U.S. cutting military aid to Bolivia 96 percent

By Joel Brinkley
The New York Times
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006

WASHINGTON Less than a month after an assertively anti-American president took office in Bolivia, the Bush administration is planning to cut military aid to the country by 96 percent.

The amount of money Bolivia normally receives is small; much of it is used to train Bolivian military officers in the United States. But the cut holds the potential to anger the powerful Bolivian military establishment, which has been responsible for a long history of coups.

Evo Morales, a Socialist leader, became president on Jan. 22 and has promised to end U.S.-financed programs to eradicate the Bolivian coca crop.

Coca is the main ingredient in cocaine. U.S. officials say if Bolivia ends the programs, farmers in Peru and other coca-producing states could demand the same. And that could lead to a flood of cocaine in the Americas and Europe.

The State Department said the military aid is being cut because of a law that says Washington must end military assistance to countries that have failed to ratify a pledge not to extradite Americans to the International Criminal Court.

The Bush administration does not recognize the court as legitimate.

Under pressure, just over 100 countries have signed an agreement. The administration has in some cases waived the rule and provided military aid to countries that have not signed, but officials would not provide numbers.

Bolivia and five other countries - Romania, Bahrain, Kyrgyzstan, Ethiopia and Jordan - have signed the agreement, but have not ratified it in their legislatures. The administration waived the requirement for the other five countries, leaving their military aid at roughly the same level as in previous years.

Administration officials said some of those other countries won exemptions because they were allies while others were not members of the International Criminal Court system.

One senior State Department official said the administration had no choice but to cut Bolivia's aid. But another State Department official said the administration could choose, later, to provide the money. The officials declined to be named, citing department rules.

In the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1 2005, Bolivia is to receive about $1.7 million. Next year, according to the budget proposal, Bolivia would get only $70,000. Just over half of the money this year would be used for civil defense supplies and other nonlethal equipment. About $792,000 would be used primarily to send Bolivian military officers to the School of the Americas, a combat training school for Latin American officers at Fort Benning, Georgia.

For many Latin American countries, including Bolivia, the training is an important part of their military tradition. In recent years, Bolivia has sent between 50 and 100 officers a year to the school, said Adam Isacson, program director for the Center for International Policy, which tracks military aid to Latin America. Cutting the financing "would antagonize the Bolivian military," he added.

The Bolivian military was responsible for numerous coups and partial coups in the 1960s and 1970s. The last one was in 1980.

A 'Long War' Designed to Perpetuate Itself

by William Pfaff
International Herald Tribune
February 10, 2006

Paris -- The U.S. Defense Department and the White House have decided that the United States is now conducting "the Long War" rather than what previously was known as the War against Terror, then as the Global Struggle against Violent Extremism, and briefly - as one revealing Pentagon study described it - a war against "the Universal Adversary."

President George W. Bush said in his State of the Union address last month that the aim of his administration is to defeat radical Islam. This was a preposterous statement. Shortly afterward, radical Islam began burning embassies from Afghanistan and Indonesia to Damascus and Beirut. The United States is not going to defeat that.

There are a great many dismaying aspects of Bush's Washington, but nothing more so than this combination of the unachievable with the hortatory in giving a name and purpose to the military campaigns that already have the U.S. Army and Marine Corps near exhaustion, and a major part of the world in turmoil.

It is customary, politically desirable and morally indispensable to say seriously what a war is about, if only so that the public will know when it is over; when the declared and undeclared measures of exception that have accompanied it, justifying suspension of civil liberties, illegal practices and defiance of international law and convention, will be lifted; and when the killing may be expected to stop.

What was originally to be a matter of quick and exemplary revenge, with lightning attacks and acclaimed victories, has now become, we are told, the long war whose end cannot be foreseen. The citizen is implicitly told to expect the current suspension of constitutional norms, disregard for justice, and defiance of limits on presidential power as traditionally construed, to continue indefinitely. We are in a new age, America's leaders say. The Democratic opposition seems to agree.

What started as the war against terror, proclaimed by the president to Congress in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks, has undergone a metamorphosis. The initial interpretation was that the people responsible for the World Trade Center attacks and other terrorist outrages against Americans and their interests would be discovered, defeated and killed or brought to justice.

Surely that is what most Americans thought when the search began for Osama bin Laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar and members of Al Qaeda. Today bin Laden and Mullah Omar are somewhere in Waziristan, in Pakistan's tribal areas, tracked by the CIA and Pakistani soldiers (with different degrees of enthusiasm). There is an insurrection in Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda when it started, but from which Al Qaeda and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi now draw global publicity.

Elsewhere, violent and alienated members of the Muslim diaspora in Europe claim the brand-identification of Al Qaeda to dramatize their own exploits, as do discontented sons of the Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern elites.

Yet even if you include the 9/11 casualties, the number of Americans killed by international terrorists since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting them) is about the same as that killed by lightning - or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.

"In almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States" wrote John Mueller of Ohio State University in last autumn's issue of the authoritative American journal Terrorism and Political Violence.

As Mueller concedes, there is a definitional issue: Few insurgents in Iraq are internationals; most are homegrown. And if aspirant terrorists in London or Paris had nuclear bombs, the numbers would become rather different.

Nonetheless, a phenomenon that is scattered, limited and under control, and inevitably transient, has been conflated by Washington with something that is huge and very serious: the desperation among the Muslim masses that is directed indiscriminately against Western nations, which are held responsible for Islamic society's backwardness, poverty and exploitation.

Al Qaeda and individual international terrorists are the object of worldwide intelligence and police operations. They are a marginal phenomenon. The Bush administration's conflation of them with the social upheaval in their world is exploited to perpetuate changes in American society that provide a much more sinister threat to democracy than anything ever dreamed by Osama bin Laden.

The radical threat to the United States is at home.

Of "Racist" Ideologies and Nuclear Weapons

The Tempest Over the Hamas Charter
By SAREE MAKDISI
CounterPunch
February 10, 2006

The Hamas charter has been the subject of fairly extensive media coverage in recent weeks. A number of newspaper pieces have argued that the charter is unapologetically racist; some have gone even further.

A piece by Daniel Goldhagen in last Sunday’s Los Angeles Times argues, for example, that the charter expresses Hamas’ intent to embark on a genocidal program against Israeli Jews. Of course, in literally comparing Hamas to the Nazis, Goldhagen makes it sound as though there’s some titanic military-industrial power standing behind Hamas’s sloganeering, and as though Palestine’s awesome military might—its legions of soldiers, armored and mechanized infantry divisions, flotillas of bombers, and perhaps even a fleet of some kind—stands ready to rain ruin and devastation down on an innocent and practically defenseless Israel.

It’s difficult to determine whether to read a piece like Goldhagen’s as ruthlessly cynical or naïvely childlike (does he really think that Hamas or the Palestinians in general are in a position to embark on a genocidal campaign against the Israelis, even if that’s what they really want, which is at best a doubtful proposition?). Perhaps it’s some strange combination of the two. In any event, it’s certainly an expression of gross ignorance and greatly exaggerated overstatement—and there’s plenty of both around in the US these days when it comes to Hamas, which is why, although Goldhagen’s piece may be particularly lurid in its depiction of Hamas, it’s not entirely unrepresentative of a larger set of trends.

Now, there can be no doubt that the Hamas charter is not only xenophobic, sectarian, and racist, but also ill-conceived, inaccurate, retrograde, and intellectually vacuous.

Nevertheless, the obsessive attention being paid to this document in the US in recent weeks forces one to ask not merely what purposes such an obsession serves, but also what equally (or even more) important issues it elides or covers up.

First, one has to marvel at the interest being paid to the racism of the Hamas charter, given the extraordinary lack of interest here in Israel's own racism, which is executed not merely on paper and in theory but actually, practically, materially.

Israel's Basic Laws, for example, discriminate between Jews and non-Jews in ways that many of those Americans who object most loudly to the mixture of religion and politics strangely don't seem to find objectionable.

And Israel's unique existence as a country that expressly claims to be not the state of its actual citizens but rather of a globally dispersed people manifestly privileges the (non-Israeli) Jews of New York and Chicago over Israel's actually existing non-Jewish citizens. Although they amount to some twenty percent of the state's population, the latter are literally written into second class status by virtue of their non-Jewishness in what loudly proclaims itself to be the Jewish state.

Members of this Palestinian minority are stigmatized for their non-Jewishness not because they willfully chose to live in a Jewish state that pre-existed them. Rather, they are the remnant of the bulk of Palestine's original non-Jewish population, which was terrorized from its land and homes before, during and after the creation of Israel in 1948. Their expulsion was expressly called for as early as the 1930s by Israel's founding fathers precisely in order for Israel to become a Jewish state in the first place. "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians," the Israeli historian Benny Morris points out, echoing the logic of David Ben Gurion; "therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads."

Israeli planning in the territories that it forcibly occupied in 1967 includes ethnically-defined forms of control that have generated, among other things, the current grotesque situation in Hebron, whose population of some 400 Jewish settlers—nestled in Hebron illegally—absolutely dominates a city of 130,000 indigenous Palestinians. Palestinian Hebron has been driven to the edge of destruction—shops sealed shut, whole neighborhoods evacuated, commerce crippled, families forcibly evicted—in order that a tiny group of fanatics can live out its private religious fantasy.

