TheSkeptical

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Libyan Rebel Coalition: One Part Democrat, Two Parts Islamicist, One Part Opportunist

Posted on 8:17 AM by Unknown
National Review Online has a very informative post by John Rosenthal that quotes a French study on the extensive connections between Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion:

A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.”

The report identifies four factions among the members of the eastern Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). Apart from a minority of “true democrats,” the other three factions comprise partisans of a restoration of the monarchy that was overthrown by Qaddafi in 1969, Islamic extremists seeking the establishment of an Islamic state, and former fixtures of the Qaddafi regime who defected to the rebels for opportunistic or other reasons.

There is a clear overlap between the Islamists and the monarchists, inasmuch as the deposed King Idris I was himself the head of the Senussi brotherhood, which the authors describe as “an anti-Western Muslim sect that practices an austere and conservative form of Islam.” The monarchists are thus, more precisely, “monarchists-fundamentalists.”

The most prominent of the defectors, the president of the NTC, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, is likewise described by the authors as a “traditionalist” who is “supported by the Islamists.” The authors point out that Jalil played an important role in the “Bulgarian nurses affair,” so called for five Bulgarian nurses who, along with a Palestinian doctor, were charged with deliberately infecting hundreds of children with AIDS in a hospital in Benghazi. As chair of the Appeals Court in Tripoli, Jalil twice upheld the death penalty for the nurses. In 2007, the nurses and the Palestinian doctor were released by the Libyan government following negotiations in which French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s then wife, Cecilia, played a highly publicized role.

The report describes members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group as the “main pillar of the armed insurrection.” “Thus the military coalition under NATO leadership is supporting a rebellion that includes Islamic terrorists,” the authors write. Alluding to the major role played by the Cyrenaica region in supplying recruits for al-Qaeda in Iraq, they add, “No one can deny that the Libyan rebels who are today supported by Washington were only yesterday jihadists killing American GIs in Iraq.”


The information about King Idris, the Senussi Botherhood, and the "monarchist-fundamentalist" faction, was surprising news to me.

The full report is here, but only in French. Interesting that it was French researchers who did this work, given that the French government was the primary actor in starting this NATO intervention, and the first - I believe - to extend diplomatic recognition to the National Transitional Council.
Read More
Posted in al Qaeda, Libya | No comments

Friday, June 24, 2011

AQ2.0

Posted on 10:48 AM by Unknown
Drop whatever else you're doing and go to Wired.com's Danger Room to help them re-brand Al Qaeda.

Play Don Draper for a moment. What do you think about when you think about al-Qaida? The senseless slaughter of innocents, right? As it turned out, even Osama bin Laden thought his terrorist organization needed an image reboot.

-- snip --

Danger Room has offered PR advice to troubled companies before. But we think you can do better. So Draper up: pour yourself an early Scotch, take an afternoon nap, start an inappropriate fixation on a co-worker and give al-Qaida a new name — something that says, “Now With 20 Percent Less Eschatological Violence.”


Send them your best pitch. But be aware that the competition is very, very, good. Here's what they have so far:

League of Extraordinary Beards
Westboro Baptist Church
iQaeda
Kandahar Ardent Brotherhood Of Orthodox Muslims (KABOOM)
Bad News Beards
72 Virgin Airways
SEAL bait
Yes We Quran!
Dr. Bin Laden's 100% Natural Good Time Terror Band Solution
Turbanators
The Artist Formerly Known as Al-Qaida
2 Beards 1 Cup
Why hide it any more? Inter-Services Intelligence
All Your Beards Are Belong To Us!
The Falafel Dumpling Gang
Al-Quesadilla
Angry Beards
Arabic People's Front, no wait.. People's Front of Arabia, no... Arabic Popular People's Front
These Aren't the Beards You're Looking For
Two and a Half Martyrs
Beardy Bunch
lol-Qaida
Da' Beards
Inglorious Beards
People Organized to Osama's Principles (POOP)


Which way should they go? Upscale, or mass market? Corporate, or touchy-feely? Techno-geek, or pious?

I suggest a cool rap name, either "Serious Trigga Osama" or "Qaeda Q Daddy."
Read More
Posted in | No comments

OBL Validates R Bureau's Counterterrorism Communications Strategy

Posted on 8:10 AM by Unknown
It seems that the late Osama Bin Laden believed the West had beaten him in the public image battle within the Muslim world, and he was searching for a re-branding strategy when he abruptly assumed room temperature.

Osama wanted new name for al-Qaida to repair image:

As Osama bin Laden watched his terrorist organization get picked apart, he lamented in his final writings that al-Qaida was suffering from a marketing problem. His group was killing too many Muslims and that was bad for business. The West was winning the public relations fight. All his old comrades were dead and he barely knew their replacements.

