arguments over spending bills for the war.

No matter how that debate turns out, Congress has made clear that its willingness to pay for more Iraqi reconstruction is just about exhausted. Both American and Iraqi officials now acknowledge that they will have to seek billions in investment and aid from Persian Gulf nations that have been unwilling to contribute many dollars or any soldiers.

Mr. Bush on Friday made clear that the American commitment to the country will be long-term. Officials say the administration has begun to look at the costs of maintaining a force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come, roughly the size of the American presence maintained in the Philippines and Korea for decades after those conflicts.

But no decisions have been made, and Mr. Bush has carefully sidestepped any discussion of a long-term presence, insisting that American forces will be in the country only as long as the Iraqi government wants them there. Mr. Bush's aides said the meeting was not intended to focus on troop levels. But in many ways, that subject is the subtext of the entire discussion.

Providing electricity means securing pipelines and generators that have been prime targets of the insurgency. Enforcing a breakup of the militias that have infiltrated security forces could require a significant show of force, particularly if elements of the Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization, the two strongest Shiite militias, resist.

Dealing with electric power and security, of course, were among the problems that the administration insisted, in briefings in the spring of 2003, it was prepared to tackle as soon as Saddam Hussein was deposed.

"None of these problems — or even the solutions that are being proposed — are new," said one former senior official who worked extensively on reconstruction, but did not want his name published because he still deals with the administration regularly. "What's been lacking is the political will."

Administration officials say they are not trying to reinvent the reconstruction, but rather relaunch it. "Everybody views the completion of a truly unity government as a moment of opportunity," Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's senior counselor, said Friday in his office at the White House. "That is exactly why this meeting is taking place now."

The session was planned, he said, before the killing on Wednesday of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Qaeda leader in Iraq, but Mr. Bush has made clear he thinks Mr. Zarqawi's elimination could help turn the tide.

Mr. Maliki has said that solving the electricity problem, particularly in Baghdad, and ridding the security forces of infiltrators who have killed Sunnis and other rivals, are his top priorities. But American officials acknowledge that to pay for some of Mr. Maliki's agenda, it will be necessary to raise money among Iraq's neighbors in the gulf — an effort that has yielded minimal results so far.

As the prime minister's own tour of new electric facilities in Iraq this week made clear, the challenges are enormous. Already, the United States has allocated $4 billion to electricity projects around the country, and at least $2 billion of that has been spent. Yet the amount of power flowing through Baghdad's aging electric grid has not changed much.

The pipelines that feed oil to generating plants have been systematically attacked by insurgents who aim to shut down the grid and black marketeers seeking to steal the fuel and sell it for profit.

The most recent official figures say that Baghdad is receiving at least eight hours of electricity a day, but Iraqis say that after a fleeting improvement earlier this month, they now receive less than that.

When Mr. Maliki visited the Baghdad South power plant earlier this month with his electricity minister, Karim Wahid, they acknowledged that three years after the invasion, billions more will have to be spent.

Mr. Wahid estimated that power output in the Baghdad area must more than double just to meet current demand, which was growing at between 7 percent and 10 percent a year.

The cost to satisfy those needs, he said, could run to as much as $2 billion a year for 10 years, requiring substantial foreign investment. "I will ask the government to correct the budget, and if it's possible to add something else," Mr. Wahid said.

NeoCon John Bolton Says United Nations Is "An Effective Tool Of The United States"

A remarkably frank, honest and provocative interview with US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. A harsh critic of the UN since, at least, the mid-1970s, Bolton has recently mocked outrage because the UN's second in command (under Kofi Annan) dared to criticise the United States.

Bolton explains how the US sees the world, and the UN, and the world and the UN may not like it much at all.

JOHN BOLTON IN QUOTES

From the London Times :

“The United States pursues its foreign policy interests through the UN. It can be an effective tool of American foreign policy.”

“To say we use it when it is useful, and we don’t when it is not useful, is accurate — and accurate of the other 190 members. Why are we the only one criticised?”

(On the UN being a democratic institution) “We never saw it that way.”

“I don’t think there is any risk there won’t be American engagement in the world...Talk of isolationism is inaccurate.”

“Whatever you say about Iran, and you can say a lot, little of it good, it all gets worse when they get nuclear weapons.”

“One of the frustrations for us is that the EU says, ‘We can’t discuss very much with you until we come to a common EU position’. That may be what the EU is all about, but to us it is very frustrating.”