Moreover, Israeli policy seeks to maintain the population of Jerusalem in a ratio of 72 percent Jews to 28 percent "non-Jews" (i.e., Palestinians). Again, this startlingly racist objective exists not merely on a scrap of paper, but as the actual foundation for policies affecting literally hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis. It is the foundation for issuing (or denying) building permits and residency documents; for implanting illegal colonies and settlements; for harassing an entire community; for breaking up families; for denying human beings access to the city in which they were born, which happens every time a Palestinian Jerusalemite is barred from entering Jerusalem—in other words, every single day.

How come we hear so much about the toothless Hamas charter (no matter how vile it is), and so little about Israel's planning in Jerusalem? What do all those people who have so sanctimoniously seized the moral high ground in denouncing the nominal racism of Hamas have to say about the actual racism of Israel? Where are the voices clamoring for withholding US support for Israel because of its relentless violence against an entire people simply because it is not Jewish?

Surely the intelligent approach to the discussion of the Hamas charter is to say that racism is racism, and that both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict—not just, and not always, the Palestinians, should be pressured to move beyond racist archaisms that are unworthy of the twenty-first century, and to do so not merely in terms of their rhetoric, but in their actual policies, regulations, politics, and laws.

In the meantime, we would do well to recognize the difference between a racist ideology backed up by little more than thin air, and one backed up by the full force of a nuclear-armed state with the tanks, the planes, and the soldiers to impose its will on another people—as it has chosen to do for decades on end.

Saree Makdisi is a Professor of English and Comparative Literature at UCLA and author of the weblog Speaking Truth to Power. Email: makdisi@humnet.ucla.edu

US Colonel Sees Cut In Fighters Coming To Iraq From Syria

By Ferry Biedermann, Iraq-Syria Border
London Financial Times
February 9, 2006

Alleged infiltration of foreign militants into Iraq through Syria appears to have dramatically slowed down, according to US military officers on the Iraqi-Syrian border.

In spite of continued allegations from Washington officials that Damascus is continuing to support the infiltration of jihadis into Iraq, the American commander in the northern border region says that in more than 130 detentions of smugglers by his troops along the border in the past nine months, "we did not find one foreign fighter".

Colonel Greg Reilly of the 3rd squadron of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry, based at Sinjar some 50km inside Iraq, also discounted the tales of massive financial or logistical support coming across the border. "If there was a strong relationship, we'd have found money caches or they would have tried to divert us from the border. That has not happened." His troops control the northern 300km of the border.

Col. Reilly said he could not speak of the whole around 600km Iraqi-Syrian border. But in 2004 he served along the southern part of it, in the unruly al-Anbar province where the cities Ramadi and Fallujah are located. He's now liaising with the troops who are responsible for that part of the frontier and he said that it seems "to be going the right way" in the south as well.

His superior, Col. H.R. McMaster, said he last caught a limited number of foreign fighters during last September's major operation against insurgents in Tel Afar. But he said he suspected Iraqi militants might be receiving training inside Syria, possibly without the knowledge of the Syrian government.

This is a far cry from Iraqi and US allegations of significant support for the militants coming from Syria. President George W. Bush said on January 11 that there were "suiciders coming in from Syria into Iraq", referring to the US assertion that most of the suicide bombings in Iraq were carried out by foreigners.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, echoing Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, said also in January that Syria was "a transit point for foreign terrorists going into Iraq".

Foreign fighters did come across in large numbers in 2003. The border is also porous and smuggling, particularly of cigarettes, oil and sheep, is still going on, almost exclusively from Iraq to Syria, where prices are much higher.

Col. Reilly must be one of the few senior officers who are knowledgeable about the price of sheep in the two countries, Dollars 85 to Dollars 90 in Iraq against Dollars 250 in Syria. "I'm not saying we can seal the border hermetically when there is such an incentive."

But his troops and the Iraqis patrolling the border intercept a large slice of smuggled goods.

Rabiyah was once a centre for smuggling. The Americans dismantled several places where forgers produced false Iraqi passports, and at first every bus crossing the border from Syria used to contain two or three people carrying them.

Relations between the US and Syria have steadily deteriorated over the past two years amid concerns in Washington that Damascus was helping fuel the Iraqi insurgency. Senior Iraqi officials also say Syria provides a safe haven for insurgent leaders and have provided other Arab governments with files detailing alleged Syrian interference.

Syrian officials have said the border can never be completely controlled but that they have made efforts to step up surveillance. Analysts say co-operation has improved as Syria has sought to ease international pressure over its role in Lebanon, where it is also accused by the US and European governments of meddling in another country's internal affairs.

Bush Administration's Return To Cold-War Rhetoric Raises Eyebrows

By Rebecca Christie, Dow Jones Newswires
Wall Street Journal
February 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Almost seventeen years after the Berlin Wall fell, the White House has returned to Cold War rhetoric to justify its political and military goals.

President George W. Bush, whose father oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, described a generational struggle in his 2006 State of the Union speech. The U.S. is in "a long war against a determined enemy," Bush said, harkening back to Ronald Reagan's 1983 description of "the aggressive impulses of an evil empire."

Senior officials have played up the Cold War comparison. In budget testimony this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld invoked President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Cold War comments "that seem to have resonance today."

Analysts say the new rhetoric distorts current conditions. The al-Qaeda network isn't a Soviet-style major economy spanning 12 time zones, said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank.

"Since it's actually a handful of nuts with no real resources at their command, it's a little hard to see why such imagery is appropriate," Thompson said.

Even so, the imagery may be a political winner. The Brookings Institute's Michael O'Hanlon said national security is once again a political wedge issue, in a way that was less prevalent during the 1990s.

"I tend to think it's actually more common now for Republicans to be using very much the old rhetoric and for Democrats to be reverting more to post-Cold War approaches still, where things like civil liberties and union rights are given a higher importance," O'Hanlon said.

"I think [this trend] is ultimately to the Democrats' detriment in most of these debates," he said.

After six years of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld's Pentagon still lacks support for some of its most ambitious weapons systems. Congress has consistently cut requested funding for behemoth, communications-oriented programs like the $19 billion Transformational Satellite Communications System, or TSAT, led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), and the Army's $161 billion Future Combat Systems modernization initiative, led by Boeing Co. (BA) and Science Applications International Corp. (SAP.XX).

Defense officials have offered the long struggle against terrorism as the latest reason why their technology efforts deserve funding, despite technical setbacks and lengthy development schedules. The 2006 quadrennial defense review offers a "top level" overview of why the Pentagon's plans make sense, said Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary for policy, at a Defense Writer's Group breakfast this week.

"If you look at this long war we're engaged in, and we think of it relative to the Cold War, we're kind of still in the Truman administration," Henry said.

Escaped Yemeni Terrorists Sought By U.S. Navy

By Times Wire Reports
Los Angeles Times
February 10, 2006

The White House expressed "enormous concern" about the threat posed by 23 escaped terrorists, and U.S. Navy ships patrolled the coast of Yemen in a multinational effort to recapture the militants.

A Yemeni official said authorities had detained prison staff members suspected of passing information and tools to help the prisoners tunnel out of their cell.

Navy officials would not say how many or what types of ships were helping in the operation to find the fugitives, who are convicted Al Qaeda members.

Afghan Army: Fifty percent of the officers are illiterate

A 'Half Full' Afghan Army
Christian Science Monitor
February 10, 2006

With 35,000 troops, the army is midway to its final size. Training is new focus.

By Scott Baldauf, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN -- Sgt. Mohammad Reza walks silently on a ridge, watching his platoon conduct a reconnaissance patrol in a gully below. His men are all recent recruits. Some are former militia fighters who have seen many battles but little professional training. Others are as green as the helmets on their head.

"They don't know about organized war, they just know about guerrilla warfare," says Sergeant Reza, himself a former militiaman from Bamian Province.

Increasingly, coalition forces are turning over some of the training to Afghan sergeants like Reza. Fresh recruits learn the basics of how to take protective measures and launch counterattacks, skills that will help them hold their positions in a fight.

How well they absorb these lesson will be crucial for Afghanistan's ability to stand on its own two feet. Now half-way toward the goal of a 70,000-man force, the Afghan National Army is reaching a crucial testing period: The US military is preparing to draw down its forces in Afghanistan, NATO forces are moving in, and security conditions along the southern border with Pakistan are worsening.

"Those who are in the military know how difficult it is to make an army self-sufficient, and the Afghan National Army has just been formed, so it will take some work," says Gen. Zaher Azimi, a Ministry of Defense spokesman. "If we are fighting alongside foreign forces, we have the capability to fight against guerrillas, but we can't do it alone."

That means that the international presence in Afghanistan will remain crucial for the foreseeable future. The growing number of ANA brigades in the volatile south will soon by joined by NATO forces who are rotating in to take over the responsibility for Afghanistan's security after the US military draws down 3,000 of its troops this spring.

US, French, British, Rumanian, and even Mongolian trainers will continue to train ANA troops at the Kabul Military Training Center (KMTC), just outside Kabul, and a growing number of Afghan officers will enter military exchange programs at military bases in the US and other coalition countries.

Yet four years after the Taliban's ouster, there are growing expectations that the ANA will pick up more of the slack in defending the country and providing the sort of security that allows Afghans to trust in their own government and their future.

"The fortunate thing about Afghans is that they have a feeling that our army is able to defend the country at a high level of proficiency," says Gen. Rahmatullah Raufi, the corps commander in Kandahar. "But when we talk of defending our country on our own, I confess, we can't do it ourselves. We are a poor country."

Eighty percent of the soldiers in his corps are illiterate, General Raufi says. Fifty percent of the officers are illiterate. Only 20 percent of his soldiers have a professional knowledge of how to serve in an army; the rest are former militia fighters or young recruits. "No one will tell you this, but even if the president sahib asks me, I will tell him this myself.

While the ANA appears to be on course in reaching its goal of a 70,000-man army by 2009, the army also realizes that it needs to improve the quality of its soldiers rather than merely put warm bodies out into uniform.

"Previously, there was a need to produce large numbers of soldiers, but now we focus on quality instead of quantity," says Brig. Gen. Mohammad Amin Wardak, commander of the training center in Kabul.

At first, ANA soldiers were given a brisk two-month course and then sent out to face Taliban insurgents. But now, the training at KMTC is 15 weeks long, including six weeks of basic training, and the rest in Advanced Infantry Training, where soldiers will be given specialities, from rifleman to artillery to more elite commando duty.

Upon graduation, ANA soldiers earn $70 a month, double the median monthly income nationwide. Officers earn more, depending on their rank.

Sgt. Steve Bromfield, a Canadian military trainer from the 2nd Field Engineer Regiment, is just ending a six month stint guiding the live-fire exercises at KMTC. He says the recruits he trains are eager to learn. In two weeks, he helps break some bad habits from former militia fighters like spraying gunfire instead of making every shot count. "Like everyone, if you give them bullets, they want to shoot," he laughs. "It's the same in the Canadian Army."

Up on a plateau, the first platoon of Afghan soldiers are advancing, team by team toward a target, firing their Kalashnikovs at paper targets. Down below in a dry streambed, a second platoon runs into position, and climbs up a ridge to attack the paper enemy on its flank. Behind, a reserve platoon forms a defensive circle, and prepares to respond to any enemy counterattack.

"This is the most vulnerable time for a platoon," says Sgt. Maj. Rick Dumas, a Canadian trainer, enjoying the moment. "They're getting tired, they are consolidating their forces, preparing for a counterattack."

Behind Sergeant Dumas, some overeager Afghans from the reserve platoon rush through a group of foreign trainers and journalists with their guns at the ready, before being called back by their sergeant.

While the ANA generally enjoys a good local reputation, some Afghans criticize Army leadership for packing the ranks with members of some ethnic groups, and not others.

"I don't want to call this army the Afghan National Army," said Najibullah Kabuli, a parliamentarian during an impassioned outburst in the lower house last week. "I want to call it the Army of National Rivalries. They are asking for exact numbers of Tajiks, exact numbers of Pashtuns."

ANA officials counter that ethnicity is not a criteria for selecting foot soldiers, although there is an attempt to maintain an ethnic balance among officers to reflect the country's ethnic mix.

General Raufi says ethnicity is just one of those issues that will take time to sort out in Afghanistan. "A national army should serve the people, not one ethnic group, not one person, or one province," he says. "Your army is almost 250 years old. Maybe you had those problems in your country's history too."

Israel Plans to Build 'Museum of Tolerance' on Muslim Graves

by Donald Macintyre
The Independent (UK)
February 9, 2006

Skeletons are being removed from the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem to make way for a $150m (£86m) "museum of tolerance" being built for the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

Palestinians have launched a legal battle to stop the work at what was the city's main Muslim cemetery. The work is to prepare for the construction of a museum which seeks the promotion of "unity and respect among Jews and between people of all faiths".

Israeli archaeologists and developers have continued excavating the remains of people buried at the site - which was a cemetery for at least 1,000 years - despite a temporary ban on work granted by the Islamic Court, a division of Israel's justice system. Police have been taking legal advice on whether the order is legally binding. The Israeli High Court is to hear a separate case brought by the Al Aqsa Association of the Islamic Movement in Israel next week.

The project, which a spokesman said had been conceived in partnership with the Jerusalem municipality and the Israeli government, was launched at a ceremony in 2004 by a cast of dignitaries ranging from Ehud Olmert, who is currently the acting Prime Minister, to the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Israeli branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre declined to comment yesterday and has had no role in the project.

Durragham Saif, the lawyer who brought the Islamic Court petition on behalf of three Palestinian families, Al Dijani, Nusseibeh and Bader Elzain, all of whom have members buried at the cemetery, said: "It's unbelievable, it's immoral. You cannot build a museum of tolerance on the graves of other people. Imagine this kind of thing in the [United] States or England. And this is the Middle East where events are sensitive. If this goes ahead in this way it is going to cause the opposite thing to tolerance."

Mr Saif said he had written to the Israeli State Attorney, Menachem Mazuz, seeking police enforcement of the original order. He said on a visit to the site he had entered three out of five tents where excavations were being carried out. "I was shocked to see open graves and tens of whole skeletons there," he said.

Ikrema Sabri, the Mufti of Jerusalem, demanded a halt to the excavations and said the Muslim religious authorities had not been consulted on the dig. Saying that the cemetery was in use for 15 centuries and that friends of the Prophet Mohamed were buried there, the Mufti declared: "There should be a complete cessation of work on the cemetery because it is sacred for Muslims."

Under Israel's "absentee property" law the cemetery was taken over by the Custodian of Absentee Property after the 1948 war. Mr Saif said the Custodian had no right to sell the cemetery to the Jerusalem municipality in 1992. While parties to the work are resting part of their case on what they say was an 1894 ruling by the then Sharia court that the sanctity of a cemetery could be lifted, Mr Sabri said that ruling meant that only a Muslim could make such a decision.

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israel Antiquities Authority, which is carrying out the excavations, said it was common in Jerusalem to build on cemeteries. Adding that in such cases the bones were reburied, she said: "Israel is more crowded with ancient artefacts than any other country in the world. If we didn't build on former cemeteries, we would never build."

Dane Sees Greed and Politics in the Crisis

By JOHN VINOCUR and DAN BILEFSKY
The New York Times
February 10, 2006

COPENHAGEN, Feb. 9 — Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday that attempts by European companies in the Middle East to disassociate themselves from Denmark or Danish products were "disgraceful."

At the same time, Mr. Rasmussen tried to shield the Bush administration and some of Denmark's partners in NATO from accusations that they had been tardy and overcautious in coming to Denmark's defense in the crisis, which he attributed more to attempts by Iran and Syria to cause diversions in the Middle East than to a few satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper.

Looking tired after what he acknowledged had been a difficult week, Mr. Rasmussen said in an interview that attempts to gain commercial advantage at Denmark's expense had struck at the hearts of all Danes.

Mr. Rasmussen did not refer to a particular business organization or country. But his response came in reply to a question referring to attempts in the Arab world by companies associated with Nestlé, the Swiss food giant, and Carrefour, the French retailer, to distance themselves from Denmark. Danish industry estimates it has lost more than $55 million in sales in the Middle East since the furor began a week ago.

But the prime minister declined to criticize the Bush administration about its cautious defense of an ally. President Bush referred to his solidarity with Denmark for the first time on Wednesday, after five days of rioting in the Middle East against Danish interests.

"I have never doubted that Bush would stand up for Denmark," Mr. Rasmussen said. "He values faithfulness and loyalty. I was not surprised he decided to call me and express support."

Mr. Rasmussen reiterated that there would be no Danish apology for the cartoons. He brushed aside any suggestion that Denmark's policies requiring immigrants to accommodate themselves to Danish tradition were at fault, and asserted, "We are on the right track." More broadly, he said, "I see a very clear tendency that other European countries will go in our direction."

In light of statements here that Denmark had been abandoned in the early phase of the crisis, Mr. Rasmussen was asked if Parliament would maintain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan if it were asked to vote on the issue now. "The situation would be the same; we haven't changed," he said.

Mr. Rasmussen argued that the cartoon crisis had been hijacked by Middle Eastern interests using the caricatures for domestic ends.

He said Iran, isolated over its nuclear program, was using the cartoons to generate support in the Muslim world, while Syria, under investigation for the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, was trying to cause a distraction. The Palestinian Authority, divided over the recent election of Hamas, was exploiting the cartoon crisis to unite its disparate elements, he said.

"We have religious extremists who exploit the situation and fuel the flames to pursue their own agenda," he said. "Religious extremists aim at destabilizing the situation in the whole region."

The issue will be discussed this week at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Sicily, he said.

Mr. Rasmussen said he believed that Islam was compatible with democracy but argued that it was incumbent on Muslim immigrants in Denmark and Europe in general to embrace the liberal values of their adopted countries.

"Denmark is a liberal country," he said. "We do believe in individual liberty and freedom. People can live according to their own customs. However, I think we have to insist on respecting our core values, including freedom of expression, gender equality for women and men, and a clear distinction between politics and religion."

Mr. Rasmussen said the perception of Denmark in the Muslim world had been distorted by falsehoods spread by cellphone and Internet messages across the Middle East.

In particular, he said the government was re-evaluating relations with local Muslim leaders who traveled to the Middle East in December, stoking tensions by showing the cartoons to religious leaders.

Asked if he would have done anything differently in retrospect, Mr. Rasmussen said he had no regrets. "I don't think we could have done something in another way," he said. "We are witnessing events with deep sadness and disbelief. We are not used to it in Denmark."

Total Information Awareness 2.0

US plans massive data sweep
Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even e-mails. Will it go too far?
By Mark Clayton
The Christian Science Monitor
February 09, 2006

The US government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity.

The system - parts of which are operational, parts of which are still under development - is already credited with helping to foil some plots. It is the federal government's latest attempt to use broad data-collection and powerful analysis in the fight against terrorism. But by delving deeply into the digital minutiae of American life, the program is also raising concerns that the government is intruding too deeply into citizens' privacy.

"We don't realize that, as we live our lives and make little choices, like buying groceries, buying on Amazon, Googling, we're leaving traces everywhere," says Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We have an attitude that no one will connect all those dots. But these programs are about connecting those dots - analyzing and aggregating them - in a way that we haven't thought about. It's one of the underlying fundamental issues we have yet to come to grips with."

The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research and development program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), part of its three-year-old "Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment" portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in federal funding this year.

DHS officials are circumspect when talking about ADVISE. "I've heard of it," says Peter Sand, director of privacy technology. "I don't know the actual status right now. But if it's a system that's been discussed, then it's something we're involved in at some level."

Data-mining is a key technology

A major part of ADVISE involves data-mining - or "dataveillance," as some call it. It means sifting through data to look for patterns. If a supermarket finds that customers who buy cider also tend to buy fresh-baked bread, it might group the two together. To prevent fraud, credit-card issuers use data-mining to look for patterns of suspicious activity.

What sets ADVISE apart is its scope. It would collect a vast array of corporate and public online information - from financial records to CNN news stories - and cross-reference it against US intelligence and law-enforcement records. The system would then store it as "entities" - linked data about people, places, things, organizations, and events, according to a report summarizing a 2004 DHS conference in Alexandria, Va. The storage requirements alone are huge - enough to retain information about 1 quadrillion entities, the report estimated. If each entity were a penny, they would collectively form a cube a half-mile high - roughly double the height of the Empire State Building.

But ADVISE and related DHS technologies aim to do much more, according to Joseph Kielman, manager of the TVTA portfolio. The key is not merely to identify terrorists, or sift for key words, but to identify critical patterns in data that illumine their motives and intentions, he wrote in a presentation at a November conference in Richland, Wash.

For example: Is a burst of Internet traffic between a few people the plotting of terrorists, or just bloggers arguing? ADVISE algorithms would try to determine that before flagging the data pattern for a human analyst's review.

At least a few pieces of ADVISE are already operational. Consider Starlight, which along with other "visualization" software tools can give human analysts a graphical view of data. Viewing data in this way could reveal patterns not obvious in text or number form. Understanding the relationships among people, organizations, places, and things - using social-behavior analysis and other techniques - is essential to going beyond mere data-mining to comprehensive "knowledge discovery in databases," Dr. Kielman wrote in his November report. He declined to be interviewed for this article.

One data program has foiled terrorists

Starlight has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool."

As envisioned, ADVISE and its analytical tools would be used by other agencies to look for terrorists. "All federal, state, local and private-sector security entities will be able to share and collaborate in real time with distributed data warehouses that will provide full support for analysis and action" for the ADVISE system, says the 2004 workshop report.

A program in the shadows

Yet the scope of ADVISE - its stage of development, cost, and most other details - is so obscure that critics say it poses a major privacy challenge.

"We just don't know enough about this technology, how it works, or what it is used for," says Marcia Hofmann of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "It matters to a lot of people that these programs and software exist. We don't really know to what extent the government is mining personal data."

Even congressmen with direct oversight of DHS, who favor data mining, say they don't know enough about the program.

"I am not fully briefed on ADVISE," wrote Rep. Curt Weldon (R) of Pennsylvania, vice chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in an e-mail. "I'll get briefed this week."

Privacy concerns have torpedoed federal data-mining efforts in the past. In 2002, news reports revealed that the Defense Department was working on Total Information Awareness, a project aimed at collecting and sifting vast amounts of personal and government data for clues to terrorism. An uproar caused Congress to cancel the TIA program a year later.

Echoes of a past controversial plan

ADVISE "looks very much like TIA," Mr. Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes in an e-mail. "There's the same emphasis on broad collection and pattern analysis."

But Mr. Sand, the DHS official, emphasizes that privacy protection would be built-in. "Before a system leaves the department there's been a privacy review.... That's our focus."

Some computer scientists support the concepts behind ADVISE.

"This sort of technology does protect against a real threat," says Jeffrey Ullman, professor emeritus of computer science at Stanford University. "If a computer suspects me of being a terrorist, but just says maybe an analyst should look at it ... well, that's no big deal. This is the type of thing we need to be willing to do, to give up a certain amount of privacy."

Others are less sure.

"It isn't a bad idea, but you have to do it in a way that demonstrates its utility - and with provable privacy protection," says Latanya Sweeney, founder of the Data Privacy Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. But since speaking on privacy at the 2004 DHS workshop, she now doubts the department is building privacy into ADVISE. "At this point, ADVISE has no funding for privacy technology."

She cites a recent request for proposal by the Office of Naval Research on behalf of DHS. Although it doesn't mention ADVISE by name, the proposal outlines data-technology research that meshes closely with technology cited in ADVISE documents.

Neither the proposal - nor any other she has seen - provides any funding for provable privacy technology, she adds.

Some in Congress push for more oversight of federal data-mining

Amid the furor over electronic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, Congress may be poised to expand its scrutiny of government efforts to "mine" public data for hints of terrorist activity.

"One element of the NSA's domestic spying program that has gotten too little attention is the government's reportedly widespread use of data-mining technology to analyze the communications of ordinary Americans," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin in a Jan. 23 statement.

Senator Feingold is among a handful of congressmen who have in the past sponsored legislation - unsuccessfully - to require federal agencies to report on data-mining programs and how they maintain privacy.

Without oversight and accountability, critics say, even well-intentioned counterterrorism programs could experience mission creep, having their purview expanded to include non- terrorists - or even political opponents or groups. "The development of this type of data-mining technology has serious implications for the future of personal privacy," says Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists.

Even congressional supporters of the effort want more information about data-mining efforts.

"There has to be more and better congressional oversight," says Rep. Curt Weldon (R) of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the House committee overseeing the Department of Homeland Security. "But there can't be oversight till Congress understands what data-mining is. There needs to be a broad look at this because they [intelligence agencies] are obviously seeing the value of this."

Data-mining - the systematic, often automated gleaning of insights from databases - is seen "increasingly as a useful tool" to help detect terrorist threats, the General Accountability Office reported in 2004. Of the nearly 200 federal data-mining efforts the GAO counted, at least 14 were acknowledged to focus on counterterrorism.

While privacy laws do place some restriction on government use of private data - such as medical records - they don't prevent intelligence agencies from buying information from commercial data collectors. Congress has done little so far to regulate the practice or even require basic notification from agencies, privacy experts say.

Indeed, even data that look anonymous aren't necessarily so. For example: With name and Social Security number stripped from their files, 87 percent of Americans can be identified simply by knowing their date of birth, gender, and five-digit Zip code, according to research by Latanya Sweeney, a data-privacy researcher at Carnegie Mellon University.

In a separate 2004 report to Congress, the GAO cited eight issues that need to be addressed to provide adequate privacy barriers amid federal data-mining. Top among them was establishing oversight boards for such programs.

Some antiterror efforts die - others just change names

Defense Department

November 2002 - The New York Times identifies a counterterrorism program called Total Information Awareness.

September 2003 - After terminating TIA on privacy grounds, Congress shuts down its successor, Terrorism Information Awareness, for the same reasons.

Department of Homeland Security

February 2003 - The department's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announces it's replacing its 1990s-era Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS I).

July 2004 - TSA cancels CAPPS II because of privacy concerns.

August 2004 - TSA says it will begin testing a similar system - Secure Flight - with built-in privacy features.

July 2005 - Government auditors charge that Secure Flight is violating privacy laws by holding information on 43,000 people not suspected of terrorism.

Iraq PR: Same as it Ever Was

O'Dwyer's PR Daily
February 9, 2006

The PR firm Burson-Marsteller's lobbying unit, BKSH & Associates, "has added the Republic of Iraq to its client roster," reports O'Dwyer's. "The Washington, DC-based firm had worked for the [U.S.-funded] Iraqi National Congress opposition group during the reign of Saddam Hussein."

Burson-Marsteller has already "helped the deputy military attache do outreach to key media outlets," including the Wall Street Journal and CNN, and has contacted the U.S. State Department and National Security Council on behalf of the Iraqi Embassy.

The firm's Iraq contract also includes setting up editorial board meetings, placing op/ed pieces, and strengthening "ties with organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Council on Foreign Relations and Business Council for International Understanding."

Tales of Asia Rising

By Jim Hoagland
The Washington Post
Thursday, February 9, 2006; A23

The global balance of power is shifting decisively to Asia, which will dominate the 21st century as Europe and the United States dominated in their respective heydays. So say we all, or nearly all, in international seminars, gatherings of statesmen and big-picture essays.

Asia Rising has become the theme of the moment, even something of a sacred cow. The description is amended at times to make China, or India, the superpower of the future instead of the Asian continent as a whole. And there is plenty of evidence on the surface -- statistical and anecdotal -- to feed the cow.

Impressive growth rates registered by India and China, and the latter's emergence as the manufacturing hub of the world, seem to prove that a historic transfer of power and leadership is taking place. To see that Europe and the United States are simultaneously being displaced by the powers of the East, you have only to look at the $23 billion takeover bid launched last month by Lakshmi Mittal of India for Arcelor, Europe's most important steel company.

Or so I thought when the controversy -- kicked up by European protectionists who oppose Mittal's hostile bid -- first caught my eye. I gingerly began to consider writing this column to tell how, in this event, two major strands of the Asia Rising story were coming together.

One strand would be the continuing economic weakness of Europe, hit by sharply declining birthrates and market rigidities in many of its most important countries at a time of Asia's economic revival. The other strand concerns the emblematic displacement of U.S. corporate power abroad -- in this case by Mittal's company, which has become the world's largest steelmaker.

Last year Pepsi-Cola was similarly pilloried for threatening European jobs and assets by supposedly trying to buy out the Danone group. (No deal happened.) This year an Indian-owned multinational firm has triggered the same fears and grandstanding by protectionists, who demand that Mittal not be allowed to take over Arcelor, which is headquartered in Luxembourg.

So, are greedy, job-destroying Indians really muscling aside greedy, job-destroying Americans in the power sweepstakes? It turns out not to be that simple. The Mittal company is actually headquartered in the Netherlands and already is a major player in Europe -- a market it sees as continuing to be profitable.

Mittal buys up inefficient companies in Europe and elsewhere and modernizes them, at times in partnership with Germany's ThyssenKrupp. The end result of a Mittal purchase of Arcelor is likely to be diffusion of power in a hybrid concern with roots deep in Europe and Asia, rather than greater concentration in solely Asian hands.

The same may turn out to be true of military power in the 21st century as well. It would be possible to hang another Asia Rising tale on the news that the United States will push NATO's European members at the Riga summit in November to invite Australia, Japan and South Korea to become "global partners" of the alliance. That same status could eventually be extended to India and other Asian nations.

You could spin out a Rumsfeldian "Old Europe" vision, with the United States gradually replacing demographically and politically weakening European mates with fresher and strengthening partners from the world's new power center. But once again there is more symbol than substance.

For one thing, Japan, the overlooked Asian great power, will exert its considerable talents and resources to diffuse power within the region and, toward that end, to slow the erosion of U.S. influence there.

It is not in Japan's interests to have power concentrated in the hands of its regional neighbors, either collectively or individually.

Under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Japan has played a clever, below-the-radar balancing game with China and India while committing forces and substantial aid to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of U.S. goals.

Tokyo's history of close security cooperation with Washington may suggest to the Japanese that only American power can stabilize the Middle East and Central Asia, which are major exporters of energy and importers of security. India, Asia's other great democracy, is coming to a similar conclusion.

This is a tale with two morals: One should always distrust neat symbols that fit handily into preconceived and popularized strategic theories.

The other is that the continental transfer of superpower is no more certain than was the popular "end of history" notion of the past decade. There is no straight line to a new unipolar hegemony in a world in which the fragmentation of state power is common to all regions. It is always more complicated tomorrow than we believe today.

Synod in disinvestment snub to Israel

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
Times (UK)
February 07, 2006

The Church of England is expected to face condemnation from Jewish leaders after it voted to disinvest from companies whose products are used by the Israeli government in the occupied territories.

In a surprise move, the General Synod voted to back a call from the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East for "morally responsible investment in the Palestinian occupied territories".

In particular, the Synod backed the Jerusalem church's call for the Church Commissioners to disinvest from "companies profiting from the illegal occupation", such as Caterpillar Inc. Caterpillar, a US company, manufactures bulldozers used in clearance projects in the occupied territories, and also used by Palestinians in their own rebuilding work.

The motion was passed overwhelmingly, in spite of strong lobbying from leading members of Britain's Jewish community, concerned that Israel's right to protect itself from suicide bombers and other Palestinian terror attacks should not be compromised. No time was made to debate an amending motion put forward by Anglicans for Israel, the new and influential pro-Israel lobby group.

The motion came from Keith Malcouronne, a lay member from the Guildford diocese. He moved that the synod "heed the call from our sister church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, for morally responsible investment in the Palestinian occupied territories and, in particular, to disinvest from companies profiting from the illegal occupation, such as Caterpillar Inc, until they change their policies".

Mr Malcouronne also urged synod members to visit Israel "to see recent house demolitions". He urged the Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group, the body which resisted recent pressure from pro-Palestinian campaigning bodies to divest from Caterpillar, to "give weight to the illegality under international law of the activities in which Caterpillar Inc's equipment is involved".

The Church Commissioners have £2.2 million holdings in Caterpillar. Although the vote does not mean they will necessarily be sold, because the Commissioners do not have to comply, it has huge symbolism.

The Jewish community's distress will be augmented by the fact that the vote to disinvest was backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. By contrast, Dr Williams has so far not commented on the recent Palestinian election victory of Hamas, an organisation committed to destroying the state of Israel.

Among those expected to be angered are the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which at the last synod held a special presentation, the first of its kind, in an attempt to explain the plight of Israel and its need to protect itself from incessant terror attacks from its Palestinian community.

The Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks is also expected to be concerned, as is the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, who believes the Church should support Israel. Judaism is the mother religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ himself was Jewish.

In the debate Mr Maclouronne said that the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Right Rev Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal, had written to him urging the disinvestment cause.

The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Right Rev John Gladwin, said that Christians in Palestine were in despair. Although recent reports have indicated high level of Muslim persecution of Christians in Israel, Bishop Gladwin blamed the Israeli government for their plight.

Bishop Gladwin said: "Caterpilar may be a company being used for dreadful purposes across the world, but the problem is not Caterpillar, The problem is the situation in the Middle East and the government of Israel," he said.

The Rev Simon Butler, from Southwark, south London, warned Caterpillar that "in our understanding of sin, acts have consequences".

But the Bishop of St Albans, the Rt Rev Christopher Herbert, who is chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews, suggested that the debate was unbalanced. He said there was a "belief and hope" in the Jewish community that Christians would understand their perspective in such debates, but the Synod had not reflected the complexity of the situation.

Last summer the Anglican Consultative Council, representing the worldwide Church, backed a report urging divestment from companies that "support the occupation".

Lord Carey said at the time that approval of the report would be "disastrous" for peace efforts in the region. He said the Israelis already felt traumatised by attacks on them and this would be "another knife in the back".

The Chief Rabbi's office and the Board of Deputies also made strong private representations to Dr Williams. A spokesman for the Chief Rabbi said last summer that a policy of disinvestment "would not only be misguided, particularly at the present time, but it would have worrying effects on the long-established ties between Jewish and Anglican communities worldwide".

The Uses of Cartoons

The Washington Post
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A18

EXTREMISTS AND political opportunists across the Muslim world are rushing to exploit the controversy over the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Late to the game but conspicuous in its crudeness is the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which yesterday oversaw a second day of demonstrations outside European embassies while a newspaper it controls announced a contest for Holocaust cartoons. The Taliban is probably behind violent demonstrations in Afghanistan, including one directed at the largest U.S. military base in the country. And the Bush administration has rightly fingered the secular but cynical government of Syria for orchestrating the burning of embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

A clash of civilizations between Muslims and the West is the fondest ambition of al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, from Britain to Indonesia. But it also is a convenient refuge for authoritarian regimes hoping to resist the rising pressure for political liberalization in the Middle East. That explains why Muslim outrage over the original publication of the cartoons in Denmark was patiently cultivated not by Osama bin Laden but by the Egyptian and Saudi governments. According to an account in the Wall Street Journal, Egypt's ambassador in Denmark worked with local Islamic clerics as they prepared an inflammatory propaganda campaign about the cartoons for dissemination through the Middle East last fall. In December a delegation of the Danish militants was received by senior clerics and government officials in Cairo, where the manufactured outrage contrasts with the quotidian persecution of a Christian minority and publication of anti-Semitic libels in the government-controlled press.

Europeans, too, have participated in the stoking of passions, if for different reasons. The cartoons, whose vulgarity and offensiveness are beyond question, were published as a calculated insult last September by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem. The Danish government depends for support in Parliament on a far-right populist party with an anti-immigrant agenda: Maybe that's why Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen arrogantly refused to meet with ambassadors from Muslim countries last fall, when the controversy might have been defused.

Last week, as protests escalated in the Middle East, European newspapers in Spain, France and Germany rushed to republish the cartoons, claiming they were defending freedom of speech. But there is no threat to freedom of speech in Europe -- no newspaper was prevented from publishing the cartoons, and demands by Muslims that European governments impose such censorship were quickly dismissed. In reprinting the drawings the European papers demonstrated not their love of freedom but their insensitivity -- or hostility -- to the growing diversity of their own societies. It is just such attitudes, more than any insult to Islam, that have inspired much of the Muslim resentment toward the West, and the growing anger of Muslims who live in Europe.

The few heroes in this sordid episode reside not in continental newsrooms but in the Middle East. In Jordan, where freedom of speech really is at issue, two editors bravely republished the offensive cartoons; they now face prosecution. In Iraq, the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani condemned the Muslim inciters. It's not an accident that these Arab voices of reason are also leading proponents of democracy: They, more than anyone, are the ones deserving of the West's support.

Israeli Leader Outlines His Goals for Nation's Borders

By Ken Ellingwood
Los Angeles Times
February 8, 2006

JERUSALEM — Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister, laid out his vision Tuesday for the country's future borders, suggesting Israel should exit more areas of the West Bank but keep some major settlement blocks and territory near the boundary with Jordan.

The comments, made to Israel's Channel 2 in Olmert's first media interview since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke Jan. 4, represented his most explicit remarks as interim leader on the nation's eventual borders.

Though the comments of the former Jerusalem mayor differed little from the approach set by Sharon, they take on added significance because Olmert now heads Sharon's party, which is leading in polls heading into March 28 national elections. And the stunning triumph by the militant group Hamas in Palestinian parliamentary elections Jan. 25 suddenly makes his task vastly more complicated.

"The direction is clear. We are heading toward a separation from the Palestinians. We are heading toward deciding on final borders for the state of Israel," Olmert said in the half-hour interview. "We will maintain the unity of Jerusalem. We will keep the main settlement blocks. But the borders of which we are thinking are not those in which Israel exists today."

Olmert has generally been given high marks for taking over with grace and authority from Sharon, who remains comatose in a Jerusalem hospital and is unlikely to return to politics. The television interview was his latest effort to step out of Sharon's shadow and craft his own image, reintroducing himself to Israelis and the world at an exceedingly delicate moment.

Olmert sidestepped the issue of whether he would push for additional unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank after Israel's pullout last summer from the Gaza Strip and four communities in the West Bank.

He expressed support for the U.S.-backed diplomatic blueprint known as the road map, a step-by-step plan for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and creation of a Palestinian state.

But in outlining possible future boundaries that would exclude much of the West Bank, Olmert left open at least the possibility of additional pullbacks by Israel.

Olmert said Israel should retain the Maale Adumim settlement and the Gush Etzion block near Jerusalem, and the large Ariel community near Tel Aviv. That view is in line with comments by Sharon and hews closely to Israel's position that the most populous settlements should remain in its hands.

Olmert said Israel could not cede control along the border with Jordan. He declined to elaborate.

Hamas' electoral win adds a large and unexpected element to the Israeli campaign and could affect the fortunes of the Kadima party, which Olmert heads as its candidate for prime minister.

Olmert, one of Sharon's closest confidants, joined the prime minister in the decision to bolt from the conservative Likud Party two months ago and form Kadima.

In his first weeks as acting prime minister, Olmert won praise for his tough response to disturbances by hard-line Jewish settlers who had resisted eviction from a market they inhabited in the West Bank town of Hebron. The standoff ended when the settlers agreed to leave after negotiations with authorities.

In harsh language, Olmert characterized the settlers as lawbreakers and ordered the army to come up with a plan for removing them and some two dozen illegal settlements around the West Bank.

Last week, he ordered authorities to empty part of a West Bank outpost called Amona, an action that quickly erupted into violence and injured more than 200 protesters, police and soldiers.

As head of Kadima, Olmert has expressed backing for the road map peace plan. Yet he and other party members have said Israel might have to withdraw on its own from more of the West Bank as a way to set borders they say will make the nation safer and protect its viability.

The unilateral approach has proved popular among Israelis and is a big reason why Kadima has scored well among centrist voters and holds a big lead in most polls. But the idea is suddenly more problematic, analysts say, because of concern that the evacuated areas would fall into the hands of Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction and has carried out numerous suicide bombings.

It is up to Olmert to articulate the party's stance in the wake of the Hamas victory. He has moved deliberately so far, issuing a statement that Israel will not negotiate with a government that includes Hamas. But he was criticized for waiting a day before releasing an official response.

One of his chief election rivals, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has stepped up his attacks on last year's pullouts by Israel, saying they strengthened Hamas and contributed to its win at the polls.

Bigger tests lie ahead. Even voters who support a wider withdrawal from the West Bank are likely to judge Olmert on how well he handles the Hamas challenge. A jump in Palestinian violence against Israel would harm his prospects.

"If he is perceived as weakening or beginning to legitimize Hamas, he will lose many of his voters," said Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a research institute in Jerusalem. "He's got to reassure his voters that he still has some of his old hawkish fire."

Iran is world's most serious threat since WWII

THE JERUSALEM POST
Feb. 7, 2006

Israel's Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon said on Tuesday morning that Iran is the biggest problem facing the world since World War II.

He said the UN Security Council must force Iran to accept real supervision that would prevent the further development of its nuclear program.

If they continue with their plans, Ayalon warned, Iran may have the know-how needed for the production of nuclear weapons by the end of the year.

Ayalon, in an interview to Reuters, stated that he believed Iran's nuclear program would be blocked by diplomatic, not military means.

As 'Neocons' Leave, Bush Foreign Policy Takes Softer Line

Ms. Rice Changes Approach To Iran and North Korea; Democracy Still Key Goal; Cheney's Waning Influence?
By Jay Solomon and Neil King Jr.
Wall Street Journal
February 6, 2006

WASHINGTON -- During President Bush's first term, Lawrence Franklin was part of a core network of neoconservative strategists at the Pentagon who pushed for taking a hawkish line in the Middle East. He advocated the removal of Iran's theocratic government and made secret trips to Italy in 2001 to learn more about Tehran's overseas intelligence operations, colleagues say.

Now Mr. Franklin works nights as a parking valet at Charles Town Races & Slots in West Virginia. The 59-year-old Farsi speaker and father of five was sentenced last month to more than 12 years in prison for passing classified information to two lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat in hopes they would steer the Bush administration toward taking a tougher approach toward Iran.

Mr. Franklin is an unusually stark illustration of a significant change in American foreign policy between President Bush's first and second terms. In the past year, the ranks of the neoconservatives within the administration who molded the American response to 9/11 have grown thin and their influence has ebbed. At the same time, a band of "neorealists" has been gaining power. They share the neoconservatives' belief in the importance of spreading democracy, but not their conviction that Washington can go it alone on the international stage. The neorealists favor working more closely with allies and with the United Nations, particularly in responding to Iran's nuclear program.

The change coincides with the growing influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is putting her stamp on foreign policy in the second term much as neoconservatives did in the first term. The slow progress of the war in Iraq has made it harder for the U.S. to execute a hard-line foreign policy and has undercut the arguments of the war's chief advocates, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose views often dovetailed with the neoconservatives, current and former government officials say.

Mr. Cheney also has been hampered by the loss of his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was indicted in October for allegedly lying to prosecutors about his role in disclosing a Central Intelligence Agency operative's identity. Mr. Libby was a neoconservative coordinator and intellectual conduit inside the White House.

"Cheney is handicapped by the Libby case," and "the contrast between policy and rhetoric is now huge," says Michael Rubin, an Iran specialist in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans during the first Bush term who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, regarded as a center of neoconservative views. He says he is concerned that Washington's support for European negotiations with Tehran will ultimately allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. "Diplomacy has a cost," he says.

A press officer for Mr. Cheney said he wouldn't comment on policy debates within the administration.

The foreign-policy shift is occurring, in part, because Ms. Rice is a more effective bureaucratic infighter than was her predecessor, Colin Powell. Her relationship with the president dates back to the early days of the 2000 presidential campaign. She has taken to the State Department an influence over foreign policy she built when working in the White House during the first term.

Mr. Bush has chosen to allow Ms. Rice to pursue a more multilateral foreign policy than he allowed Mr. Powell. During his first term and his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush openly snubbed European allies over Iraq, and said he didn't do "nuance." In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last month, he said: "You can have more than one leader on an issue" in dealing with Iran, citing Britain, Germany and France. "This is a multilateral effort," he said. "My view of diplomacy is that it's in constant motion, and we're constantly strategizing and dealing with the latest nuance."

The most recent sign of a shift in the administration's tone came last week in London. After an intense day of diplomacy, Ms. Rice brokered a compromise agreement among Russia, China, France and Britain for the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for allegedly violating commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Over the weekend, nearly all other IAEA member countries endorsed the agreement. Ms. Rice's aides came away touting the efficacy of the U.N. and the IAEA -- organizations disdained by Bush aides three years ago in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

The original neoconservatives were mainly former liberals who feared the U.S. was going soft on Communism and who supported Ronald Reagan's defense buildup and confrontation with the Soviet Union. Neoconservative has since come to refer to a brand of foreign policy that advocates promoting democracy abroad, unilaterally and with military force, if necessary.

During his first term, President Bush broke from the foreign-policy line espoused by his father, whose "realist" strategists embraced alliances and stability over moral and ideological causes. In the younger Mr. Bush's administration, national-security strategists in the Pentagon and White House argued that U.S. interests would be best served by fostering democracy, rather than by seeking an old-fashioned balance of power. They pushed for hard-line policies toward North Korea, Iran and China, and expressed distrust of international bodies seen as constraining American power. Mr. Bush spurned the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court, and there was tension with allies over Iraq.

Mr. Bush's second-term foreign policy is more in line with the old realist approach. Ms. Rice and her chief deputies, Robert Zoellick and Nicholas Burns, favor increased engagement with the U.N. and other multinational groups. Ms. Rice has pushed diplomatic efforts to end the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea -- two nations Mr. Bush branded as part of an "axis of evil." She also has played a central role in trying to forge a peace settlement, now unlikely to move forward, between the Israelis and the Palestinian leadership. During his first term, Mr. Bush shunned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who died in late 2004.

Filling a Vacuum

Ms. Rice and her team are filling a vacuum left by the departure from key policy-making positions of some of the administration's most prominent neoconservatives. In addition to Mr. Libby's departure, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz left to run the World Bank. State Department arms-control czar John Bolton became ambassador to the United Nations. Another architect of the Iraq invasion, the Defense Department's former No. 3 civilian official, Douglas Feith, left his job last summer.

Ms. Rice became secretary of state in January 2005. The difference in her approach became apparent early on with her work on North Korea's nuclear program. During Mr. Bush's first term, Mr. Bolton and other neoconservatives often characterized holding talks with North Korea as succumbing to nuclear blackmail. The White House insisted that all negotiators be kept to a tight script, according to diplomats who worked on the issue. Negotiators were barred from holding many one-on-one meetings with the North Koreans, fearing such contacts would serve to legitimize a despotic regime.

In the past year, Ms. Rice's special envoy on the issue, Christopher Hill, has made a series of trips to Seoul, Beijing and New York to push forward nonproliferation talks with Pyongyang. Last summer, Mr. Hill spent nearly three weeks in Beijing, in two separate sessions, seeking to broker a multinational deal.

In September, the U.S. and North Korea agreed on an initial plan under which Pyongyang would scrap its nuclear-weapons program in return for economic assistance. Terms of the deal, however, are still being negotiated, in cooperation with China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.

"Chris Hill has certainly been given more day-to-day freedom than I had, but the policy of a complete, once-and-for-all end to North Korean nuclear weapons is unchanged," says James Kelly, who preceded Mr. Hill as the chief envoy on the North Korea talks.

Ms. Rice also has pushed to tone down what often has been a war of words between the U.S. and North Korea. In an interview during his first term, Mr. Bush called the North Korean dictator a "pygmy." Last year, he referred to him as "Mr. Kim Jong Il." The State Department has suggested the Bush administration might be amenable to North Korea having civilian nuclear power if it agrees to give up its nuclear-weapons program, a position Bush advisers previously opposed.

A Graver Threat

Ms. Rice and her aides also are taking a different approach to Iran, which many neoconservatives contend poses a graver threat to peace and stability in the Middle East than Iraq. By supporting European diplomatic overtures toward Iran, Ms. Rice's team has moved to break years of official diplomatic isolation between Washington and Tehran. In a bid to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, the U.S. has dangled before Iran membership in the World Trade Organization and other economic incentives. Washington's ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has even been authorized to hold talks with Iranian officials in Baghdad to seek better cooperation in stabilizing postwar Iraq, over which Iran is considered to hold increasing influence.

Many hard-liners and neoconservatives view such tactics as undercutting their cause. "There's no real policy on Iran," says Michael Ledeen, an Iran analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who advocates a U.S. push to force regime change by funding labor unions and other civic groups inside Iran.

The State Department also appears to be charting a new course on Israel and Sudan. Many neoconservatives were opposed to engaging the Palestinians. Ms. Rice pushed to insert herself into negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians over opening up the Palestinian territories to travel and commerce. In October, she brokered an agreement for opening a border crossing.

Last February, the State Department dropped opposition to a U.N. resolution to refer potential war crimes in Sudan to the International Criminal Court, a body that both the Bush and Clinton administrations -- and particularly the Pentagon -- had long opposed. A State Department official points to the Sudan move as a milestone in Ms. Rice's first year as secretary of state. It "helped establish our diplomatic bona fides with Europe" and came despite opposition within the Pentagon and the vice president's office, this person said. Press officers for the Pentagon and Mr. Cheney declined to comment.

No one in government is counting the neoconservatives out in Washington. While Mr. Zoellick, the deputy secretary of state, has been talking regularly with Beijing on U.S.-China relations, Pentagon strategists have been building military relationships in Asia that aim to contain China's growing power. Mr. Rumsfeld has issued a drumbeat of warnings in recent months about the threat China's military poses to Asian security.

And though Mr. Hill continues to pursue talks with North Korea, the administration has pushed forward with an effort to choke off leader Kim Jong Il's overseas financial network, particularly his government's alleged involvement in trafficking counterfeit cigarettes, drugs and U.S. currency. In recent weeks, with efforts to bring Pyongyang back to the negotiating table stalled, American diplomats have hardened their rhetoric, referring to North Korea as a "criminal state."

Franklin's Case

As a Middle East expert in the Pentagon's offices of Special Plans and Near East South Asia, Mr. Franklin had argued stridently for the removal of Iran's Islamic leadership, toiling long hours trying to dissect the workings of Iran's paramilitary and terrorist networks.

This focus on Iran eventually got him into trouble, according to court documents. Mr. Franklin has admitted that beginning in 2002, he shared classified information about Iran's military operations with an Israeli diplomat and lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He had hoped they would push the White House to take a tougher line against Tehran.

Instead, Mr. Franklin was charged last August with illegally disseminating classified intelligence. As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to cooperate with federal law-enforcement officials prosecuting two AIPAC members. In addition to parking cars at the racetrack, he now is teaching courses on terrorism and Asian history at Shepherd University in West Virginia and working as a waiter and bartender in Harpers Ferry, according to court documents. Acquaintances say he is trying to raise money for his sick wife before he begins his prison term. His lawyer says he can't comment because of the ongoing prosecution.

Mr. Franklin told a Virginia federal judge last October that he shared the classified information because of his "frustration" with U.S. foreign policy and his belief that his contacts "were loyal Americans."

Will Israel Strike Iran?

The X Factor: Israel's military planners say they know how to forestall Tehran's nuclear schemes. The options—and their cost.
By Kevin Peraino and John Barry
Newsweek
February 13, 2006

As scary as the idea may sound, the Israelis may not be bluffing. Their defense experts display no doubt whatsoever that Israel's Air Force can cripple Iran's nuclear program if necessary. The trick, they say, is to go after the system's weak spots. "You need to identify the bottlenecks," says a senior Israeli military source, asking not to be named for security reasons. "There are not very many. If you take them out, then you really undermine the project." Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli armed forces chief of strategic planning, says the destruction of two or three key facilities would probably suffice. He singles out the Natanz uranium-enrichment complex and the conversion plant at Esfahan as critical.

It wouldn't be as easy as it sounds. Tehran, taking obvious lessons from Israel's successful 1981 bombing of Saddam Hussein's reactor at Osirak, has done its best to shield potential targets like Natanz. "They are dispersed, underground, hardened," says the senior Israeli military source. U.S. analysts say each facility would require multiple hits before serious damage was done. Still, the Israelis—who have an undeclared nuclear arsenal of their own, and refuse international inspections or oversight—insist they have all the firepower they need: more than 100 U.S.-made BLU-109 "bunker buster" earth-penetrating bombs. "I think they could do the job," says the senior Israeli source.

Logistics is a bigger hurdle. Each separate target would require a small fleet of aircraft. Israel's F-15s and F-16s would need advance escorts of "electronic countermeasures" aircraft to jam Iran's air-defense radars, and every one of those planes would need an entourage of fighter aircraft. At short range, Tehran's newly upgraded MiG-29 interceptors are a match for just about anything in the air. "To get there and bomb the facilities, that's the easy part," says Brom. "The difficult part is how to get back. We're not making kamikaze runs."

To hit Osirak in 1981, Israel's bombers flew in low over Saudi Arabia. In a study published late last year by the U.S. Army War College, Brom suggests that a strike against Iran's facilities could arrive by way of the Indian Ocean—roughly twice the operational radius of Israel's newest strike aircraft under optimal flying conditions. But Israel's fleet of specialized planes for in-flight refueling—five aging KC-130H tankers—doesn't have the capacity to get all those aircraft there and back again. The only way to manage it would be with a covert stopover midway—it's anybody's guess where.

The Israelis admit they can only disable the Iranian program, not destroy it. "The real question is what you achieve if the best you can do is to delay the project for a few years," says a senior U.S. administration official, speaking anonymously because it's a sensitive topic. The cost to the region's stability could be devastating. Meanwhile, Israel continues to upgrade its own arsenal, acquiring two new German subs that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent. Perhaps the threats are only a way of pushing the West to get tough with Tehran before the arms race gets even more heated. But if so, it's one hell of an act.

A look at changes in Iraq over the past year

By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

A statistical profile of change in Iraq since President Bush's last State of the Union address one year ago follows.

The first number is as of Jan. 31, 2005, and the second is as of Jan. 31, 2006:

U.S. military deaths: 1,415; 2,242

U.S. military wounded: 10,622; 16,606

U.S. troop strength: 150,000; 136,000

Number of daily insurgent attacks: 61; 75

Number of multiple fatal bombings per month: 28; 30

Number of car bombings per month (thru Dec. 2005): 65; 30

Number of Iraqi security forces: 125,000; 273,000

Estimated number of insurgents: 18,000; 15,000-20,000

Estimated number of insurgents detained or killed: 33,450; 54,450

Estimated number of Iraqi military and police deaths: 1,300; 4,059

Crude oil production (millions of barrels per day): 2.1; 1.78

Monthly oil revenue from exports: $1.49 billion; $0.84 billion

Daily average hours of electricity in Baghdad/nationwide: 9/9; 3.2/10.2

Monthly output of electricity in megawatts: 78,925; 86,000

Estimated unemployment rate: 27-40 percent; 25-40 percent

U.S. aid disbursed for reconstruction: $3.9 billion; $12.7 billion

Amount of U.S. aid appropriated: $20.9 billion; $20.9 billion

Percentage of Iraqis who believe country is headed in right direction (through Dec. 2005): 49 percent; 49 percent

Percentage of Iraqis who believe country is headed in wrong direction: 39 percent; 36 percent

Percentage of Iraqis who don't know: 10 percent ;12 percent

---

Sources: U.S. fatalities and wounded - Pentagon, all other - Brookings Iraq Index, Polling Data - International Republican Institute

Politicians are stifling dissent, critics say

By Steven Thomma
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Feb. 03, 2006

WASHINGTON - The ejection of two women from the U.S. Capitol for wearing message T-shirts during President Bush's State of the Union speech this week was the latest incident in a growing trend of stifling dissent in politics.

Capitol Police later apologized for ejecting the women from the House of Representatives gallery - after one of them, the wife of a congressman, complained bitterly, as did her husband. The police acknowledged that they'd acted overzealously.

But their actions weren't atypical in today's overheated political climate. Protesters outside political conventions are herded behind razor wire far from the action, citizens wearing a rival candidate's stickers are forcefully ejected from presidential campaign rallies on public property, and those who heckle the president or broadcast issue ads within 60 days of an election can be prosecuted.

The tension between the Capitol Police and the women is symbolic of the eternal conflict between those who seek to silence dissent and those who advocate free speech.

"This is the latest manifestation of the desire by those in power to minimize criticism and marginalize critics," said Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

This is dissent via T-shirts.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan wore one to Tuesday's State of the Union speech. It proclaimed "2245 Dead. How many more?" Police charged her with a misdemeanor for unlawful disruptive conduct in the Capitol.

Later, police ejected Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Young, R-Fla., for wearing a shirt that said "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom."

It wasn't the first time that police have ejected Capitol visitors who wore message T-shirts - and the practice isn't limited to the Capitol.

In Denver last year, three people were thrown out of a Bush town-hall meeting on Social Security after they arrived in a car sporting a bumper sticker that proclaimed: "No more blood for oil" and wore T-shirts under their other clothes that said "Stop the Lies."

Evicting people who oppose the president, even if they don't say a word, was a carryover from Bush's 2004 presidential campaign.

In Charleston, W. Va., for example, a couple was arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a Bush campaign rally in the state capitol building on the Fourth of July. Police said they acted under orders from federal officials. The charges were later dropped and the mayor apologized.

In Saginaw, Mich., Bush campaign workers ejected a woman for wearing a pro-choice T-shirt. The campaign said at the time that it had to throw out people who might make a scene.

In 2004, protesters at both national party conventions were herded into areas far away from delegates, officials and the news media. At the Democratic National Convention in Boston, protesters were kept in enclosed areas surrounded by fences topped with razor wire and watched by armed police.

It's a crime, punishable by up to six months in prison, to "disrupt" an event guarded by the Secret Service, which includes presidential rallies. (A proposed extension of the Patriot Act now being negotiated in Congress would broaden such prohibitions to other vaguely defined national events.)

Does a T-shirt "disrupt" an event? To the political operatives who ejected people on the basis of their shirts - or ordered them arrested - a shirt can be disruptive.

But no one's been convicted yet, and T-shirt prosecutions likely would be challenged as an affront to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that it wasn't illegal to wear an obscene anti-Vietnam war jacket in a California courthouse, despite a state law prohibiting such messages because they might incite violence.

"The state may not, consistently with the First and 14th amendments, make the simple public display of this four-letter expletive a criminal offense," the court said.

The campaign against dissent predates the recent T-shirt confrontations.

A 2002 campaign-finance reform designed to regulate the flow of money into politics prohibited broadcasts of issue ads within 60 days of elections.

"We were not allowed to take out radio ads," said the ACLU's Strossen. "We wanted to do ads calling on both party candidates to oppose the Patriot Act. That is now a crime. If we had done that, I would have faced a five-year prison term."

The Supreme Court recently ordered a three-judge panel to re-examine the prohibition, which could lead to lifting the ban, but not until after the 2006 elections.

Silencing dissent isn't unique to the national government. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani once ordered city buses to remove an ad for The New Yorker magazine that made fun of him.

Nor is it limited to one political party, noted Robert O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in Charlottesville, Va. Both major parties limit speech at their national conventions, inside and out, he said.

In 1992, for example, the Democrats refused to allow an abortion opponent, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, to speak from the podium.

This trend has a chilling effect on those who disagree with people in power, analysts say.

``The long-term consequence is a higher degree of self-censorship,'' O'Neil said. ``Society is the poorer when deprived of the marketplace of ideas.''

HOW POLITICIANS USED TO DEAL WITH DISSENT

Politicians used to respond to hecklers with wit or anger.

In his 1960 presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy was often met by people who shouted, "We want Nixon." Kennedy responded, "I don't think you're going to get him."

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was accosted by a heckler who shouted, "You god---- fascist bastard." Goldwater shot back, "If you call me a bastard again, I'll meet you outside." That won over the previously hostile audience at Rutgers University, recalled writer William Safire.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan was surprised by the affection he received on college campuses. After one visit to Ohio State, he wrote in his diary, "The O.S.U. students were on fire; another small heckler group only added to the fun."

Seabees buzz in to build up bases

By David Axe
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 3, 2006

RAMADI, Iraq -- A U.S. Navy construction battalion fresh from Hurricane Katrina relief duty is battling the elements and daily insurgent attacks to build permanent bases in the dangerous Anbar province.
The famed Seabees of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133, based in Gulfport, Miss., rode out Katrina in late August then immediately got to work clearing roads, repairing houses and delivering relief supplies in Gulfport and elsewhere in storm-ravaged Mississippi. A month later, the 650 sailors were deployed to a half-dozen sites in western Iraq to undertake a wide range of construction projects.
At Al Taqaddum air base, one of two large airfields in the province used by the United States and destined to be a logistics hub, 50 Seabees are repairing the dilapidated runways where, before 1991, Iraqi jets flew out to drop chemical weapons on Iraq's Kurdish minority.
"Seriously old-fashioned" is how Chief Petty Officer Jose Torres of Uvalde, Texas, describes working conditions at Al Taqaddum. On Jan. 19, he met with Turkish contractors helping build a concrete plant that will support the runway repairs. A shortage of heavy equipment means the contractors have been hauling wet concrete in buckets.
Equipment shortages, the poor quality of local materials, harsh winter weather and frequent mortar attacks by insurgents complicate the Seabees' work.
"It's not a normal contract situation," said Chief Petty Officer Torres, a steelworker, comparing his work with construction in the United States.
"Electricity here is a mess. It's a disaster," said electrician Charles Jacobs of Marksville, La.
His job at Al Taqaddum is to look after a decrepit Iraqi electrical grid that he says presents a serious fire hazard.
Seabees are accustomed to working in dangerous, remote places where supplies are hard to acquire. Recent deployments have taken the battalion to Haiti and Guam, and Seabees such as Chief Petty Officer Torres and his boss, Senior Chief Petty Officer Bob Crandall, an equipment operator, have worked stints at a research station in Antarctica, building protective domes.
The Seabees' favorite projects are humanitarian in nature, said Senior Chief Petty Officer Crandall, a Montana native and a 25-year veteran of the force.
"Last time we were out here [in 2004], we did 15 schools. You don't get to go out in the civilian community as much anymore. When the security situation improves, that might change," he said.
Anbar in general, and the contested city of Ramadi in particular, have seen some of the heaviest fighting since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Marines and soldiers battle foreign fighters slipping across the porous Syrian border.
The threat dictates that all travel be at night, preferably by helicopter. But the unforgiving and unpredictable winter weather often grounds aircraft and forces U.S. troops to travel in heavily armed ground convoys. One Seabee detachment equipped with Humvees protected with extra armor has the job of escorting the speeding convoys. So far, four Seabees have been injured on escort duty.
Mortar attacks are a constant worry for high-ranking Seabees. On Jan. 22 at the Ramadi detachment, the Seabees had set aside their tools for an afternoon barbecue when several mortar rounds exploded nearby, setting a truck ablaze and sending everyone rushing for cover.
"I don't think about it," said builder Timothy Welehan, a New York native.
To protect diners at Ramadi from the mortars, the Seabees are finishing a fortified dining hall with earth and concrete walls and heavy wood beams supporting the earthen roof. For Chief Petty Officer Michael Romero, a steelworker, the project is personal. A 2004 attack on a U.S. dining facility in Mosul killed his friend Seabee Joel Baldwin.
In coming weeks, the scattered Seabees will converge on Al Taqaddum to work on the runway. In March, they will return to the United States, many to homes damaged by Hurricane Katrina.