Faced with these challenges, bin Laden, who hated the United States and decried capitalism, considered a most American of business strategies. Like Blackwater, ValuJet and Philip Morris, perhaps what al-Qaida really needed was a fresh start under a new name.

The problem with the name al-Qaida, bin Laden wrote in a letter recovered from his compound in Pakistan, was that it lacked a religious element, something to convince Muslims worldwide that they are in a holy war with America.

-- snip --

At the White House, the documents were taken as positive reinforcement for President Barack Obama's effort to eliminate religiously charged words from the government's language of terrorism. Words like "jihad," which also has a peaceful religious meaning, are out. "Islamic radical" has been nixed in favor of "terrorist" and "mass murderer." Though former members of President George W. Bush's administration have backed that effort, it also has drawn ridicule from critics who said the president was being too politically correct.


That effort to "eliminate religiously charged words" from the USG's messaging to the Muslim world goes back at least as far as 2008 - remind me, who was President then? - when the leak of an official document from the Counterterrorism Communications Center caused a big internet stir about how the State Department had supposedly banned the word "Jihad" from its lexicon.

At least, that was the internet meme of three years ago. Google "State Department bans the word Jihad" for examples. Typically weasel-wording obscurantist Foggy Bottom political correctness run amok, etc., etc.

But today, it looks like that communications strategy had its intended effect. OBL believed that he and al Qaeda had failed to associate themselves with the Ummah, the commonwealth of Islamic believers, in the eyes of the Muslim world, where they were increasingly seen as merely terrorists rather than noble Jihadis. The fact that the USG refrained from branding them Jihadis may have contributed to the failure of OBL's strategy. Anyway, we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot for a change.

Those guys at the Counterterrorism Communications Center in International Information Programs ought to be taking a bow right now. By the way, does the Counterterrorism Communications Center still exist?
Read More
Posted in al Qaeda, Public Diplomacy, terrorism | No comments

Saturday, June 18, 2011

The Shark and The Suckerfish

Posted on 5:30 PM by Unknown













H/T to the History News Network for running an article by William J. Astore about How the Military and the Civilian Are Blurring in Washington.

The article is well worth reading in its entirety, but it also has this arresting image of the relationship between the U.S. military and the State Department.

In the process [of post-9/11 military enlargement and expansion into foreign policy], the military has gained a kind of unspoken and distinctly un-American primacy. Put another way, after a decade-long budgetary feeding frenzy, the Pentagon has soared, while an eclipsed Department of State, all those civilian diplomats, has been left to eke out a living on budgetary scraps or, as in Iraq today, arm and militarize itself. State, in other words, has become a remora clinging to the predatory shark that is the Department of Defense.


A Remora, also called a Suckerfish, is a parasite that attaches to a host species, commonly to a shark, using the host as transport and protection whjle also feeding on scraps dropped by the host.

The comparison is disturbingly apt.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

The Media Turns On Obama, And My Head Is Spinning

Posted on 7:48 AM by Unknown
I've been following Consul-at-Arms and cheering as he defends the Constitutional powers of Congress against the administration's interpretation dismissal of the War Powers Act.

As I'm sure you know, President Obama started the Libyan action with a March 21 letter to Congress that cited the requirements of the War Powers Act ("I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action") but, when the May 20 deadline for withdrawal approached, he changed his mind about those requirements.

This morning, as I caught up on my reading, I saw that both the New York Times and the Washington Post have attacked the administration's position that the War Powers Act no longer applies to its military action in Libya. The Mainstream Media in a united front with CAA? I must be dreaming.

It could be that I'm suffering from delayed jet-lag, but my first thought was - "what country am I in today?" I can't remember the last time the MSM ganged up on a Democratic President, and especially not over an expansion of Presidential power at the expense of Congress.

For the NYT's part, they reported that Obama overruled the legal opinions of both the Justice Department and the Defense Department when he decided to continue action in Libya without the consent of Congress:

President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

-- snip --

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

-- snip --

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

-- snip --

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.


That report was, to say the least, unhelpful to the administration. But the WaPo's editorial board went much further, and was fully hostile to the administration's rationale about the minimal nature of the Libyan hostilities:

THE OBAMA administration’s depiction of its Libya venture as too halfhearted to be covered by the War Powers Resolution contains an unfortunately large dollop of truth. President Obama’s commitment is sufficiently halfhearted to undermine the NATO alliance. It is sufficiently halfhearted, and confused in its statement of purpose and its connection of ends to means, to give Moammar Gaddafi hope that he can hang on. It is not, however, so halfhearted as to justify the administration’s evasion of its legal duties under the war powers law.

-- snip --

The administration argued in a report to Congress released this week that it need not seek approval because the operations in Libya “are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated” by the War Powers Act. “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors,” the report states.