Q: How will international disputes be resolved in years ahead? Is America now back in the UN stable or will it continue to gallop with coalitions of the willing?

Bolton seems to suggest the UN could be cut adrift into the Atlantic.

“I don’t see why ad hoc approaches to international problems are inherently wrong. Lots of problems are regional. More regional organisations sorting out problems would be good. I don’t see why...a little competition is bad.”

THE WAR IN THE SUDAN

IS THIS A WAR WITHIN A WAR?

The fighting in the Sudan has been virtually ignored in the West, and yet it claims thousands of lives a month. What is going on there? What are they fighting over? What's happened since the peace treaty that was signed in 2005?

Der Speigel has one of the most comprehensive reports online at this time :

"Developments in Sudan are beginning to take on a form that's characteristic of many earlier wars elsewhere on the continent.

"Fighting initially revolves around recognizable political goals, such as access to land or resources, but then the conflict becomes increasingly splintered. Rebel groups split up and local warlords begin fighting for their own account and in their own interest.

"The war turns into a purpose unto itself, with peaceful resolution becoming an ever more distant goal.

"Sudan's south presents a textbook example. Although the rebels of the southern Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) signed a peace treaty with the government in Khartoum in January 2005, the fighting continues among various militia groups.

"Meanwhile, corruption and mismanagement are on the rise in the region. Secession and the rise of a new African dictatorship seems to be in the cards for this region of southern Sudan.

"The South, whose representatives currently form part of the government in Khartoum, is just as unlikely to help resolve the Darfur crisis as are the countries of the African Union.

"Because of the African Union's ineffectiveness, US President George W. Bush has been demanding for weeks now that its mandate be transferred to the United Nations, so that UN peacekeepers can finally put an end to the massacres and ensure that international aid is able to reach the population.

"The man in charge at the White House has recognized that this is an impossible task, and that it would require "NATO administration" and "probably twice the number of peacekeepers."

"But even that wouldn't put a stop to the suffering."

The whole story is worth a read. Go here.

ZARQAWI BETRAYED FOR $25 MILLION BOUNTY

CLAIM : 'SCHEDULED FOR MATYRDOM' BY AL QAEDA

"Today Zarqawi was defeated," said the Iraqi PM, Nouri al-Maliki.

"This is a message to all those who use violence killing and devastation to disrupt life in Iraq to rethink within themselves before it is too late," he added.

PM Al-Maliki also confirmed the $25 million reward for information leading to al-Zarqawi's confirmable death or capture would be paid.

"We will meet our promise."

Early reports reveal a combination of intelligence and tip-offs from inside Iraq, and the terrorist's homeland of Jordan, revealed his location to the US and Iraqi forces.

Al-Zarawai was meeting in a house eight kilometres north of Baquba, outside of Baghdad, with at least seven other people. The US military hit the house with two 500 pound bombs, levelling what appears to be a small block of buildings. At least two women and a number of children were believed to be in the building at the time.

US General George Casey revealed : "Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates...

"Iraqi police were first on the scene after the air strike, and elements of Multinational Division North, arrived shortly thereafter. Coalition forces were able to identify al-Zarqawi by fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars."

Early reports also claimed that al-Zarqawi survived the initial bombing, but was seriously injured, dying shortly before the MDN forces arrived on the scene.

Incredibly, StrategyPage.com predicted al-Zarqawi's death less than 24 hours before the airstrikes, with a short piece entitled 'Al-Zarqawi Scheduled For Matyrdom'.

In the piece, the writer muses that al-Zarqawi is causing big problems with mainstream Muslims by being, ahhh, too radical for even Al Qaeda - killing an unacceptable number of civilians (including the apparently ultra-controversial attacks in Jordan) and spouting conspiracy theories that the US, Iran and Shia leadership "are in cahoots to destroy Islam."

Less than a day later, the big tips of where al-Zarqawi is meeting roll in and airstrikes are launched. Now that's some pretty impressive intelligence :

Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda's efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future.

If handled right it can be made to look like he went out in a blaze of glory fighting American troops or that he was foully murdered. Either way, al Qaeda gets rid of a problem and gains another "martyr."

Washington Post has a good story here that covers most of the early news.

There's also an interesting piece here on how al-Zarqawi 'hijacked' the Iraqi insurgency.

Statement From US Forces In Iraq :

“Ladies and Gentlemen, Coalition Forces killed al-Qaida terrorist leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and one of his key lieutenants, spiritual advisor Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, yesterday, June 7, at 6:15 p.m. in an air strike against an identified, isolated safe house."

The US right wing blogosphere is already in tears that not all the media is rejoicing in the death of Zarqawi. First they complained the mainstream media focused on al-Zarqawi too much, now not enough.

Most people who don't glory in the deaths of anyone, including the most hated enemies of the 'War On Terror' understand that while Zarqawi's death is a pscyhological triumph, and a morale booster for deployed troops, it won't actually stop terrorists attacks there.

The statement from US Forces confirms exactly this :

"Al-Zarqawi’s death is a significant blow to al-Qaida and another step toward defeating terrorism in Iraq.

“Although the designated leader of al-Qaida in Iraq is now dead, the terrorist organization still poses a threat as its members will continue to try to terrorize the Iraqi people and destabilize their government as it moves toward stability and prosperity."

The death of al-Zarqawi will swallow up most media headlines for the day, but it is unlikely to last far beyond that.

The story is his death, and how that death came about.

Once all those facts are known, mainstream media attention will quickly turn back to the investigations into the alleged massacres by US soldiers on Iraq civilians and the daily carnage on the streets of Baghdad.

For the record : Here is one of the first reports this morning, from ABC News America :

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was expected to make an important announcement at a news conference Thursday, amid a report that al-Qaida in Iraq chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have been killed, his adviser said. Al-Maliki adviser Adnan al-Kazimi told The Associated Press that he had heard a report that Jordanian terrorism master mind Abu Musabd al-Zarqawi may have been killed late Wednesday in Baghdad.


MORE BACKGROUND ON THE LIFE AND TERRORISM OF AL-ZARQAWI

From an April 26 story on this blog :

"What is coming is more painful," said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the terrorist group al-Qa'ida in Iraq, in a new half video released on the internet yesterday.

He praised mujahedin fighters for fighting hard in Iraq : "Your mujahedin sons were able to confront the most ferocious of crusader campaigns on a Muslim state. They have stood in the face of this onslaught for three years."

He claimed : "Any government which is formed in Iraq now - whether by Shias or Zionist Kurds, or those who are dubbed Sunnis - would only be a (US) stooge."

He directed questions to US President Bush : "Why don't you tell people that your soldiers are committing suicide, taking drugs and hallucination pills to make them sleep?

He issued hard warnings : "By God, your dreams will be defeated by our blood and by our bodies. What is coming is even worse."

And he pointed out that the West was offered a truce, which was rejected outright by the US : "Our emir, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, has offered you a truce, which was good for you if you had accepted. But you turned it down, because of your arrogance."

Investigative journalist Dahr Jamail went in search of al-Zarqawi last year, in his home country of Jordan.

This report confirms some of the legend of al-Zarqawi, but shattered much of the US propaganda, designed to both question the terrorist's motivations and to raise his profile to that of a 'worthy enemy', which many times seem way beyond the capacity of just one man, with a small number of followers and militants working on his behalf :

A remarkable proportion of the violence taking place in Iraq is regularly credited to the Jordanian Ahmad al-Khalayleh, better known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and his al-Qaeda-linked organization in Iraq.

Sometimes it seems no car bomb goes off, no ambush occurs that isn't claimed in his name or attributed to him by the Bush administration. Bush and his top officials have, in fact, made good use of him, lifting his reputed feats of terrorism to epic, even mythic, proportions (much aided by various mainstream media outlets).

Here's a story from 2004 by journalist Paul McGeough, easily the most comprehensive investigation into the life of al-Zarqawi to be found on the internet.

Zarqawi and the small army he calls Tawhid Wa'Al-Jihad have expanded their area of operations, taking control of vital thoroughfares in the capital and forcing swaths of country to be declared no-go zones for US forces. At the same time, Zarqawi wrestles with nationalist Iraqi fighters for control of the insurgency's post-Saddam agenda. American crackdowns have little success in curbing the crisis.

ROUND UP OF WORLD NEWS

THE MOTHER OF ALL BACKDOWNS

US TO ALLOW IRAN TO ENRICH URANIUM, MAY EVEN SUPPLY NEW TECHNOLOGY TO "WORLD'S LEADING SPONSOR OF TERRORISM"

From the Washington Post : The confidential diplomatic package backed by Washington and formally presented to Iran on Tuesday leaves open the possibility that Tehran will be able to enrich uranium on its own soil, U.S. and European officials said.

That concession, along with a promise of U.S. assistance for an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program, is conditioned on Tehran suspending its current nuclear work until the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency determines with confidence that the program is peaceful.

U.S. officials said Iran would also need to satisfy the U.N. Security Council that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, a benchmark that White House officials believe could take years, if not decades, to achieve.

But the Bush administration and its European allies have withdrawn their demand that Iran abandon any hope of enriching uranium for nuclear power, according to several European and U.S. officials with knowledge of the offer.

The new position, which has not been acknowledged publicly by the White House, differs significantly from the Bush administration's stated determination to prevent Iran from mastering technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

"We are basically now saying that over the long haul, if they restore confidence, that this Iranian regime can have enrichment at home," said one U.S. official...


CLAIM : US FIELD COMMANDERS TELL PENTAGON THE WAR ON IRAQ "IS LOST"

Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence killing 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month.

Even worse, they report the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha is "just the tip of the iceberg" with overstressed, out-of-control Americans soldiers pushed beyond the breaking point both physically and mentally.

"We are in trouble in Iraq," says retired army general Barry McCaffrey. "Our forces can't sustain this pace, and I'm afraid the American people are walking away from this war."

UKRAINE ACCUSES RUSSIA OF FERMENTING NEW "CRIMEA WAR"

Ukraine has accused Russia of stirring up anti-US and anti-Nato protests on the Crimean peninsula where Russia's Black Sea Fleet is based.

The allegation...follows a week of anti-Nato protests in Crimea that appear to have caught the government unawares.

Emotions are running high ahead of a multinational military exercise on the peninsula, called Sea Breeze, due to begin in July.

Coaches carrying US Marine reservists have been stoned, the Ukrainian Socialists have demanded the resignation of the Defence Minister, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, and Russian MPs have called for Crimea to be taken away from Ukraine and incorporated into Russia.

The dispute comes as Ukrainian politicians are struggling to form a coalition government more than two months after the election that confirmed the country's apparently irreparable split into pro-Russian and pro-Western camps.

CLAIM : TURKEY SHELLING KURD AREAS INSIDE IRAQ - MASSIVE TROOP BUILD UP

Iraqi security forces are trying to stop PKK fighters based in mountainous and mainly Kurdish northern Iraq from crossing over the border into Turkey.

Ankara has asked U.S. and Iraqi forces to crack down on PKK units based inside Iraq. Turkey has sent 40,000 troops to its own Kurdish areas to reinforce the 220,000 already there, the biggest build-up in years after an increase in PKK attacks.

The PKK, seeking a Kurdish homeland including southeastern Turkey, accuses Ankara and Tehran of mounting coordinated operations against the group and its Iranian wing, PJAK.

In early May, villagers in Iraq's Kurdistan accused neighbouring Iran of hitting targets inside Iraq, a charge Tehran denied.


NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EAST ASIA : PAKISTAN BLAMES INDIA FOR ITS EXTENSIVE ATOM BOMB PROGRAM

Pakistan on Sunday defended its nuclear weapons programme by putting the blame on India.

Referring to India as "somebody else," General Ehsan-ul-Haq, Chairman of Pakistan's Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC), said at a plenary session of the Asia Security Summit here that Islamabad "did not introduce nuclear weapons into South Asia."

When a participant asked him about A. Q. Khan's clandestine nuclear arms proliferation activities, Gen. Ehsan-ul-Haq described these as "a sordid tale."

Maintaining that "decisive" action was initiated against A. Q. Khan, despite his status in Pakistan as "a hero" of its nuclear arms programme, the JCSC Chairman sought to present "another story" about the country's strategic choice.

"We did not siphon off nuclear materials from internationally provided nuclear facilities. Somebody else did that. We didn't re-test nuclear weapons in South Asia in 1998. Somebody else did that. We didn't test nuclear weapons even for 24 years after 1974. And, even before 1974, [we] kept on drawing the attention [of the international community] to what was about to happen. We have [had] some legitimate security concern."

Describing the situation in 1974, he said: "Pakistan had been divided only three years earlier through the use of force and foreign intervention."

BRITAIN, 14 EUROPEAN NATIONS ACCUSED OF AIDING US/CIA 'RENDITION' TRANSPORTS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS

Britain was named today as one of 14 European countries which colluded with the CIA in the operation of secret flights delivering terrorist suspects for interrogation.

They include Britain, Germany, Spain, and Turkey, who co-operated in the running of so-called "rendition" flights - the covert transport of prisoners for questioning in countries where, it is claimed, many faced torture.

...European governments were almost certainly aware of the CIA's secret prisoner flights via European airspace or airports.

Now, at the end of a seven-month inquiry, the final report says it is now clear that "authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities".

The paper said the CIA had been running interrogation centres in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Thailand, and that more than 100 people had been sent to the so-called "black sites" since they were set up following the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on America.

...suspicions remain of secret CIA detention centres in Romania and Poland - allegations both countries have denied.

Washington has never denied moving terrorist suspects to other countries for questioning, but does deny allegations of torture, and of deliberately picking centres in eastern Europe and beyond, outside the US human rights jurisdiction.

ITALIAN FORCES PULLING OUT OF IRAQ : LAST SOLDIER TO LEAVE BY CHRISTMAS

The new Italian administration today confirmed all Italian troops would withdraw from Iraq by the end of the year.

Italy's foreign minister, Massimo D'Alema, said the government would start reducing the number of troops in Iraq this month and the Italian military presence in Iraq would end by December.

He said: "We believe the Italian military mission in Iraq is moving towards its end. During the coming months, military forces will return to their country."

It is the first time a minister from the newly elected centre-left government has given a timetable for the pullout of Italy's 2,700 troops.

In his first policy speech since being sworn in, (new Prime Minister Prodi) criticised Anglo-American policy, calling the invasion of Iraq a "grave mistake" and branding the allied military presence an "occupation".

The departure of Italian troops from Iraq would further weaken a coalition that has been hostage to anti-war sentiment in Europe as well as financial constraints.

Ukraine withdrew all of its troops from Iraq at the end of last year, and Poland, which was once one of the largest military contributors, has also cut its contingent. Several other smaller forces have also been withdrawn.

Italian forces have suffered 32 deaths in Iraq.

BAGHDAD DEATH TOLL ESTIMATED TO BE FAR MORE THAN 6000 PEOPLE SLAUGHTERED IN FIVE MONTHS

The bodies of 6,000 people, most of whom died violently, have been received by Baghdad's main mortuary so far this year, health ministry figures show.

The number has risen every month, to 1,400 in May.

The majority are believed to be victims of sectarian killings. But observers say the real death toll could be much higher.

NIGERIAN MILITANTS STAGE BLOODY RAID ON OIL FACILITIES, KIDNAP FIVE

An unidentified armed group in Nigeria kidnapped five South Korean workers at an island near Port Harcourt, an oil producing region in southern Nigeria...

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta claimed that they abducted the Koreans...

Since the mid-1990s, a number of militant groups in oil-producing areas have challenged the Nigerian government by abducting foreign workers, citing political alienation and economic exploitation.

The Korean workers was raided for around 1 hour from 11:30 p.m., local time, by militants who fired rockets from a boat to the gas gathering plant operated by Daewoo Engineering and Construction...

Thirteen Nigerian soldiers tried to deter the attack but failed to safeguard the Korean workers, apparently due to the inferiority of their forces...

Twenty-seven similar cases happened in the same area since January 2005.

A Reuters Timeline of Militants' Attacks On Nigerian Oil Facilities

SOMALIA : ISLAMIC MILITANTS TAKE MOGADISHU FROM US-BACKED WARLORDS

From The Financial Times : "Islamic militias claimed on Monday to have seized control of the Somali capital, Mogadishu, after months of fighting against an alliance of warlords alleged to have been backed by the US as proxies in the war on terror.

"Several hundred people are reported to have been killed in recent months in the worst violence in Mogadishu for a decade.

"The capture of Somalia’s war-ravaged capital, if enduring, would mark another US policy failure in the Horn of Africa nation, which has been without an effective government for 15 years and is cited by the Bush administration as a potential haven for terrorists.

"The US, which does not deny allegations that it has funded the alliance of warlords, alleges that a small number of suspected al-Qaeda members, including some suspected of having taken part in attacks in Kenya in 1998 and 2002, have used Somalia as a hideout and transit centre.

"Most Somalis follow a moderate form of Islam, and Islamic courts, which the militias are loyal to, have operated for years, providing services the state would normally provide.

"However, analysts say a number of courts have become dominated by extremists. The US suspects that some have sheltered foreign terror suspects. Allegations that the US backed the unpopular warlords increased local support for the Islamic militias."

From The New York Times : "Islamic militias declared victory today over Somalia's traditional warlords in the battle for control of Mogadishu, quelling months of fierce fighting in the lawless capital but raising new questions about whether this regime, which American officials have accused of sheltering terrorists, will steer the country down an extremist path.

"The (Somali warlords) had been defeated by militia fighters allied with the Islamic courts that have grown in influence throughout Somalia in recent years, filling a void left by the lack of a central government. The Islamists are a loose coalition of leaders who have put forward Islam, the universal religion in Somalia, as the way out of anarchy.

"Washington has been widely accused of secretly financing the warlords, who fashioned themselves into a counterterrorism alliance to root out Al Qaeda elements in Mogadishu.

"Although American officials have yet to confirm giving payments to the warlords, the widespread belief that money was changing hands only seemed to strengthen the hands of the Islamists among many Somalis.

"Backing the Islamists have been business leaders eager to end the arbitrary rule of the warlords, as well as freelance gunmen willing to work for anyone who pays them a salary and supplies them with a daily fix of khat, a leaf that many Somalis chew as a natural stimulant.

"More than 300 people have been killed and 1,700 wounded in the recent fighting, according to figures provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross."

'Somalia's Tangled Web Becomes Contorted' - An Indepth Intelligence Analysis

US RAILS ON CHINA'S WEAPONS BUILD UP - IN SPACE AND ON THE GROUND

From Space.com : "China’s escalating expertise in space is also enhancing its competence as a global military force. Along with lofting future radar, ocean surveillance, and high-resolution photoreconnaissance satellites, China’s rise as a space power also includes pursuit of an offensive anti-satellite system.

"Those observations are included in a new report—Military Power of the People’s Republic of China: A Report to Congress—issued by the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense.

"The annual Pentagon report issued late last month addresses the current and future military strategy of the People’s Republic of China. It takes a look at the current and probable future course of military-technological development on the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the tenets and probable development of Chinese grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy, and of the military organizations and operational concepts, through the next 20 years.

“'In the next decade, Beijing most likely will field radar, ocean surveillance, and high-resolution photoreconnaissance satellites. China will eventually deploy advanced imagery, reconnaissance, and Earth resource systems with military applications,'” the report states.

“China may be developing a system of data relay satellites to support global coverage, and has reportedly acquired mobile data reception equipment that could support more rapid data transmission to deployed military forces and units,” the report states.

From The Hindu : United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Saturday warned China for its perceived lack of transparency in defence spending...

....Mr. Rumsfeld said China could face "a consequence" by exercising its "free choice" of declining to take its neighbours and others into confidence about its military profile and defence modernisation.

He did not, however, spell out what the "consequence" might be.

The Pentagon chief said: "The Chinese people are educated, talented, and live in a nation with great potential....But there are aspects of China's actions that can complicate their relationships with other nations. The lack of transparency with respect to their military investments understandably causes concerns for some of their neighbours."

AL QAEDA'S LONG ROAD TO WORLD WAR

Michael Scheuer, a twenty two year veteran of the CIA, writes in the Asia Times :

In recent weeks, media reports from both Iraq and Afghanistan have suggested the appearance of a slow evolution of the Islamist insurgents' tactics in the direction of the battlefield deployment of larger mujahideen units that attack "harder" facilities.

These attacks are not replacing small-unit attacks, ambushes, kidnappings, assassinations and suicide bombings in either country, but rather seem to be initial and tentative forays toward another stage of fighting.

Al-Qaeda believes that it and its allies can only defeat the United States in a "long war", one that allows the Islamists to capitalize on their extraordinary patience, as well as on their enemies' lack thereof.

Before his death in a firefight with Saudi security forces, the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Hajar Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin, wrote extensively about how al-Qaeda believed the military fight against the US and its allies would unfold. He envisioned a point at which the mujahideen would have to develop semi-conventional forces. He identified this period as the "Decisive Stage".

Muqrin told his insurgent readers that the power of the US precluded any expectation of a quick victory. He wrote that the war would progress slowly through such phases as initial manpower mobilization, political work among the populace to establish trust and support, the accumulation of weaponry and other supplies, the establishment of bases around the country and especially in the mountains, the initiation of attacks on individuals and then a gradual intensification of the latter until a countrywide insurgency was under way.

Each of these steps was essential and none could be skipped, Muqrin maintained; the steps would prolong the war, thereby allowing the mujahideen to grow in numbers, experience and combat power.

As these steps were traversed by the mujahideen, Muqrin argued that the resources, political will, morale and manpower of the insurgents' enemies would be eroded and their forces would assume more static positions in order to limit the attrition they suffered.

In this stage of the insurgency, Muqrin predicted that the US and its allies would conduct far fewer large-scale combat operations in the countryside and would turn toward conducting smaller raids on specific targets, while simultaneously hardening their bases and protecting their supply routes and lines of communication.

At this point, Muqrin wrote, the mujahideen could begin the final stage of preparation for victory, "which is building a military force across the country that becomes the nucleus of a military army".

..Muqrin wrote, "I mean the need for these troops to be knowledgeable about regular warfare, the army formations [and] their function in urban areas. I do not mean following the suit of the regimes ..."

The purpose of these forces?

"Through these regular forces," Muqrin explained, "the mujahideen will begin to attack small cities and publicize the conquest and victories in the media to lift the morale of the mujahideen and the people in general and break the morale of the enemy."

Muqrin continued: "The reason the mujahideen should target the small cities is that when the enemies' soldiers see these [small] cities falling into the hands of the mujahideen it will destroy their morale and they will realize that they are no match for the mujahideen."

The larger insurgent units that have been sporadically operating in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past year may signal the initial, limited success of Muqrin's call for the building of semi-conventional mujahideen units.

OF US CIVLIAN MASSACRES AND COVER-UPS

IRAQ LAUNCHES OWN INQUIRIES AFTER US CLEARS TROOPS

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE GROUND IN HADITHA

From the UK Independent :

"The Iraqi government has reacted furiously to a ruling that cleared American forces of executing a family of civilians north of Baghdad earlier this year, and pledged to continue its own inquiries into allegations of US war crimes.

"An American military investigation this weekend cleared US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people - including five children and four women - in a house in the village of Ishaqi, before blowing up the building.

"But Iraq rejected the American exoneration of its own forces yesterday.

"Anger over the incident has raised tensions even further between the US government and the Iraqi administration it backs. Relations deteriorated throughout the week after a series of revelations and claims of criminal behaviour by US forces.

"Mr Maliki, who took office two weeks ago at the helm of a US-backed national unity government, is battling a growing perception that US troops can shoot and kill with impunity.

"Besides Haditha and Ishaqi, it was also claimed by the US media yesterday that eight servicemen were in custody in the US awaiting charges expected to include 'murder, kidnap and conspiracy'.

From The New York Times : Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.

As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.

In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people."

"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion," he said. "This is completely unacceptable."

Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added.

The denunciation was an unusual declaration for a government that remains desperately dependent on American forces to keep some form of order in the country amid a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency in the west, widespread sectarian violence in Baghdad, and deadly feuding among Shiite militias that increasingly control the south.

It was also a sign of the growing pressure on Mr. Maliki, whose governing coalition includes Sunni Arabs who were enraged by news of the killings in Haditha, a city deep in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province.

For the second day in a row, President Bush spoke directly about the furor surrounding the case.

"Obviously, the allegations are very troubling for me and equally troubling for our military, especially the Marine Corps."

The crisis over Haditha and other disputed killings in Sunni areas comes just as it appears that military operations may be needed to retake some Sunni areas at risk of falling to the insurgency.

The LA Times has compiled a detailed examination of how the events of the Haditha Massacre unfolded. It is the most comprehensive report we've seen so far. It will be interesting to compare it to the official US Military timeline and catalogue of events when it releases its own reports to the public, sometime in the next few weeks.

After the roadside bombing, the Marines arrived first at the door of Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali, 89, an amputee who used a wheelchair. They shot him, then turned their guns on his three sons and their families, survivors said.

Waleed Abdul Hameed, a 48-year-old worker in Al Anbar's religious affairs office, was among the first of the family members to be gunned down. His 9-year-old daughter, Eman, said she was still wearing her pajamas when the Marines arrived. Her 7-year-old brother, Abdul Rahman, said he hid his face with a blanket when his father was shot.

A few minutes later, the boy saw his mother fall to the ground, dying.

"I saw her while she was crying," he said. "She fell down on the floor bleeding." Speaking days ago in Haditha, months after the attacks, the boy broke into tears, covered his eyes with his hands, and began to mutter to himself.

At his side, his elder sister began to speak again. Eman described how the two had waited for help, the bodies of their family members sprawled on the floor.

"We were scared," she said. "I tried to hide under the bed." With shrapnel injuries to her legs, she lay still for two hours.

When the shooting began, Eman's aunt, Hibba Abdullah snatched her 5-month-old niece off the floor. The baby's mother had dropped her in shock after seeing her husband gunned down. Clutching the child, Abdullah ran out of the house. She and the baby, Aasiya, survived.

The baby's mother "completely collapsed when they killed her husband in front of her," Abdullah said. "I ran away carrying Aasiya outside the house, but when the Americans returned they killed Asma, the mother of the child."

Abdullah's 39-year-old husband also slipped out of the house and ran to warn his cousins nearby. But he crossed paths with the Americans on his way back; he died of gunshot wounds to the shoulder and head, Abdullah said.

Seven family members were killed: Ali and his wife; their three sons and a daughter-in-law; and their 5-year-old grandson. Only one of the household's adults survived.

The Marines stopped next at the home of customs official Younis Salim Nusaif, 45, his wife, Aida Yassin, and their six children. The 42-year-old Yassin was in bed that morning, recovering from a recent operation. Her sister had come to stay with the family and help with housework while she recuperated.

Everyone was at home when the troops arrived. And all but one 12-year-old girl were slain. Along with the parents and visiting sister, four girls and a boy, their ages ranging from 4 to 15, were shot by the Marines, said neighbors and the surviving child, Safa Younis Salim.

"I feel sorry. I was wishing to be alive," said Safa. "Now I wish I had died with them."

The troops moved along the street to another home. There, they killed four brothers, whose ages ranged from 20 to 38, a woman from the family said.

....the Marines herded the women outside, pointed guns at their heads and ordered them to stay still, said the woman, who did not want her name published.

The last (Iraqis) to die apparently came upon the scene by chance. Four university students, two of them brothers, and their taxi driver drove too close to the spot where the families had been killed. Witnesses said U.S. troops stopped their car, ordered them to get out and shot them.

When the killing was over, the Americans continued to guard the street, keeping relatives away, townspeople said. Eventually, the troops took the bodies to the hospital, a medical source in Haditha said.


Time Magazine has an investigation into Kilo Company, the unit responsible for the massacre at Haditha, and how the cover-up of the massacre by troops on the ground and their senior officers unfolded :

"The men in Kilo Company were veterans of ferocious house-to-house fighting in Fallujah. Their combat experience seemed to prepare them for the ordeal of serving in an insurgent stronghold like Haditha, the kind of place where the enemy attacks U.S. troops from the cover of mosques, schools and homes and uses civilians as shields, complicating Marine engagement rules to shoot only when threatened.

"Among the mysteries still unsolved is what caused such a catastrophic collapse in the Marines' discipline. U.S. troops are trained to make the deliberate distinction between friend and foe and are aware that the enemy has completely mixed into the civilian population. Marine Sergeant Eddie Wright, who lost both hands in a rocket-propelled-grenade attack in Fallujah two years ago, said it's natural 'to want to kill the guys who killed your buddy....(but) you don't lash out at innocent people.'


Frank Schaeffer has a son who served two three tours in Iraq and Afghanisation, and in summing up his thoughts on the reactiosn to the Haditha Massacre, he writes :

The flag-waving boosters of our current war and their critics all seem to forget that war really is hell. Proponents sweep the inconvenient dreadfulness under the carpet (no photographs of coffins, please) while opponents are shocked, just shocked, at the nastiness.

All sides seem to forget that there are no good wars, only morally ambiguous conflicts that lead to better or worse outcomes.

In this war, we do not have enough political leaders and opinion-makers receiving soul-searing letters from their children. Their sons and daughters are notably absent from our military. That's too bad.

A personal connection to our wars might discourage the sort of glib hubris that leads the media to trumpet events such as the Haditha killings without putting them in the context of the everyday heroism that is the norm, or in the context of history.

And a personal connection to our military by our political leaders would give them a stake in our troops' welfare and what we are asking them to do.

US GENERAL : "IT'S FUN TO SHOOT SOME PEOPLE"