Global Warming Hysteria is a National Security Issue

Global Warming Hysteria is a National Security

Issue

By Gerd Schroeder

Recently in the news several retired US generals, came out in favor of using defense resources for fighting the effects of global warming.  The news media only carried it for a day or so, but it raised some potent strategic issues that should be discussed.
In a news release dated April 15, 2007, the leader of the group, Retired Marine Corps General Zinni turned climatologist and claimed that the US must stop global warming.  The group argues that conflicts will be ignited because of the affects of droughts, famines, floods, and hurricanes brought on by human caused global warming, and America must become a constructive force in ending it.
A question for these generals 
Why should we rely on strategic guidance from these men who, over the last 20 years, misguided the military in a focus on total war with a conventional enemy?  Prior to 1989 this was an understandable orientation, but post-Persian Gulf War 1991 the threat evolved sharply toward asymmetric warfare as the preferred method of waging war against the US and the west.  While the true emerging threat was in asymmetric war or terrorism, these climatologist generals were focused on, and caused the military to devote manpower and resources mostly to massed armored and mechanized formations rolling through the Folda Gap in Germany, along with strategic bombing.
These same generals resisted addressing the rising threat of urban warfare, terrorist warfare, and other “hugging” methods of combat that mitigated the might of a technologically advanced and superiorly resourced and trained military’s overmatch capabilities.  
While General Zinni preached containment of Iraq in the late 1990s, Al Qaeda prepared and launched several attacks from General Zinni’s area of responsibility in the central region.  Now the very generals that were derelict in their duties to recognize the rise of Islamic Fascism want us to heed their dire predictions on unproven theories of human-caused global warming?  They had their chance in the 90s to recognize and prepare the military that they controlled for the true threat of asymmetric warfare, but they ignored it.  They should have no reasonable expectation of us listening to their advice on anything.   
To be sure, droughts, famines, floods, hurricanes and other climate related disasters could cause conflict that might draw in the United States, but these are is not the main risks we face.  These retired generals are making the same mistake in signing on to the global warming hysteria as they did with emergence of asymmetric warfare and terrorism in the 90s.  They identify the blatantly obvious first order effects, but predictably do not even try and conceder the second and third order effects of their proposed actions.   
The real National Security risk: hyped and unproven man made global warming.
If we, as a nation, divert our economy to fight the phantom threat of the man-made global warming myth, our belligerent competitors around the world will benefit.  Administering the prescriptions offered to combat  global warming is a kin to throwing trillions of dollars down the drain. 
Think of China.  China would be more than happy to see us divert any part of our economy from capitalism to fighting global warming in a fruitless effort. Wasting those resources gives China a way to speed its efforts to catch and surpass us as the preeminent world power.   
Our economy and security are dependant on growth.  Every dollar wasted on global warming takes away from the growth of our economy and allows China, and other belligerent conventional competitors, to close the gap.  China is delighted to promote the myth that American must stop growing to preserve our environment; not because they care for the environment, but because they see it as an opportunity to catch us on the world stage, while they are exempt from the same restrictions under the Kyoto Accords/
The same can be said for any peer competitor, but more importantly for any asymmetric competitor of ours.  How long will it be before we hear Al Qaeda (AQ), or other terrorist groups, chastise the US for environmental reasons, or accuse the US of taking more than our share of the world’s resources? 
Why would AQ pretend to care for the environment? 
AQ and groups like them, indeed all of our enemies, understand that we can’t be defeated through military means, but only through manipulation of information in their favor.  They seek to influence the American people to turn the people against the policies of the US government, and ultimately against the US government itself with civil strife. 
The worldwide fanaticism surrounding global warming right now is obvious to our enemies as a source of leverage against us.  AQ will use this irrational fear to affect the way the people of the world view the US a country and world leader, but more importantly to influence how our citizens view their own country.
If school teachers in America are able to turn kids against their parents for hurting the environment, then how much easier will it be for clever belligerent countries and terrorist groups to be able to use environmental issues like global warming to manipulate one of the most emotional and divisive issues that confront our country today?
So the next time one hears of one of our enemies chastising the US with regard to global warming, remember that it is not out of a concern for the environment, it is an effort to cripple the US and lessen our influence, and ultimately destroy us.
Likewise, the next time you hear one of these retired general preach to us about something military (let alone environmental issues), remember that these are the same men that totally dropped the ball on their watch in the 90s, during the rise of the use of terrorism as a weapon of asymmetric warfare. 
Gerd Schroeder is a Major in the United States Army and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  Major Schroeder has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. His views are his own.  He does not speak for the US Army or the Department of Defense

The Jihad Fracture Widens

The Jihad Fracture Widens

By Ray Robison

Despite the impression created by the dominant media, global jihad is showing signs of serious trouble. Bad news always tends to crowd out the good, of course, and this natural tendency is magnified when the press is as politicized and one-sided as it is today. Last March I postulated that the Global Islamic Jihad Movement had begun to fracture. (  The assertion was controversial with disagreement and agreement found oft times from the same sources. The most notable response was an interview conducted by Bryan Preston at Hot Air with CIA veteran Dr. Tefft.
It was a great interview and I welcome diverging opinions (that are supportable with evidence, not bumper sticker arguments) so I update here not as a rebuttal but to enhance the previous debate.

In March my hypothesis was supported by two essential elements. First, that reporting from Pakistan showed friction among al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Islamic Party of Gulbudden Hekmatyar. Second, that funding to these groups was drying up due to the loss of state sponsors. While these groups (representative of, but not the entirety of global jihad) continue to receive private donations and surely some rogue regime funding, the loss of Saddam, Libyan, Pakistani and the U.A.E. support could only increase their woes.
In the last few months independent war reporting from Iraq has discussed the “anbar awakening.” The term refers to the move by Sunni tribal chieftains in the al Anbar province to reassert power by fighting al Qaeda, allying with the Coalition and somewhat with Iraqi government forces. Even the mainstream media has begun to catch up and has reported the new development.
Recent reporting from Pakistan shows a similar but not so friendly development. There is little question that the new power broker of the Taliban, Maulvi Nazir is outwardly anti-U.S. and pro-al Qaeda. Yet at the same time he has adopted a “not in my backyard” stance as his Pashtun forces have killed and run off “Uzbeks” a colloquialism for al Qaeda used to refer to Arab and other foreign fighters (Pashtun and Uzbek ancient rivalries contribute to this designation). It is the age old story of infighting for power but this time it benefits the U.S. by reducing al Qaeda support and capabilities. The Sydney Morning Herald, in a fascinating series of interviews with different elements involved in the saga, quotes a Pakistani Governor about the treatment of “foreigners” – Arab jihadists:

“Virtually all of the tribes are ready to fight the militants. Yesterday the southern tribes held a jurga [council] and decided that any foreigner was to be shot dead and any tribesman supporting the foreigners would be banished from the area or killed too. They have declared jihad and their plan is to annihilate any of the foreigners who refuse to leave.” 

As a matter of fact, this sounds a lot like what is happening in Iraq. While this certainly does not make the Taliban leader a friend, it is much better to have the enemies killing each other off. It provides solid evidence that al Qaeda is losing a foothold in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. The earlier reporting from the region predicted bin Laden might leave the region and now we might have a better idea why.
Just as the Iraqi Sunnis have decided to wrest control from al Qaeda, it would appear the tribal chieftains of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border are doing the same. Not quite an awakening but it appears al Qaeda has overstayed its’ welcome again. Interestingly, a new study from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center identifies this same phenomenon in the horn of Africa among the regional tribes during the 90’s and notes it as an exploitable weakness.

Could this be a covert US strategy?
However, care should be taken in rejoicing at the thought of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters killing each other off. Nazir opposes al Qaeda because it currently seeks to aim jihad at the Pakistan government which brings heat on the tribal areas (admittedly a slow burn), whereas Nazir would much rather have the warfare directed at coalition forces in Afghanistan, which doesn’t particularly threaten Pakistani government survival and keeps the internal pressure off. Nazir has publicly claimed he would welcome bin Laden into his region if he capitulates to tribal governance. Yet it should be realized that Nazir knows Usama would never accept such terms and the offer is likely nothing but an effort to show that he is not a U.S. proxy.
According to the Asia Times, Nazir is a former pupil of Maulana Fazlur Rahman. I discussed the Maulana in the “Fractured Jihad” article as one of the most dangerous men on the planet because of his proximity to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and leadership of the government opposition plus leadership of international terrorism. (My book Both In One Trench highlights his connection to Saddam.)
Previously I noted reporting that Nazir was on the outs with al Qaeda, a very positive development. This claim finds more confirmation in India’s popular news website Rediff.com

“Old fundamentalist leaders of the 1980 Afghan war vintage such as…Maulana Fazlur Rahman… no longer command the kind of influence and obedience they commanded in the past.”

His loss of jihadist credentials may mean the end of significant support for al Qaeda.

There is also substantial reporting of a purge within the Taliban of anyone suspected of spying.  Whether the Taliban spy plague is real or a finely tuned disinformation campaign against the Taliban, the good news is that they are killing more of their own. It’s a win-win for us.
In addition, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Islamic Party of Afghanistan is having a rough time. Afgha.com declares that Hekmatyar’s party is in the death throes of starvation.  I am not familiar with the site but the facts in the article seem to be supported by other reporting (with one notable error, Hekmatyar was declared a terrorist long before 9/11 by the US State Department). The article reads like a laundry list of jihad follies from internal warring, to warring with other jihad groups, to a continuous degradation of his party leadership via assassinations. Considering that Hekmatyar has recently began a media blitz to show his relevance, it is quite likely he is very weak, but still dangerous.
As well as more signs of bitter infighting, the financial strain is starting to show publicly. The well regarded Counterterrorism Blog reported a few days ago about an al Qaeda leader on al Jazeera Television begging for cash donations.  Evan Kohlmann at the blog calls the man al Qaeda’s declared leader in Afghanistan, Shaykh Mustafa Abu al Yazid. Interestingly, al Yazid claims to be calling for financial support of the Taliban. Which begs the question, if one of the new Taliban commanders (possibly the dominant leader of the most powerful faction) is openly fighting al Qaeda (as several outlets have reported), then why is al Qaeda doing fund raisers for them?

There are a couple of possible answers. Most obvious, I think, is that it may be a case of false advertising. The money is not meant for the Taliban, and al Qaeda leadership realizes that AQ has become unpopular and dangerous to support. Which would be nice confirmation that its popular support is drying up due to excesses against Iraqi Muslims.  It could also mean that as usual there are divisions even within the Taliban, and that al Qaeda still works with some clans and fights others. Either way it’s good news for us.
Just as a coherent Iraq policy as heralded by Petraeus has made quick gains, a similar methodology in the Northwest Pakistan frontier border region might work. For all we know recent developments might not be just good fortune but evidence of a working covert policy.
Of course if the latter is the case we will probably not know for many years. Such is the case with much of the War on Terror, and another systematic reason why press coverage is biased toward the unfavorable.
Note:
I mentioned in the original “fractured” article that captured documents show Saddam had basically contracted a hit on US Forces in Somalia (using al Qaeda precursor groups) and was thus responsible for the Battle of Mogadishu. (Something I should have made clear then is that he was not solely responsible, but the documents indicate that he paid the bills.) This was easily the most contentious issue of the “fractured” article and for those who did not see my follow up, here is the link. The short version is that subsequent to that article the government released new al Qaeda documents which link up solidly to where the Saddam documents left off, providing a timeline and a human linkage from Saddam to the al Qaeda training in Somalia.  
Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism

EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites

EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites

This sounds great, but note carefully this message from Fjordman: “I’ve seen signals from the European Union that they will step up control with ‘illegal websites.’ But since they recently passed pan-European anti-racism laws that ban incitement of hatred against ‘religious groups,’ this could potentially make Islam-critical websites illegal, too. Keep that in mind while reading this.”

“EU to strengthen surveillance of terrorist websites,” by Helena Spongenberg for the EU Observer, with thanks to Fjordman:

The European Union wants to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamic websites, saying the internet plays a major role in the running and communication network of terrorist organisations. EU ambassadors gathering for their weekly meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (30 May) decided that a newly established online police portal “needs to be further strengthened” to combat terrorism, according to press reports. The European Union wants to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamic websites, saying the internet plays a major role in the running and communication network of terrorist organisations.EU ambassadors gathering for their weekly meeting in Brussels on Wednesday (30 May) decided that a newly established online police portal “needs to be further strengthened” to combat terrorism, according to press reports.

The high-security portal – named “Check the Web” – was launched earlier this month and allows the 27 EU states to pool data on Islamist propaganda and internet chatter at the European Police Office (Europol) in The Hague.

Cover-up and Deny, Part 2 — A must read

The peaceniks won’t give up – scary

The peaceniks won’t give up – scary

MKs’ proposal would hand control of Gaza Strip to Arab League
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz

[..] Livni has also expressed interest in stationing a multi-national force in the Gaza Strip.

The call to the Arab League to take responsibility for the Gaza Strip is part of “a package deal,” which would begin with negotiations between Arab and Israeli representatives on the Arab Peace Initiative. The next stage will include the exchange of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit for Palestinian prisoners, including Hamas ministers and parliamentarians. Then, a mutual cease-fire will be declared and the Quartet – the U.S., Russia, EU and UN – will propose a multi-national force deployment in front of the UN Security Council.

The multi-national force would be deployed for two to five years, with the agreement of both Israel and the Palestinians. The force would have security and economic roles.

In terms of security, the force would be deployed along the Philadelphi Route to prevent smuggling from Sinai, and along the border with Israel to prevent Qassam rocket attacks.

Its economic role would be in rebuilding the infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, assisting the population, rehabilitating Palestinian Authority institutions, and preventing the collapse of social services.

The initiative was prepared with the help of a team of experts, including senior legal specialists with experience in the defense establishment. Team members met with Livni several months ago to discuss the idea of a multi-national force.

During the most recent cabinet meeting, Livni presented some of the ideas discussed at the Foreign Ministry regarding the deployment of a multi-national force along the Philadelphi Route.

The two Meretz MKs presented their proposal to senior Palestinians, including Finance Minister Salam Fayad, and Gaza-based businessmen.

They also met with the ambassadors to Israel from Egypt, Jordan, European Union countries and the U.S. In coming weeks, they are scheduled to continue presenting their plan in Israel and abroad, including to Saudi Arabian figures.

“So far we have had relatively positive responses,” Vilan told Haaretz. “Everyone has stressed that it is very important to have PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ support. The risk is that tomorrow Abbas will say he is fed up and then we will be stuck with Hamas, and the anarchy will spread to the West Bank and we will be drawn back in there,” he added.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 11:27 am |

Can Islam be reformed or transformed?

Can Islam be reformed or transformed?

By Ted Belman

In my article America’s Limited Options I noted how scholars are divided on whether “moderate Islam is the solution”.

Perhaps the last word should go to Fjordman who in his column, Do we want an Islamic Reformation? wrote

    “The only way you could, even theoretically, create a peaceful, tolerant Islam would be to permanently ignore all teachings, contained in the Koran, the hadith and the sira, originating from the violent Medina period. I doubt whether this is practically possible, and even if it was, it would mean that Muslims quite literally have to get rid of half of the Koran, which again means that Mr. Wilder is correct.”

[Dutch MP Geert Wilders has said provocative things such as that the country faces being swamped by a “tidal wave of Islamization,” that if Muslims want to stay in the Netherlands, they should tear out half the Koran and that “If Muhammad lived here today, I would propose he be tarred and feathered as an extremist and driven out of the country.”]

Posted by Ted Belman @ 4:45 pm |

Netanyahu goes on the attack

Netanyahu goes on the attack

Olmert defends himself before the Knesset on Winograd findings.

Netanyahu Responds
Former Prime Minister and Opposition Chief Binyamin Netanyahu took the podium following PM Olmert, saying that although he agreed with the decision to go to war, the way which it was carried out eroded Israel’s deterrence.

“[The Opposition] offered the government its full support to achieve the [stated] goals, but [the government] failed to do so,” Netanyahu said, citing the failure to disarm Hizbullah and return the captives as two examples. “In my opinion, the greatest failure is that as a result of the war, Israel’s deterrent capability has been severely harmed.”

One Front Has Become Three
Netanyahu outlined the security situation today, tying it to the war’s results. “During the war we faced one front, now we face three fronts,” he said. “In Lebanon, Hizbullah has increased the weaponry it had before the war. In Gaza, there has been a change since the war transforming it into a second Lebanon – including tunnels and bunkers. The Philadelphi Corridor has become an expressway of weapons smuggling.” Netanyahu also said war with Syria is much more likely due to Israel’s loss of deterrence.

Withdrawal Policies Led Here
Netanyahu rejected the government’s attempt to blame many of the failures on the IDF. “The loss of deterrence is not the army’s problem, but first and foremost due to the weakness of the government’s policies,” he said, going on to blame all the prime minister’s who succeeded his term. “It started with [Ehud Barak’s] unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and the creation of an armed Iranian enclave, the Winograd report addresses this, and then continued with [Ariel Sharon’s] unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

“Before the Disengagement, intelligence estimated that over the course of a single year, one ton of explosives was smuggled into Gaza from Sinai. Two months after the Disengagement, that grew to six tons and the current estimate sets the amount of explosives brought into Gaza during 2006 at 30 tons.”

The Government is the Problem
Addressing Olmert’s statements that the current government should be tasked with fixing the mistakes, Netanyahu said: “You say you can fix it? How can you fix it when you are the malfunction? Now you will use judgment? Now you have acquired the vast knowledge that you lacked? Now you will demonstrate the necessary care? What have you done in the past year? What have you done to stop the massive flow of arms to Hizbullah and Gaza? What have you done to reinforce [homes] in the Galilee? What have you done to provide Sderot with shelters? This was a wasted year. You did not learn any lessons because you are the lesson that must be learned.”

Netanyahu raised his voice and said that the Winograd Committee’s entire report can be summarized in one statement: “The Government of Israel is shell shocked – and every day that passes with this government reduces Israel’s deterrent capability and endangers its security. This government must go to the people. This government must go!”

Posted by Ted Belman @ 7:04 pm |