Problem is, the War Powers Act does not define “hostilities” as requiring boots on the ground or exchanges with hostile forces. The act, in fact, does not define hostilities, leaving a vacuum that Mr. Obama and his predecessors have exploited in self-serving ways. We believe that an honest appraisal of the activities that the United States continues to engage in would put the administration squarely within the purview of the War Powers Resolution. By the administration’s own account, these include airstrikes aimed at “suppress[ing] enemy air defense,” “occasional strikes by unmanned Predator” drones, and intelligence and logistical support that aid other NATO members in carrying out their strikes.

We supported Mr. Obama’s decision to join NATO allies in the U.N.- sanctioned effort to keep Libyan strongman Gaddafi from slaughtering his people. The president is right to sustain the effort until a regime less dangerous to its own people is installed, and he would be wise to heed U.S. allies and join in the effort more robustly. But it strikes us as fatuous to argue that the United States is not engaged in hostilities, given that the NATO bombing campaign could not be taking place without active U.S. support.

Mr. Obama is not the first president to pretend to comply while skirting the law’s most important provision, but precedent does not make the practice more appealing.


Read the whole thing here.

Did the WaPo just call Obama's position halfhearted, confused, undermining of the NATO alliance, and an evasion of his legal duty? Yes, and all in the first paragraph. And then they added that he is dishonestly quibbling about the definition of "hostilities" and making a fatuous argument to skirt the War Powers Act's most important provision.

I'm going to lie down until the dizziness passes. If the WaPo's editorial is still there after I wake up, then I'll know that we have passed some kind of political milestone.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Thursday, June 16, 2011

This We'll Defend, Since 1775

Posted on 3:00 PM by Unknown



















Here's a belated salute to my favorite government institution on the occasion of the U.S. Army’s Birthday: 14 June 1775.

I'm always intrigued by the fact that the U.S. Army predates by one year the founding of the nation it serves.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Don't Hate Him Because He's Beautiful

Posted on 10:46 AM by Unknown











Former Senator John Edwards sure takes a good-looking mug shot.

But such talented hair does not happen all by itself. It takes work. Here's the video behind the booking photo:



If they have hair stylist vocational training in prison, Edwards will have a promising second career when he gets out of Club Fed.
Read More
Posted in | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • I've Got Pictures Of A U.S. Government Facility (Including Security Countermeasures!)
    Yeah, I've got them right here on the internet. But I'm not violating the prohibition against posting pictures of U.S. Government fa...
  • Peshawar - U.S. Consulate Employees Attacked By Suicide Bomber
    Consumer Notice: This post is certified 100% free of Matters of Official Concern that are not referenced from publicly available sources of ...
  • New Leadership For DS
    Yeah, I'm happy! I hear that there were some other high-level comings and goings today at the State Department, but the one I've bee...
  • I'm Hiding From The Cops Under Arrest
    I like a news story with a happy ending : William Velasquez Castillo, an illegal immigrant in Lucedale, Miss., was arrested May 19 by U.S. M...
  • I'm Famous, Kind Of
    I'm still a little bit jet lagged while TDY-ing it, and have been staying up much too late at night, surfing the internet in my hotel ro...
  • Unemployed Diplomat Finds Work
    P.J. Crowley evidently landed on his feet after being fired two weeks ago. Judging by his appearance on CNN last night, parsing the preside...
  • I Was So Much Older Then
    Apropos of nothing, except that I've been listening to it on my iPod while flying back from TDY today, this is from Bob Dylan's 30th...
  • About That Non-Standard, Un-Fortress, Not-A-Consulate In Benghazi
    Consumer Notice: This post is certified 100% free of Matters of Official Concern that are not referenced from publicly available sources of ...
  • Close GITMO? We've Heard That Song Before
    Last Wednesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to resuscitate a dead political issue by releasing a Government Accountability Office study o...
  • Gitmo "Test Case" Gets a Failing Grade
    A civilian jury in New York has convicted former Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani on a single charge in connection with the 1998 bomb...

Categories

  • . (1)
  • accountability review board (3)
  • ADE 651 (3)
  • Af/Pak (6)
  • Af/Pk (2)
  • Afghanistan (10)
  • Ahmed Ghailani (1)
  • AIPAC (1)
  • al Qaeda (3)
  • Ambassador Carlos Pascual (2)
  • Ambassador Patricia Hawkins (1)
  • Anna Chapman (1)
  • ATF (1)
  • Aunt Zeituni (2)
  • Barrio Azteca (1)
  • Behring Breivik (1)
  • Beirut (1)
  • benghazi (22)
  • Bing (1)
  • Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (12)
  • Bureau of the Public Debt (1)
  • Burka Woman (1)
  • CIA (1)
  • Ciudad Juarez (2)
  • Cold War History (1)
  • Commission on Wartime Contracting (1)
  • Condoleezza Rice (1)
  • Consulate General Dubai (1)
  • Country Reports on Terrorism (1)
  • D-Day (1)
  • Dar es Salaam (1)
  • Department of Homeland Security (1)
  • Department of State (3)
  • Design Excellence (1)
  • DHS (1)
  • Diamond Jubilee (2)
  • Diplomatic History (3)
  • Diplomatic Security (23)
  • Diplomatic Security Service (4)
  • Dominique Strauss-Kahn (2)
  • Drug Enforcement Administration (1)
  • DSS (1)
  • Eyebrow-Raising Headline (1)
  • Fast and Furious (1)
  • FBI (2)
  • Federation of American Scientists (1)
  • Foreign Relations of the United States (3)
  • Fortress Embassy (23)
  • FRUS (4)
  • Gaddafi (1)
  • Gitmo (5)
  • Gitmo Gang (4)
  • Gitmo North (1)
  • Google (1)
  • GT-200 (1)
  • Guantanamo (1)
  • Herat (2)
  • Hillary Clinton (1)
  • Holy City of Washington (1)
  • Hotel Mazar (1)
  • Human Rights Council (1)
  • Internet Freedom (3)
  • Iraq (1)
  • Israel (1)
  • Jane Loeffler (1)
  • Jared Cohen (1)
  • Jerusalem Embassy Act (1)
  • jihobbyist (1)
  • Julian Assange (1)
  • KAOPOTUS (1)
  • Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1)
  • KUOPOTUS (1)
  • Lahore (1)
  • Lesley Enriquez Redelfs (2)
  • Library of Congress (1)
  • Libya (29)
  • Lome (1)
  • Making Sense of Jihad (1)
  • Marine Security Guards (1)
  • Mazar-e-Sharif (3)
  • Memorial Day (1)
  • Mexican Drug Wars (4)
  • Mexico (9)
  • Michael Scheuer (1)
  • MSG (1)
  • Nairobi (1)
  • National Film Registry (1)
  • National Security Archive (1)
  • New Embassy Complex (1)
  • Niamey (1)
  • Nigel Farage (1)
  • Niger (1)
  • Northern Distribution Network (1)
  • Norway (1)
  • NPR (1)
  • OBO (5)
  • Office of Overseas Building Operations (1)
  • Office of Overseas Buildings Operations (7)
  • Office of Overseas Schools (1)
  • Office of the Historian (5)
  • Overseas Buildings Operations (2)
  • P.J. Crowley (2)
  • Pakistan (32)
  • Pan Am 103 (2)
  • Political Violence Against Americans (1)
  • President Obama (1)
  • Public Diplomacy (7)
  • Qaddafi (6)
  • Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) (1)
  • Queen Elizabeth (2)
  • Rambo (1)
  • Raymond Davis (18)
  • Raymond Ibrahim (1)
  • Rewards for Justice (1)
  • Sanaa (1)
  • SECCA (2)
  • Secret Service Scandal (8)
  • Senator Kerry (1)
  • Sniffex (1)
  • Taliban (1)
  • Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (1)
  • terrorism (3)
  • The Covert Comic (1)
  • The Time Warp (1)
  • The War Nerd (1)
  • Transitional National Council (1)
  • U.S Consulate Lahore (1)
  • U.S Embassy Mexico (1)
  • U.S. Army (1)
  • U.S. Congress (1)
  • U.S. Consulate General Ciudad Juarez (2)
  • U.S. Consulate Karachi (4)
  • U.S. Consulate Lahore (5)
  • U.S. Consulate Matamoros (1)
  • U.S. Consulate Peshawar Pakistan (4)
  • U.S. Consulate Rio de Janeiro (1)
  • U.S. Consulate Tijuana (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Baghdad DipNote (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Islamabad Pakistan (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Islamabad Phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifakistan (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Libya (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Lusaka (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Mexico City (2)
  • U.S. Embassy Sarajevo (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Tunis (1)
  • U.S. Embassy Valletta (1)
  • U.S. Peace Corps (2)
  • U.S. State Department (1)
  • UK (1)
  • Unabomber (2)
  • Uncle Omar (3)
  • United Nations (2)
  • Unredacted (2)
  • Uzbekistan (1)
  • Vietnam (1)
  • Vladimir Putin (1)
  • Washington DC (1)
  • White House Leaks (1)
  • Wikileaks (13)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (40)
    • ▼  September (1)
      • The Longest Day, But Not the Longest Memory
    • ►  August (9)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2012 (138)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (12)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (15)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (15)
    • ►  January (22)
  • ►  2011 (267)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (13)
    • ►  October (14)
    • ►  September (19)
    • ►  August (29)
    • ►  July (25)
    • ►  June (18)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (32)
    • ►  January (28)
  • ►  2010 (55)
    • ►  December (37)
    • ►  November (18)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile