U.S. Forces Find Model for Beating Terror

When the commander of U.S. Special Forces in the Philippines talks about battles won in the war on terror, he does not list enemies killed and targets destroyed.

Instead, U.S. Army Col. James Linder recounts jobs created and schools built.

"We just changed the dynamics of a very small community from one in which only a few years ago, Abu Sayyaf was coming down from the hilltop with weapons on their back and recruiting the schoolchildren, to one in which they can't come there anymore," Linder said.

Since 2002, U.S. Army Rangers and Navy SEALs have been training and equipping Philippine troops to oust al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf terrorists from Mindanao, a predominantly Muslim and largely poor part of the Southeast Asian nation. The militaries have used a combination of combat offensives and development projects - with a heavy emphasis on the latter - to isolate the terrorists and win over local populations.

Their successes in villages like the one Linder described contrast sharply with the U.S.-led effort in Iraq or Afghanistan, where terror attacks only seem to increase. Now, senior U.S. military leaders say their work in the Philippines may offer lessons for how the U.S. operates in the Middle East.

On Basilan island, where U.S. troops first started operating four years ago, improved security has allowed the Philippine military to shrink its presence from 15 battalions to two, said Maj. Gen. David Fridovich, the commander of U.S. Special Forces in the Pacific.

Fridovich said military operations are only 15 percent of what needs to be done. The rest is humanitarian, like Army engineers helping rebuild schools and military doctors giving residents shots. U.S. aid workers have helped build bridges and roads.

"We think there is a model here that's worth showcasing. There's another way of doing business," Fridovich told reporters at the Pacific Area Special Operations Conference in Honolulu recently.

Of course, circumstances in the Philippines are far different from the Middle East. Disparate cultures, history and geography would prevent any Philippine solution from being applied directly to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Also, the U.S. and Philippine militaries can't take credit for all of Abu Sayyaf's failures. The group has marginalized itself by offending local populations with the use of tactics like beheadings, rape and torture.

But Linder, speaking on the sidelines of an anti-terror conference in Hawaii, said his interactions with people on the island of Jolo showed the troops are making a difference.

He recalled a visibly emotional woman who ran up to him because she wanted to show her gratitude for the sewing machine that has allowed her to earn a living. And the village leader who vowed to quit fighting for Abu Sayyaf and instead take up arms alongside Filipino soldiers against his former allies.

Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at the Singapore-based Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, said the U.S. has had "tremendous success" on Basilan.

"The Americans did not take the shortcut in Basilan. They took the long road _ that's working with civilians. Their priority was to build bridges with the Muslim public rather than hunt the terrorists," Gunaratna said.

Iraq only became so violent because U.S. commanders focused too much energy on killing enemies when they should have done more to meet the basic needs of Iraqis, he said.

"The terrorists are also competing for the hearts and the minds of the people," Gunaratna said. "If you are able to do a better job, the terrorists are marginalized. No one will support the terrorists."

The U.S. military effort in the Philippines has not been easy.

U.S. troops - now numbering a few hundred, down from a peak of 1,200 - do not participate in combat there. The U.S. military initially wanted to fight but President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's shaky administration refused to gamble with the politically explosive prospect of foreign troops fighting domestic insurgents on Philippine soil.

Still, nearly a dozen American troops died in a helicopter crash and a bomb attack in 2002. Muslim activists and residents have protested the U.S. presence, calling it a magnet for violence and a violation of Philippine sovereignty.

A few hundred mountain-based guerrillas continue to threaten Jolo. In March, suspected Abu Sayyaf members bombed a grocery store on the southern island, killing nine people.

Washington and Manila, meanwhile, are deepening their partnership. Last week, the two nations announced a new security arrangement expanding the grounds for American forces to stage exercises in the Philippines.

When asked if the Basilan experience was applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen. Bryan D. Brown, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, said every culture and situation was different, but many lessons could be learned.

"It's about working with the people, it's about building the infrastructure, it's about demonstrating good governance," Brown told reporters at the Hawaii conference. "It's about good medical care, it's about eliminating human suffering."

© 2006 Associated Press.

Chinese Military Expansion by Charles R. Smith

The U.S. Defense Department has issued its annual report on China. The report, titled "Military Power of the People's Republic of China," contains disturbing new facts about the rapid growth of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

According to the report, "Several aspects of China's military development have surprised U.S. analysts, including the pace and scope of its strategic forces modernization. China's military expansion is already such as to alter regional military balances."

"Long-term trends in China's strategic nuclear forces modernization, land- and sea-based access denial capabilities, and emerging precision-strike weapons have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," stated the U.S. report.

The Pentagon reported that China is continuing its ballistic-missile buildup aimed at a force of over 1,000 missiles by 2008. During 2005, China deployed nearly 800 mobile DF-11 and DF-15 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) to bases opposite Taiwan.

"SRBM deployment continues to expand at an average rate of about 100 missiles per year. Newer versions feature improved range and accuracy," noted the U.S. report.

China is also modernizing its long-range ballistic missile force by replacing older missiles with newer, more survivable ones. China is deploying a new road-mobile solid-propellant intercontinental range ballistic missile (ICBM), the DF-31, and an extended-range version called the DF-31A, which can target most of the United States.

Nuke America

The U.S. Defense Department took note that Chinese officials have recently threatened nuclear strikes against America. In July 2005, speaking about U.S. intervention in a confrontation between Taiwan and China, Major General Zhu Chenghu, from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) National Defense University, stated to the press:

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition [sic] on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons."

"This is not the first time Zhu, or others, have threatened the United States with nuclear strikes in the context of conflict over Taiwan," noted the report.

In 1996, Chinese General Xiong Guangkai made a direct threat to the press, vowing to unleash nuclear strikes against Los Angeles during any conflict over Taiwan. Unlike General Zhu, who was publicly reprimanded for his comments, General Xiong was promoted to second-in-command of the PLA.

The threat to America and her allies does not end with nuclear-tipped missiles. China is in the process of expanding her navy, including activity aimed at acquiring an aircraft carrier.

Chinese Aircraft Carrier

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), China plans to organize a combat air wing for a future aircraft carrier. The Chinese navy is already evaluating the Russian Su-33/FLANKER D, a carrier-capable variant of the Su-27/FLANKER. Russia currently uses the Su-33 aboard its single Kuznetzov-class aircraft carrier.

However, China also owns a Kuznetzov carrier. The former Varyag has been tied up in a Chinese shipyard at Dailan since 2002, when it was purchased as a floating casino. Now, according to the U.S. Defense Department, the Chinese appear to be doing some kind of work on the Varyag.

"The only visible signs of this work are a new paint job (in the gray shade used by the Chinese navy) and ongoing work on the superstructure (particularly the tall "island" on the flight deck). Many workers can be seen on the ship, and material is seen going into (new stuff) and out of (old stuff) the ship," noted StrategyPage.com, a military watchdog website.

In a further sign of upcoming conflict, the Chinese navy has increased amphibious ship production to address its sealift deficiencies. The PLA has also increased its civilian merchant fleet, which could provide additional over-the-beach lift for future amphibious operations.

Chinese Espionage

The report also noted that China continues to acquire key war-fighting technologies by stealing them in the dark of night.

"Industrial espionage in foreign research and production facilities and illegal transfers of technology are used to gain desired capabilities. Where technology targets remain difficult to acquire, foreign investors are attracted to China via contracts that are often written to ensure Chinese oversight, with the eventual goal of displacing foreigners from the companies brought into China," noted the Defense Department.

In fact, there is no shortage of prosecutions inside the United States for illegal transfers of military technology to China. The Bush administration has recently sanctioned Data Physics Corporation and its Beijing and Shanghai offices for illegal transfers of military-grade technology to an end-user in China who is engaged in the design, development, production and use of cruise missile systems.

"Specifically, the evidence shows that, on or about June 12, 2002, Respondents sold and later shipped spherical couplings, items subject to the EAR, from the United States to China HaiYang Electro Mechanical Technology Academy ("3rd Academy") in China, an end-user involved in the development of cruise missiles," noted the official release from the Bureau of Industrial Security (BIS).

"The evidence shows that Data Physics attempted to conceal the identity of the end-user by using a false customer name '27th Locomotive Factory.' Data Physics would also attempt to evade the licensing requirements by breaking down the items into smaller components and separate shipments in order to avoid raising suspicion. Installation reports seized from Data Physics show that after the items would arrive at the 3rd Academy, employees from the Chinese offices of Data Physics would go reassemble and install the equipment," noted the BIS report.

The Defense Department report is reinforced by the facts as demonstrated by Chinese espionage operations such as the Data Physics case. The PLA has over 3,000 such companies operating inside the U.S. today.

It is a fact that China will continue to use illegal means to obtain American weapons technology. Simply shutting down a single company will do little or nothing to prevent such high-tech losses. The Bush administration needs to shut down ALL of the Chinese army firms operating in America.

Iraq Vet Sues Moore Over 9/11 Film

A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.

Moore did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. A message was left for Moore at a personal number in New York and with HarperCollins, publisher of Moore's 2002 book, "Stupid White Men...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!"

A spokesman for Miramax Film Corp., also named as a defendant, did not immediately return a call.

Damon did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.

Editor's Note: Denise Lavoie is a Boston-based reporter covering the courts and legal issues. She can be reached at dlavoie@ap.org

BY DENISE LAVOIE
Associated Press

Diana Irey Is Challenging John "Cut and Run" Murtha

Thirty two years is a long time to spend in Washington. For decades, western Pennsylvania looked to John Murtha to stand up for our values. But as the years have drifted by, John Murtha has drifted further and further from the ideals that made this country great. He has become part of the problem in Washington.

While John Murtha is calling for an immediate withdrawal from the war against terror, Diana Irey has been standing steadfastly by our fighting men and women and is committed to finishing the job. And while John Murtha is voting to tax our social security benefits, Diana Irey has been holding the line on taxes and government spending.

This election is about bringing common sense principles back to Congress. Join the fight!

--------------------------------------

About Diana Irey

Diana L. Irey
Washington County Commissioner

Diana Irey, elected in 1996, is the only woman ever to be elected as a Washington County commissioner. She is now in her tenth year of public service.

Diana has held a number of positions helping to steer the Washington County area toward increased economic growth. She served on the board of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission; co-chaired its Committee to Develop the Former Alcoa building into a regional renaissance tower, served on the boards of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance and Pittsburgh Regional Alliance executive board and co-chaired their business attraction committee.

Appointed by Governor Tom Ridge, Diana served on the Port of Pittsburgh Commission. And she is past president of the Mon Valley United Way.

For these and other endeavors, she was named one of the top “60 Pittsburghers of the year” by Pittsburgh Magazine in December 1999 and was honored to be chosen as the 1998 spring distinguished ethics speaker for the Beard Center for Leadership in Ethics at Duquesne University.

Commissioner Irey lives in Carroll Township with her husband Bob and their three children; Victoria (16), Frank (15) and Alexandra (12).

--------------------------------------
Did You Know

Do you know this man?

For years, many of us throughout Pennsylvania trusted John Murtha. We knew him and he looked out for our interests and our values. But that John Murtha is missing today.

After 32 years in Washington, John Murtha has become part of the problem. To name just a few examples:

1. John Murtha – Wrong on Congressional Pay Raises. Since 1995, John Murtha has voted 11 straight times in favor of raising his own pay. (CQ #648, #317, #435, #289, #300, #419, #267, #322, #463, #451, and #327)

2. John Murtha – Wrong on Spending. John Murtha has voted multiple times to raid the social security trust fund – the key to your retirement – to pay for wasteful government spending projects.

3. John Murtha – Wrong on Health Care. John Murtha has voted to actually make your health care more expensive. He even voted against tax-free health savings accounts.

4. John Murtha – Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq.

The Truth About Haditha by Michelle Malkin

Democrat Rep. John "Cut and Run" Murtha thinks he knows the truth about Haditha -- and he has been blabbing it to every last cable show host that will host him. The loose-lipped former Marine has accused troops of wantonly killing some two dozen civilians, including children, "in cold blood" in the terrorist stronghold in Iraq last November. There are two ongoing military investigations into the incident itself and the actions of higher-ups in the Haditha aftermath.

Let me repeat that: The investigations are ongoing. Not complete. Official reports aren't expected for several weeks.

I do not know the truth about Haditha. Neither do Murtha and the media outlets calling the alleged massacre a massacre before all the facts are in. It would be helpful if they could handle these grave charges without serving as al Jazeera satellite offices. GOP Sen. John Warner, who like Murtha also served in the Marines, struck the right tone over the weekend -- refusing, unlike Murtha, to render a verdict against the Marines before trial and avoiding Bush Derangement Syndrome, but also taking the allegations very seriously.

I do know this. Children are dead. Other children have been orphaned. There are pictures of bullet holes and bloodied homes. There are evolving stories about what happened last Nov. 19 and serious allegations of a possible cover-up.

I also know this: Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, the Marine who was killed by a roadside IED (improvised explosive device) that day, followed a proud family tradition of military service. He had received a commendation for bravery on his first tour of duty in Iraq in 2004. One of his fellow Marines said Terrazas's body was split in two by the bomb explosion that rocked his Hummer while on patrol that morning.

And there's this: Haditha is crawling with terrorists. The Associated Press points out that "in just three days last August, six Marine snipers were killed in Haditha and 14 Marines died in nearby Parwana in the deadliest roadside bombing of the war." Most-wanted al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is reported to have lived in Haditha. The Washington Post quoted a military lawyer noting that Nov. 19 was the Marine 3rd Battalion's "hottest day" in Iraq.

"In addition to drone surveillance that day," the paper reported, "AV-8 Harriers were dropping bombs, helicopters were evacuating wounded, and a large firefight occurred about one-third of a mile from the site of the civilian shootings, said several people familiar with the investigation." Audio of radio traffic that day reportedly contradicts Rep. Murtha's claim that the Marines did not come under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion, according to one of the Post's military sources.

We know this, too: Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials have not turned their backs. Time magazine, which initially broke the story of survivors' accounts that prompted the military probe, reports that Haditha residents -- who have yet to be visited by any of Iraq's own officials -- "were gratified by [the investigation's] thoroughness" and "were especially impressed by the NCIS investigators" conducting three separate enquiries.

Finally, there is this incontrovertible fact: There are countless numbers of anti-war zealots on the American Left rooting for failure. They believe the worst about the troops. They've blindly embraced frauds who've lied about their military service and lied about wartime atrocities. They've allied themselves with socialist kooks and coddled murderous dictators. They are looking for any excuse to pull out, abandon military operations and reconstruction, and impeach the president.

They insist on giving suspected foreign terrorists more benefit of the doubt than our own men and women in uniform. And that, I know, I am not willing to do.

I will wait. I will pray. And I will remind you that while the murder of civilians is and remains an anomaly in American military history, it is the jihadists' way of life.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Too soon to judge alleged Iraq killings: Top US General

Charges will be brought against U.S. Marines if an investigation into the alleged killing of unarmed Iraqi civilians uncovers wrongdoing, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace also told CNN that he still did not know why it had taken nearly three months for the Pentagon to find out about the November 19 incident in the Iraqi town of Haditha, in which up to 24 civilians were killed.

"If the allegations as they are being portrayed in the newspapers turn out to be valid, then of course there'll be charges," Pace, the highest ranking U.S. military officer and primary military advisor to the president and defense secretary, said.

Pace said the Pentagon had not found out about the incident until Feb 10.

"We do not know yet why we did not know," he said.

The U.S. military has said 15 civilians were killed in Haditha, about 140 miles northwest of Baghdad. Other accounts put the number at around 24.

A U.S. defense official said on Friday Marines could face criminal charges, possibly including murder, in what would be the worst case of abuse by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"I don't suspect anything," Pace said. "I want to wait for the investigation. We will find out what happened and we will make it public, but to speculate right now wouldn't do anyone any good."

Pace, the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "99.9 percent" of US soldiers in Iraq were conducting themselves with honor and courage.

© Reuters 2006.

SWING VOTERS ON '08 BID: HILL NO! by DEBORAH ORIN

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a polarizing figure who's short on the crossover appeal needed to win the White House, a new poll shows.

The poll found 42 percent of Americans say no way to Clinton in 2008.

Just 19 percent say they'd definitely vote for Clinton, another 38 percent would consider it, and 42 percent say they definitely won't back her if she runs, the ABC News poll found.

That means Clinton could win a majority only by winning over 80 percent of those who are now undecided on her candidacy.

The poll underscored the fact that Clinton has little crossover appeal - 74 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of swing independents say there's no way they'd back her.

By contrast, potential 2008 rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has less support from his base but more crossover appeal. Even among Democrats he has a 50 percent positive, 35 percent negative rating.

That suggests Clinton would find it easier to get her party's nomination but tougher to win a general election. McCain tops Clinton in most polls that pit them against each other.

Clinton gets a boost from women but has trouble with men. Women were 13 percent more likely to back her in the poll of 1,103 adults, conducted May 11-15. It has a 3-point error margin.

It was released as Clinton kicked her Senate reelection bid into high gear - perhaps in preparation for a 2008 campaign launch - by releasing a video that co-stars her ex-president hubby, Bill Clinton.

Clinton's ties to her husband aren't a big issue according to the poll. Just 9 percent say he has too much influence over her, while 14 percent say it's too little and 60 percent say it's about right.

In fact, Bill Clinton's overall ratings are, if anything, slightly better than his wife's. About 59 percent of voters see him favorably compared to 54 percent for her.

A Los Angeles Times editorial yesterday urged Sen. Clinton to skip 2008 so her hubby can succeed Kofi Annan as U.N. secretary-general. "The world needs Bill more than the U.S. needs Hillary," the paper said.

But Asian nations claim it's their turn for the U.N. job, and there's no sign that President Bush would back his predecessor for the post.

deborah.orin@nypost.com

New York Post

Text Of The President's Commencement Address at West Point

Thank you for the warm welcome. General Lennox, Secretary Harvey, members of the United States Congress, Academy staff and faculty, distinguished guests, proud family, and, most importantly, the Class of 2006. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush delivers the commencement speech Saturday, May 27, 2006, to the 2006 graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in West Point, N.Y. "The field of battle is where your degree and commission will take you, " the President told the graduates. "This is the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. Each of you came here in a time of war, knowing all the risks and dangers that come with wearing our nation's uniform. And I want to thank you for your patriotism, your devotion to duty, your courageous decision to serve. America is grateful and proud of the men and women of West Point." White House photo by Shealah Craighead On the way in, General Lennox showed me what you did to his car. (Laughter.) I told him, "That's a fine looking vehicle -- (laughter) -- but you need to stay away from Marine One." (Laughter.)

I see a lot of Gray Hogs out there -- a few Century Men, too. During your four years at this Academy, I'm told there are about 18,000 opportunities to be late for class, drill, march, or inspection -- and many of you availed yourselves of those opportunities. (Laughter.) Others got written up just for having bad haircuts. No matter what reason you got slugged, help is on the way. (Applause.) In keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. I leave it to General Lennox to define exactly what "minor" means. (Laughter.)

It's a privilege to stand before the future leaders of the United States Army. (Applause.) You have worked hard to get to this moment. You survived the hardest Beast on record -- the "best summer of your lives" in Buckistan -- countless hours in the House of Pane. In four years, you've been transformed from "bean-heads" to "yuks," to "cows," and "Firsties." And today you will become proud officers of the greatest Army in the history of the world. (Applause.) Your teachers are proud of you; your parents are proud of you; and so is your Commander-in-Chief. Congratulations on a fantastic achievement. (Applause.)

This Academy has shaped your minds and bodies for the challenges that lie ahead. You worked hard in the classroom and on the playing field to prepare for the rigors of combat. One cadet described the West Point attitude this way: "First I'll beat Navy and Air Force, and then I'll beat the enemies of freedom on the battlefield."

The field of battle is where your degree and commission will take you. This is the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. Each of you came here in a time of war, knowing all the risks and dangers that come with wearing our nation's uniform. And I want to thank you for your patriotism, your devotion to duty, your courageous decision to serve. America is grateful and proud of the men and women of West Point. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush presents a diploma to class valedictorian Jessamyn Jade Liu during 2006 graduation ceremonies Saturday, May 27, 2006, at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y. White House photo by Shealah Craighead The reality of war has surrounded you since your first moments at this Academy. More than 50 of your fellow cadets here at West Point have already seen combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. And 34 times since your class arrived, you have observed a moment of silence in Washington Hall to honor a former cadet fallen in the war on terror. Each loss is heartbreaking -- and each loss has made you even more determined to pick up their mantle, to carry on their fight, and to achieve victory. We will honor the memory of these brave souls. We will finish the task for which they gave their lives. We will complete the mission. (Applause.)

West Point has adapted to prepare you for the war you're about to enter. Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this Academy has established a new Combating Terrorism Center, a new minor in Terrorism Studies, with new courses in counter-insurgency operations, intelligence, and homeland security, and winning the peace. West Point has expanded Arabic language training, has hired new faculty with expertise in Islamic law and culture, brought in members of the 101st and 82nd Airborne to train you and share their experiences on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. And each of you endured grueling Saturday training events where you practiced identifying IEDs, conducting convoy operations and running checkpoints. By changing to meet the new threats, West Point has given you the skills you will need in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and for the long war with Islamic radicalism that will be the focus of much of your military careers.

This Academy went through a similar period of change six decades ago, at the end of World War II. Some of West Point's greatest graduates -- men like Eisenhower and Bradley, Patton and MacArthur -- had just brought our nation victory in Europe and Japan. Yet, almost immediately, a new threat appeared on the horizon -- the threat of Imperial Communism. And West Point, like America, had to prepare for a long struggle with a new adversary, one that would require the determination of generations of Americans.

In the early years of that struggle, freedom's victory was not obvious or assured. In 1947, communist forces were threatening Greece and Turkey, the reconstruction of Germany was faltering, mass starvation was setting in across Europe. In 1948, Czechoslovakia fell to communism; France and Italy appeared to be headed for the same fate, and Berlin was blockaded on the orders of Josef Stalin. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon, giving our new enemy the ability to bring catastrophic destruction to our homeland. And weeks later, communist forces won their revolution in China, and claimed the world's most populous nation for communism. And in the summer of 1950, seven North Korean divisions poured across the border into South Korea, marking the start of the first direct military clash of the Cold War. All of this took place in just the first five years following World War II.

Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy take part in the traditional hat toss Saturday, May 27, 2006, after commencement ceremonies in West Point, N.Y. President George W. Bush delivered the commencement speech to the 861 Cadets. White House photo by Shealah Craighead Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War.

President Truman set a clear doctrine. In a speech to Congress, he called for military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, and announced a new doctrine that would guide American policy throughout the Cold War. He told the Congress: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." With this new doctrine, and with the aid to back it up, Greece and Turkey were saved from communism, and the Soviet expansion into Southern Europe and the Middle East was stopped.

President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When Stalin tested America's resolve with a blockade of Berlin, President Truman launched the Berlin Airlift, delivering supplies to the besieged city, forcing the Red Army to back down, and securing the freedom of West Berlin. Later, Truman again responded to communist aggression with resolve, fighting a difficult war in Korea. The Korean War saw many setbacks, and missteps and terrible losses. More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives in Korea. Yet, in the end, communist forces were pushed back to the 38th Parallel -- and the freedom of South Korea was secure.

President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. In Asia, his administration led the effort to help Japan change from a nation that had launched a surprise attack on America into a thriving democracy and a steadfast ally. In Europe, he launched the Marshall Plan, an unprecedented effort to help Germany and other nations in Europe recover from war and establish strong democracies. The Marshall Plan cost about $100 billion in today's dollars, and it helped to save Western Europe from Soviet tyranny, and led to the emergence of democratic allies that remain indispensable to the cause of peace today.

President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. After World War II, he led the effort to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the first peacetime alliance in American history. NATO served as a military bulwark against communist aggression, and helped give us a Europe that is now whole, free, and at peace.

President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. Despite enormous pressure to bring our troops home after World War II, he kept American forces in Germany to deter Soviet aggression, and kept U.S. forces in Japan as a counterweight to communist China. Together with the deployment of U.S. forces to Korea, the military footprint Truman established on two continents has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and has served as the foundation for security in Europe and in the Pacific.

President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. Working with Congress, he created the Department of Defense, established the Air Force as a separate military service, formed the National Security Council at the White House, and founded the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure America had the best intelligence on Soviet threats.

President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. At a time when some still wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, he brought Winston Churchill to Missouri, to deliver his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. And he issued a presidential directive called NSC-68, which declared that America faced an enemy "animated by a new fanatic faith" and determined to impose its ideology on the entire world. This directive called on the United States to accept the responsibility of world leadership, and defend the cause of freedom and democracy -- and that's exactly what the United States did.

By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America's victory in the Cold War. As President Truman put it towards the end of his presidency, "When history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we set the course that can win it." His leadership paved the way for subsequent Presidents from both political parties -- men like Eisenhower and Kennedy and Reagan -- to confront and eventually defeat the Soviet threat. (Applause.)

Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before -- and like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations for victory. (Applause.) The enemies we face today are different in many ways from the enemy we faced in the Cold War. In the Cold War, we deterred Soviet aggression through a policy of mutually assured destruction. Unlike the Soviet Union, the terrorist enemies we face today hide in caves and shadows -- and emerge to attack free nations from within. The terrorists have no borders to protect, or capital to defend. They cannot be deterred -- but they will be defeated. (Applause.) America will fight the terrorists on every battlefront, and we will not rest until this threat to our country has been removed. (Applause.)

While there are real differences between today's war and the Cold War, there are also many important similarities. Like the Cold War, we are fighting the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, crushes all dissent, has territorial ambitions, and pursues totalitarian aims. Like the Cold War, our enemies are dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and lack the resolve to defend our way of life. Like the Cold War, our enemies believe that the innocent can be murdered to serve a political vision. And like the Cold War, they're seeking weapons of mass murder that would allow them to deliver catastrophic destruction to our country. If our enemies succeed in acquiring such weapons, they will not hesitate to use them, which means they would pose a threat to America as great as the Soviet Union.

Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

Like previous generations, history has once again called America to great responsibilities, and we're answering history's call with confidence. We're confronting new dangers with new determination, and laying the foundations for victory in the war on terror.

In this new war, we have set a clear doctrine. After the attacks of September the 11th, I told a joint session of Congress: America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you are just as guilty as the terrorists and you're an enemy of the United States of America. (Applause.) In the months that followed, I also made clear the principles that will guide us in this new war: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront threats before they fully materialize. We will stay on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When the Taliban regime in Afghanistan tested America's resolve, refusing our just demands to turn over the terrorists who attacked America, we responded with determination. Coalition forces drove the Taliban from power, liberated Afghanistan, and brought freedom to 25 million people. (Applause.) In Iraq, another tyrant chose to test America's resolve. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction, he sponsored terrorists, invaded his neighbors, abused his people, deceived international inspectors, and refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions. (Applause.) When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq and removed his cruel regime. And today, Iraq's former dictator is on trial for his crimes -- and America and the world are better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have helped transform old adversaries into democratic allies. Just as an earlier generation of Americans helped change Germany and Japan from conquered adversaries into democratic allies, today a new generation of Americans is helping Iraq and Afghanistan recover from the ruins of tyranny. In Afghanistan, the terror camps have been shut down, women are working, boys and girls are going to school, and Afghans have chosen a president and a new parliament in free elections. In Iraq, the people defied the terrorists and cast their ballots in three free elections last year. And last week, Iraqis made history when they inaugurated the leaders of a new government of their choosing, under a constitution that they drafted and they approved. When the formation of this unity -- with the formation of this unity government, the world has seen the beginning of something new: a constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. (Applause.) Difficult challenges remain in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But America is safer, and the world is more secure, because these two countries are now democracies -- and they are allies in the cause of freedom and peace. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have forged new alliances, and transformed old ones, for the challenges of a new century. After our nation was attacked, we formed the largest coalition in history to fight the war on terror. More than 90 nations are cooperating in a global campaign to dry up terrorist financing, to hunt down terrorist operatives, and bring terrorist leaders to justice. Nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that once turned a blind eye to terror are now helping lead the fight against it. And since September the 11th, 2001, our coalition has captured or killed al Qaeda managers and operatives in over two dozen countries, and disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots, including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Our nation is more secure because we have rallied the world to confront this threat to civilization. (Applause.)

The greatest threat we face is the danger of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. To confront this danger, we launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, a coalition of more than 70 nations that are working together to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air, and to stop them from falling into terrorist hands. And building on the legacy of Harry Truman, we launched the most dramatic transformation of the NATO Alliance since its founding in 1949. Working with allies, we created a new "NATO Response Force" that will allow NATO to deploy rapid reaction forces on short notice anywhere in the world. And together we transformed NATO from a defensive alliance focused on protecting Europe from Soviet tank invasion into a dynamic alliance that is now operating across the world in the support of democracy and peace.

For five decades, NATO forces never deployed outside of Europe. Today, NATO is leading security operations in Afghanistan, training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, delivering humanitarian relief to earthquake victims in Pakistan, and training peacekeepers in Sudan. An alliance some said had lost its purpose after the Cold War is now meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

In this new war, we're positioning our forces to meet new threats. For more than half a century, American forces essentially had remained in the same places that President Truman deployed them. So, two years ago, I announced the largest transformation of our global force posture since the start of the Cold War. Over the coming decade, we will move U.S. forces from Cold War garrisons in Europe and Asia, and reposition them so they can surge quickly to trouble spots anywhere. We will deploy advanced military capabilities that will increase U.S. combat power across the world, while bringing home between 60,000 and 70,000 troops now stationed overseas. By taking these steps, we will reduce stress on our military families, raise the pressure on our enemies, and ensure that when you put on the uniform of the United States Army you are ready to meet any threat. (Applause.)

In this new war, we've undertaken the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the start of the Cold War. We created a new Department of Homeland Security, merging 22 different government organizations into a single department with a clear mission: to protect America from future attacks. We created the new Director of National Intelligence, which has led a broad restructuring of our nation's intelligence agencies for the threats of the 21st century. We have transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorism, and reorganized the Department of Justice to help us meet this new threat. We passed the Patriot Act, which broke down barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing vital information on terrorist threats.

At the Department of Defense, we created a new Northern Command responsible for homeland defense, a new Strategic Command responsible for defending America against long-range attacks. We transformed the Special Operations Command, more than doubling its budget, adding thousands of new troops, and making it the lead command in the global war on terror. And we're undertaking the largest transformation of the Army in more than a hundred years. Since the turn of the last century, the Army has been organized around the division structure designed by Napoleon. Today, we're replacing that division structure with a 21st century Army built around "modular" brigade combat teams that will be interchangeable and available to work for any division commander. These brigades will make our Army faster and lighter, and more agile and more lethal -- and it will make you more effective in the defense of freedom. (Applause.)

We have made clear that the war on terror is an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. When President Truman spoke here for the 150th anniversary of West Point, he told the Class of 1952: "We can't have lasting peace unless we work actively and vigorously to bring about conditions of freedom and justice in the world." That same principle continues to guide us in today's war on terror. Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. And we learned an important lesson: Decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe. (Applause.) So long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place where terrorists foment resentment and threaten American security.

So we are pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. I believe the desire for liberty is universal -- and by standing with democratic reformers across a troubled region, we will extend freedom to millions who have not known it -- and lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. (Applause.)

We're still in the early stages of this struggle for freedom and, like those first years of the Cold War, we've seen setbacks, and challenges, and days that have tested America's resolve. Yet we've also seen days of victory and hope. We've seen people in Afghanistan voting for the first democratic parliament in a generation. We have seen jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding up ink-stained fingers, celebrating their freedom. We've seen people in Lebanon waving cedar flags and securing the liberty and independence of their land. We've seen people in Kyrgyzstan drive a corrupt regime from power and vote for democratic change. In the past four years alone, more than 110 million human beings across the world have joined the ranks of the free -- and this is only the beginning. (Applause.) The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom -- and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation. (Applause.)

Now the Class of 2006 will enter the great struggle -- and the final outcome depends on your leadership. The war began on my watch -- but it's going to end on your watch. (Applause.) Your generation will bring us victory in the war on terror. My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom, and be bold in freedom's defense. Show leadership and courage -- and not just on the battlefield. Take risk, try new things, and challenge the established way of doing things. Trust in your convictions, stay true to yourselves -- and one day the world will celebrate your achievements. (Applause.)

I have confidence in the final outcome of this struggle, because I know the character and determination of the men and women gathered before me. We see that character and determination in a cadet named Patrick Dowdell. It was Patrick's dream to attend West Point, and he applied straight out of high school, but did not get in on his first try. After being turned down, he wondered if he was cut out for the Academy. His father, New York Fireman Kevin Dowdell, encouraged Patrick to apply again. Kevin wrote letters to his congressman on behalf of his son. And he spent long hours working with Patrick on his application -- right up to September the 9, 2001. Two days later, Kevin Dowdell raced across the Brooklyn Bridge with his fire rescue unit to the burning World Trade Towers -- and he never returned.

After the attack, Patrick spent months digging at Ground Zero, looking for his dad -- and thinking about the dream that they had shared about his future. He was determined to fulfill that dream. And in the summer of 2002, Patrick arrived here at West Point as a new cadet -- and today he will receive his degree and his commission. (Applause.)

A few weeks ago, Patrick's mom, RoseEllen, attended another graduation ceremony -- at the New York City Fire Academy, where her other son, James, followed his father's footsteps as one of New York's Bravest. And today, RoseEllen -- (applause) -- is with us to see Patrick join the ranks of America's bravest, as an officer in the United States Army. (Applause.)

We live in freedom because young Americans like Patrick, and all the cadets here today, have stepped forward to serve. You have chosen a difficult and dangerous vocation -- and America is grateful for that choice. Today, you will accept a sacred trust: You will lead America's sons and daughters on the battlefield in a time of war. Our nation is counting on you as we count on no other group of young leaders in our country. The last four years have tested you in ways you never imagined -- and you leave here well prepared for the challenges you will face.

There's a saying at West Point that much of the history you teach here was made by the people you taught here. Now the Class of 2006 will leave for the battlefield -- and you will make history. Never falter, never quit. Bring honor to the uniform, and pride to your country. May God bless you, and the Class of 2006. (Applause.)

Can't Forget Legacy of Flight 93 by Kerry Dougherty

In the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, some residents of Shanksville, Pa., realized they'd shared the same initial thoughts on that awful day.

As they watched the horrors in New York and Washington unfold on TV, they were grateful to be in rural America, far from the big cities that were under siege.

So what if the coal-mining and farming region was in the economic doldrums? There were worse fates than a modest lifestyle, they thought. At least they were safe.

We all know what happened that morning. Here's a chronology courtesy of CNN and the National Park Service:

At 8:45, an airliner hit the north tower of the World Trade Center.

At 9:03, a jet flew into the south tower.

At 9:43, the Pentagon was hit.

A bout 10:03, Donna Glessner and her Shanksville neighbors heard a mighty boom.

Blasts are common in the coalfields, but the locals knew instantly this was not one of the planned explosions that miners call "shooting the coal." Those blasts shake the ground, all right, but the sound is muffled.

This explosion was deafening. Besides that, the ground shook so violently that Glessner feared her house would fall. She grabbed her home-schooled son and daughter and ran outside.

Fear. There's no other word for it.

"My first thought was, 'Man, if they're dropping bombs on Shanksville, we're in trouble,' " Glessner recalls.

Three miles away, an ominous black cloud was rising above an abandoned surface mine. United Flight 93 had just slammed into the ground at about 580 mph.

The Boeing 757 smashed into a field after passengers attacked the hijackers.

Some say the hijacked jet was gunning for the Capitol. Others say the White House. Or Camp David. One thing's certain: If the courageous people on board hadn't stopped the terrorists, the Sept. 11 death toll could have been much higher.

We all owe the passengers and crew of United 93 a debt of gratitude. Shanksville, especially.

Glessner says if the jet had stayed airborne just a few seconds longer, it would have turned the Shanksville-Stonycreek School into a crater. There were about 500 children there that morning.

Volunteer firefighters roared to the crash. The FBI was on the scene within the hour. Federal investigators sifted through the charred rubble for months.

The trees that line the field were burned and embedded with debris from the impact. Out of respect for the 40 dead, the stumps were mulched and piled in a small hill.

That mound is still there. I saw it last week.

Like many of the thousands of other pilgrims who some?how find their way to the crash site each week, I didn't set out to go there. I spied "Shanksville" on the map as I traveled the Pennsylvania Turnpike and impulsively made a detour.

I'm glad I did.

It's a bleak, windy place with a makeshift memorial. Just a tall chain-link fence festooned with baseball caps, rosaries and American flags. The names of the seven crew members and 33 passengers who died are inscribed on park benches.

Near the rough parking lot there's a small shelter, about the size of a tool shed. Inside, volunteers tell the story of the jetliner.

That was Glessner's idea. Shortly after the crash, she stood up at the Shanksville United Methodist Church and asked whether anyone wanted to join her in learning all they could about United Flight 93 so they could staff the site.

Today there are 42 "ambassadors." They don't seek publicity. There will be more than enough of that when the National Park Service opens the Flight 93 National Memorial in about five years.

Nevertheless, people from around the world come in a steady stream to pay their respects and sign the guest book.

"I may write about this place for Memorial Day weekend," I told Glessner.

You should, she said.

"Some people say the people on board were citizen soldiers."

Come to think of it, they were.

# Reach Kerry at (757) 446-2306 or kerry.dougherty@cox.net.

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 27, 2006

Acting on Assumptions with Iran & Iraq By Michael Barone

To learn lessons from history, including recent history, it's essential to get the history right. That's why, in order to understand what to do about the mullahs' regime in Iran, it's worth revisiting the debate over the intelligence in Iraq.

For large swathes of the mainstream media, the debate is over. In their view, George W. Bush misled the nation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, his officials manipulated the intelligence and cherry-picked items that supported their views and there was an "intelligence failure" on the issue of whether Iraq had WMD programs.

But all these points are false. Bush accurately reported what the intelligence agencies, not just our own but those of other countries, reported. Neither Bush nor his leading officials manipulated the intelligence, according to both the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission on intelligence. And the so-called "intelligence failure," I would argue, was not a failure at all -- and if the conclusions of the intelligence agencies were wrong (and remember that we don't know for sure whether Saddam spirited WMDs out of the country), that only reflected the inherent limits on the intelligence craft.

Put yourself back in the frame of mind of administration officials and citizens generally in the months before our military action in Iraq. We knew some things for certain. Saddam's regime had developed and used WMDs before. It had a nuclear weapons program that, we found after the 1991 Gulf War, was farther along than we thought. Saddam had repeatedly refused to cooperate with inspections and had violated resolution after U.N. resolution.

In those circumstances, Saddam was not entitled to a presumption of innocence. To the contrary, any responsible American president would have had to assume that he was continuing to develop and might be prepared to use WMD. Bill Clinton was acting responsibly when he so assumed in the late 1990s. George W. Bush was acting responsibly when he did so in 2002 and 2003.

And, indeed, we were told in September 2004 by weapons inspector Charles Duelfer that Saddam retained the capacity to start up WMD programs at any time. But it also appears that those programs were not active during the run-up to March 2003. That information was unknowable at that time, however. What intelligence information could have convinced us beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam's WMD programs were dormant? Information from someone high in the regime? Quite possibly disinformation. The failure of inspections to locate WMD installations? They were easy to hide in a large country. A sworn affidavit from Saddam himself? You've got to be kidding.

The precise facts were unknowable, and so decisions had to be made on the facts that were known -- all of which pointed to Saddam's developing WMDs. Intelligence agencies in the past overestimated the time it would take regimes -- the Soviet Union, China, India, Iraq -- to develop nuclear weapons. Under the circumstances, it was prudent to act on the assumption that WMDs would be developed sooner rather than later.

Fast forward to today, and Iran. We have every reason to believe that the mullahs' regime is developing nuclear weapons. We know that Britain, France and Germany in three years of talks with Iranian officials have made no progress in persuading them to stop. And we know that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to destroy Israel and to attack other countries. His letter to President Bush, taken by some as an invitation to talks, reads like a demand for capitulation to fundamentalist Islam.

What to do in these circumstances? First, assume that Iran is bent on getting nuclear weapons -- and don't rely totally on estimates that it won't get them for 10 years. Second, understand that the case for military action is not as strong as it was in Iraq. Iran is a much larger country, and the nuclear program sites are widely dispersed and probably strongly fortified. Third, -- and most importantly -- there is every indication that the Iranian people hate the mullahs' regime and like the United States.

That means that direct negotiations with the Iranian government, which seem sure to be futile, could give the regime prestige and reduce the chances of its peaceful overthrow. But be clear about maintaining the military option: It seems likely that air strikes could substantially delay if not destroy Iran's nuclear program. And keep stepping up direct communications with the Iranian people.

There's no easy answer on Iran, as there has been no easy answer on Iraq. But we can't assume there is no problem, as Bush's critics say he should have done on Iraq. We need to keep up the pressure on the mullahs. And keep our nerve.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Make Memorial Day a Time to Honor our Troops by Mary Laney

It's Memorial Day morning. While you're planning your holiday, consider how thousands of other Americans are spending it. While you shop for that cookout, as you push your cart through the aisles of the grocery store, consider for a moment the young servicemen and women around the world who are patrolling skies and streets in foreign lands. While you load charcoal into your grill, they're loading ammunition into weaponry. As you get together with friends, American men and women are guarding the backs of fellow soldiers. While you greet your friends and relatives at the door, consider the brave Americans who cannot be home with their loved ones. As you lift a glass in toast to friends, they are lifting the bodies of wounded or fallen comrades.

Take a moment this Memorial Day to remember not only those who have died to protect America, but also those who are still serving in lands far, far away. We are at war, and these brave men and women volunteered to put their lives in the service of America. They are the real American heroes -- the true American idols -- without whom America could not remain free.

If you don't have plans for this holiday, it's not too late to make an important one. Get in your car or board a bus and travel to a Veterans Administration hospital and spend some time visiting the men and women who are inside, recovering from injuries they suffered while in the service of your America. Take time this Memorial Day to thank them. Bring the whole family along, and tell the veterans how much you appreciate what they have given for each and every one of us.

There has been far too much attention given to illegal immigrants and the rights they are demanding. The nation has been witness to parades of protest where illegal immigrants demand American rights. What about the rights for America's bravest? Where are the massive parades and flag waving for them? They have volunteered to serve, have put their lives and jobs on hold to serve. They are the people who should be first in line for jobs, special services, home mortgages, lower tuitions and the like.

Let's take politics out of play for today and put reality in its place. Whether you believe in the war or not, you must believe in the bravery of our American servicemen and women. Honor them today.

I received an e-mail from my sister and brother-in-law, whose son, my nephew Sean, is an Army sergeant serving in Iraq. They asked me to join in a national movement to honor our armed services. At 3 p.m. today, the e-mail notified me, Major League Baseball will pause in silence, Amtrak trains will blow their whistles, and military installations, veterans' service organizations, schools, hospitals, national parks, airports, bus lines and the International Space Station will take a minute of silence to honor those who serve, those who lie in hospitals and those who have died in wars. I will join in this movement, and I ask you to join as well, with one minute of silence at 3 this afternoon.

I would hope that the ACLU --which is currently suing the Veterans Memorial in San Diego to remove a cross -- would take a moment from its cases and honor the veterans.

I hope that members of Congress step back from their debates over what rights should be given to those who have illegally come to America and consider on this day the rights and honors that should be rightfully given to our veterans -- including the legal immigrants who have served in the military and are still serving today.

I hope that if you have children, you teach them who the real heroes are. I hope you take a moment to tell them what today is all about.

Today is Memorial Day. It is not just a holiday from work. It is a day to remember the sacrifices, the bravery and the heroism of military men and women.

Today is Memorial Day. There is only one flag to fly today, and that is the American flag. Put all other flags away today, and put up the Stars and Stripes. Fly it proudly from your homes, apartments or patio decks.

We have a great country. Don't be swayed by those who say otherwise. People from around the world want to come here. You may see televised protests against America staged across the globe, but consider this: People in each of those countries where the protests are held are trying to come here. We are America. We have freedom. And we have our freedom due to our brave servicemen and women who have fought for it.

Today is Memorial Day. Celebrate it the way it is meant to be celebrated -- with honor.


Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.

The Real Iraq by Amir Taheri

Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as signs of the countrys impending or undeclared civil war. Add to all this the days alleged scandal or revelationan outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessmentand it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.

It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject; naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the Brookings Institutions much-cited Iraq Index with its constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of the country on the ground.

To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.

For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in Iraqa country I first visited in 1968current reality there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraqs future. It helps to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi and Middle Eastern history.

Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the countrys condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurateas accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive direction.

The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly desperate in Iraqin 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape. In 1973, for example, when Saddam Hussein decided to expel all those whose ancestors had not been Ottoman citizens before Iraqs creation as a state, some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes in the space of just six weeks. This was not the temporary exile of a small group of middle-class professionals and intellectuals, which is a common enough phenomenon in most Arab countries. Rather, it was a departure en masse, affecting people both in small villages and in big cities, and it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.

Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television setsand we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the 1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed down. The oldest such center, at Ashrafiayh in southwest Iran, was formally shut when its last Iraqi guests returned home in 2004.

A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement, but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these cities. Since Saddams fall, they have been flooded with visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.

Over 3,000 Iraqi clerics have also returned from exile, and Shiite seminaries, which just a few years ago held no more than a few dozen pupils, now boast over 15,000 from 40 different countries. This is because Najaf, the oldest center of Shiite scholarship, is once again able to offer an alternative to Qom, the Iranian holy city where a radical and highly politicized version of Shiism is taught. Those wishing to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of Shiism now go to Iraq where, unlike in Iran, the seminaries are not controlled by the government and its secret police.

A third sign, this one of the hard economic variety, is the value of the Iraqi dinar, especially as compared with the regions other major currencies. In the final years of Saddam Husseins rule, the Iraqi dinar was in free fall; after 1995, it was no longer even traded in Iran and Kuwait. By contrast, the new dinar, introduced early in 2004, is doing well against both the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, having risen by 17 percent against the former and by 23 percent against the latter. Although it is still impossible to fix its value against a basket of international currencies, the new Iraqi dinar has done well against the U.S. dollar, increasing in value by almost 18 percent between August 2004 and August 2005. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians and Kuwaitis, now treat it as a safe and solid medium of exchange

My fourth time-tested sign is the level of activity by small and medium-sized businesses. In the past, whenever things have gone downhill in Iraq, large numbers of such enterprises have simply closed down, with the countrys most capable entrepreneurs decamping to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Iran, and even Europe and North America. Since liberation, however, Iraq has witnessed a private-sector boom, especially among small and medium-sized businesses.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, as well as numerous private studies, the Iraqi economy has been doing better than any other in the region. The countrys gross domestic product rose to almost $90 billion in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), more than double the output for 2003, and its real growth rate, as estimated by the IMF, was 52.3 per cent. In that same period, exports increased by more than $3 billion, while the inflation rate fell to 25.4 percent, down from 70 percent in 2002. The unemployment rate was halved, from 60 percent to 30 percent.

Related to this is the level of agricultural activity. Between 1991 and 2003, the countrys farm sector experienced unprecedented decline, in the end leaving almost the entire nation dependent on rations distributed by the United Nations under Oil-for-Food. In the past two years, by contrast, Iraqi agriculture has undergone an equally unprecedented revival. Iraq now exports foodstuffs to neighboring countries, something that has not happened since the 1950s. Much of the upturn is due to smallholders who, shaking off the collectivist system imposed by the Baathists, have retaken control of land that was confiscated decades ago by the state.

Finally, one of the surest indices of the health of Iraqi society has always been its readiness to talk to the outside world. Iraqis are a verbalizing people; when they fall silent, life is incontrovertibly becoming hard for them. There have been times, indeed, when one could find scarcely a single Iraqi, whether in Iraq or abroad, prepared to express an opinion on anything remotely political. This is what Kanan Makiya meant when he described Saddam Husseins regime as a republic of fear.

Today, again by way of dramatic contrast, Iraqis are voluble to a fault. Talk radio, television talk-shows, and Internet blogs are all the rage, while heated debate is the order of the day in shops, tea-houses, bazaars, mosques, offices, and private homes. A catharsis is how Luay Abdulilah, the Iraqi short-story writer and diarist, describes it. This is one way of taking revenge against decades of deadly silence. Moreover, a vast network of independent media has emerged in Iraq, including over 100 privately-owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio and television stations. To anyone familiar with the state of the media in the Arab world, it is a truism that Iraq today is the place where freedom of expression is most effectively exercised.

That an experienced observer of Iraq with a sense of history can point to so many positive factors in the countrys present condition will not do much, of course, to sway the more determined critics of the U.S. intervention there. They might even agree that the images fed to the American public show only part of the picture, and that the news from Iraq is not uniformly bad. But the root of their opposition runs deeper, to political fundamentals.

Their critique can be summarized in the aphorism that democracy cannot be imposed by force. It is a view that can be found among the more sophisticated elements on the Left and, increasingly, among dissenters on the Right, from Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska to the ex-neoconservative Francis Fukuyama. As Senator Hagel puts it, You cannot in my opinion just impose a democratic form of government on a country with no history and no culture and no tradition of democracy.

I would tend to agree. But is Iraq such a place? In point of fact, before the 1958 pro-Soviet military coup detat that established a leftist dictatorship, Iraq did have its modest but nevertheless significant share of democratic history, culture, and tradition. The country came into being through a popular referendum held in 1921. A constitutional monarchy modeled on the United Kingdom, it had a bicameral parliament, several political parties (including the Baath and the Communists), and periodic elections that led to changes of policy and government. At the time, Iraq also enjoyed the freest press in the Arab world, plus the widest space for debate and dissent in the Muslim Middle East.

To be sure, Baghdad in those days was no Westminster, and, as the 1958 coup proved, Iraqi democracy was fragile. But every serious student of contemporary Iraq knows that substantial segments of the population, from all ethnic and religious communities, had more than a taste of the modern worlds democratic aspirations. As evidence, one need only consult the immense literary and artistic production of Iraqis both before and after the 1958 coup. Under successor dictatorial regimes, it is true, the conviction took hold that democratic principles had no future in Iraqa conviction that was responsible in large part for driving almost five million Iraqis, a quarter of the population, into exile between 1958 and 2003, just as the opposite conviction is attracting so many of them and their children back to Iraq today.

A related argument used to condemn Iraqs democratic prospects is that it is an artificial country, one that can be held together only by a dictator. But did any nation-state fall from the heavens wholly made? All are to some extent artificial creations, and the U.S. is preeminently so. The truth is that Iraqone of the 53 founding countries of the United Nationsis older than a majority of that organizations current 198 member states. Within the Arab League, and setting aside Oman and Yemen, none of the 22 members is older. Two-thirds of the 122 countries regarded as democracies by Freedom House came into being after Iraqs appearance on the map.

Critics of the democratic project in Iraq also claim that, because it is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state, the country is doomed to despotism, civil war, or disintegration. But the same could be said of virtually all Middle Eastern states, most of which are neither multi-ethnic nor multi-confessional. More important, all Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic, linguistic, and sectarian differences, share a sense of national identityuruqa (Iraqi-ness)that has developed over the past eight decades. A unified, federal state may still come to grief in Iraqhistory is not written in advancebut even should a divorce become inevitable at some point, a democratic Iraq would be in a better position to manage it.

What all of this demonstrates is that, contrary to received opinion, Operation Iraqi Freedom was not an attempt to impose democracy by force. Rather, it was an effort to use force to remove impediments to democratization, primarily by deposing a tyrant who had utterly suppressed a well-established aspect of the countrys identity. It may take years before we know for certain whether or not post-liberation Iraq has definitely chosen democracy. But one thing is certain: without the use of force to remove the Baathist regime, the people of Iraq would not have had the opportunity even to contemplate a democratic future.

Assessing the progress of that democratic project is no simple matter. But, by any reasonable standard, Iraqis have made extraordinary strides. In a series of municipal polls and two general elections in the past three years, up to 70 percent of eligible Iraqis have voted. This new orientation is supported by more than 60 political parties and organizations, the first genuinely free-trade unions in the Arab world, a growing number of professional associations acting independently of the state, and more than 400 nongovernmental organizations representing diverse segments of civil society. A new constitution, written by Iraqis representing the full spectrum of political, ethnic, and religious sensibilities was overwhelmingly approved by the electorate in a referendum last October.

Iraqs new democratic reality is also reflected in the vocabulary of politics used at every level of society. Many new wordsaccountability, transparency, pluralism, dissenthave entered political discourse in Iraq for the first time. More remarkably, perhaps, all parties and personalities currently engaged in the democratic process have committed themselves to the principle that power should be sought, won, and lost only through free and fair elections.

These democratic achievements are especially impressive when set side by side with the declared aims of the enemies of the new Iraq, who have put up a determined fight against it. Since the countrys liberation, the jihadists and residual Baathists have killed an estimated 23,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, in scores of random attacks and suicide operations. Indirectly, they have caused the death of thousands more, by sabotaging water and electricity services and by provoking sectarian revenge attacks.

But they have failed to translate their talent for mayhem and murder into political success. Their campaign has not succeeded in appreciably slowing down, let alone stopping, the countrys democratization. Indeed, at each step along the way, the jihadists and Baathists have seen their self-declared objectives thwarted.

After the invasion, they tried at first to prevent the formation of a Governing Council, the expression of Iraqs continued existence as a sovereign nation-state. They managed to murder several members of the council, including its president in 2003, but failed to prevent its formation or to keep it from performing its task in the interim period. The next aim of the insurgents was to stop municipal elections. Their message was simple: candidates and voters would be killed. But, once again, they failed: thousands of men and women came forward as candidates and more than 1.5 million Iraqis voted in the localities where elections were held.

The insurgency made similar threats in the lead-up to the first general election, and the result was the same. Despite killing 36 candidates and 148 voters, they failed to derail the balloting, in which the number of voters rose to more than 8 million. Nor could the insurgency prevent the writing of the new democratic constitution, despite a campaign of assassination against its drafters. The text was ready in time and was submitted to and approved by a referendum, exactly as planned. The number of voters rose yet again, to more than 9 million.

What of relations among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurdsthe focus of so much attention of late? For almost three years, the insurgency worked hard to keep the Arab Sunni community, which accounts for some 15 percent of the population, out of the political process. But that campaign collapsed when millions of Sunnis turned out to vote in the constitutional referendum and in the second general election, which saw almost 11 million Iraqis go to the polls. As I write, all political parties representing the Arab Sunni minority have joined the political process and have strong representation in the new parliament. With the convening of that parliament, and the nomination in April of a new prime minister and a three-man presidential council, the way is open for the formation of a broad-based government of national unity to lead Iraq over the next four years.

As for the insurgencys effort to foment sectarian violencea strategy first launched in earnest toward the end of 2005this too has run aground. The hope here was to provoke a full-scale war between the Arab Sunni minority and the Arab Shiites who account for some 60 percent of the population. The new strategy, like the ones previously tried, has certainly produced many deaths. But despite countless cases of sectarian killings by so-called militias, there is still no sign that the Shiites as a whole will acquiesce in the role assigned them by the insurgency and organize a concerted campaign of nationwide retaliation.

Finally, despite the impression created by relentlessly dire reporting in the West, the insurgency has proved unable to shut down essential government services. Hundreds of teachers and schoolchildren have been killed in incidents including the beheading of two teachers in their classrooms this April and horrific suicide attacks against school buses. But by September 2004, most schools across Iraq and virtually all universities were open and functioning. By September 2005, more than 8.5 million Iraqi children and young people were attending school or universityan all-time record in the nations history.

A similar story applies to Iraqs clinics and hospitals. Between October 2003 and January 2006, more than 80 medical doctors and over 400 nurses and medical auxiliaries were murdered by the insurgents. The jihadists also raided several hospitals, killing ordinary patients in their beds. But, once again, they failed in their objectives. By January 2006, all of Iraqs 600 state-owned hospitals and clinics were in full operation, along with dozens of new ones set up by the private sector since liberation.

Another of the insurgencys strategic goals was to bring the Iraqi oil industry to a halt and to disrupt the export of crude. Since July 2003, Iraqs oil infrastructure has been the target of more than 3,000 attacks and attempts at sabotage. But once more the insurgency has failed to achieve its goals. Iraq has resumed its membership in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and has returned to world markets as a major oil exporter. According to projections, by the end of 2006 it will be producing its full OPEC quota of 2.8 million barrels a day.

The Baathist remnant and its jihadist allies resemble a gambler who wins a heap of chips at a roulette table only to discover that he cannot exchange them for real money at the front desk. The enemies of the new Iraq have succeeded in ruining the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis, but over the past three years they have advanced their overarching goals, such as they are, very little. Instead, they have been militarily contained and politically defeated again and again, and the beneficiary has been Iraqi democracy.

None of this means that the new Iraq is out of the woods. Far from it. Democratic success still requires a great deal of patience, determination, and luck. The U.S.-led coalition, its allies, and partners have achieved most of their major political objectives, but that achievement remains under threat and could be endangered if the U.S., for whatever reason, should decide to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.

The current mandate of the U.S.-led coalition runs out at the end of this year, and it is unlikely that Washington and its allies will want to maintain their military presence at current levels. In the past few months, more than half of the 103 bases used by the coalition have been transferred to the new Iraqi army. The best guess is that the number of U.S. and coalition troops could be cut from 140,000 to 25,000 or 30,000 by the end of 2007.

One might wonder why, if the military mission has been so successful, the U.S. still needs to maintain a military presence in Iraq for at least another two years. There are three reasons for this.

The first is to discourage Iraqs predatory neighbors, notably Iran and Syria, which might wish to pursue their own agendas against the new government in Baghdad. Iran has already revived some claims under the Treaties of Erzerum (1846), according to which Tehran would enjoy a droit de regard over Shiite shrines in Iraq. In Syria, some in that countrys ruling circles have invoked the possibility of annexing the area known as Jazirah, the so-called Sunni triangle, in the name of Arab unity. For its part, Turkey is making noises about the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which gave it a claim to the oilfields of northern Iraq. All of these pretensions need to be rebuffed.

The second reason for extending Americas military presence is political. The U.S. is acting as an arbiter among Iraqs various ethnic and religious communities and political factions. It is, in a sense, a traffic cop, giving Iraqis a green or red light when and if needed. It is important that the U.S. continue performing this role for the first year or two of the newly elected parliament and government.

Finally, the U.S. and its allies have a key role to play in training and testing Iraqs new army and police. Impressive success has already been achieved in that field. Nevertheless, the new Iraqi army needs at least another year or two before it will have developed adequate logistical capacities and learned to organize and conduct operations involving its various branches.

But will the U.S. stay the course? Many are betting against it. The Baathists and jihadists, their prior efforts to derail Iraqi democracy having come to naught, have now pinned their hopes on creating enough chaos and death to persuade Washington of the futility of its endeavors. In this, they have the tacit support not only of local Arab and Muslim despots rightly fearful of the democratic genie but of all those in the West whose own incessant theme has been the certainty of American failure. Among Bush-haters in the U.S., just as among anti-Americans around the world, predictions of civil war in Iraq, of spreading regional hostilities, and of a revived global terrorism are not about to cease any time soon.

But more sober observers should understand the real balance sheet in Iraq. Democracy is succeeding. Moreover, thanks to its success in Iraq, there are stirrings elsewhere in the region. Beyond the much-publicized electoral concessions wrung from authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, there is a new democratic discourse to be heard. Nationalism and pan-Arabism, yesterdays hollow rallying cries, have given way to a big idea of a very different kind. Debate and dissent are in the air where there was none beforea development owing, in significant measure, to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and the brilliant if still checkered Iraqi response.

The stakes, in short, could not be higher. This is all the more reason to celebrate, to build on, and to consolidate what has already been accomplished. Instead of railing against the Bush administration, Americas elites would do better, and incidentally display greater self-respect, to direct their wrath where it properly belongs: at those violent and unrestrained enemies of democracy in Iraq who are, in truth, the enemies of democracy in America as well, and of everything America has ever stood for.

Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe todays Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?



Amir Taheri, formerly the executive editor of Kayhan, Irans largest daily newspaper, is the author of ten books and a frequent contributor to numerous publications in the Middle East and Europe. His work appears regularly in the New York Post.

Mexican Migrants: Troops Won't Stop Us

President Bush's decision to send the National Guard to the Mexican border drew an angry response from migrants who said troops would not deter them, while Mexico's government said Monday it would respect the U.S. action as "a sovereign decision."

After Bush announced the plan to send 6,000 soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border late Monday, would-be migrants at a shelter in the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez said the presence of troops would not stop them from sneaking across the Rio Grande.

"I have no work in my country so if the soldiers turn me back, I will try again," said Raul Garduno, a 28-year old Salvadoran.

On Sunday, President Vicente Fox telephoned Bush to express concern about what he called plans to "militarize" the border. But on Monday, Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Mexico had no choice but to respect the action.

"It is a sovereign decision," he said. "We can't interfere."

In a further sign that Mexico would not take a strong stance against the U.S. announcement, the Foreign Relations Department released a statement saying that Bush's message showed a "recognition of the importance of immigrants to the social, political and economic life (of the United States) and reinforced the vision that the migration phenomenon needs an integral reform."

But presidential hopeful Felipe Calderon from Fox's National Action Party said the military presence would endanger migrants, while failing to stop the human wave heading northwards.

"These measures have been proven mistaken. They increase the social and human costs for migrants and only benefit criminal groups that make money on the hopes and suffering of those looking for an opportunity," Calderon said in a statement.

In a migrant shelter in Ciudad Juarez, a group of 10 Central Mexicans and Central Americans watched a soap opera while Bush's speech was broadcast live on the other channel.

"People here have more important things to do then watch Bush," said Carlos Amado Luarca, a Dominican monk who works in the shelter. "This plan to send soldiers is one more sign of the decadence of the American empire."

Along the border in Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Honduran Antonio Auriel said he would make it into the United States whatever was in his path.

"Soldiers in the border? That won't stop me. I'll swim the river and jump the wall. I'm going to arrive in the United States," Auriel said.

Francisco Loureiro, who runs a migrant shelter in Nogales, across the border from Nogales, Ariz., criticized the plan as an "aggressive action, more than anything because the migrant is not a criminal or a terrorist."

"His only objective is to work ... and a government that supposedly lobbies for world peace is now acting against defenseless migrants who are helping to fill a need for employees in the U.S.," he said.

U.S. ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza issued a statement defending Bush's decision.

"The United States has the right as a sovereign nation to make our border region more secure," Garza said. "The president is the commander in chief of the United States, and his responsibilities include ensuring the safety of the American people."

© 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Inside Guantanamo Bay by Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr

I lead the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians responsible for the safe and humane care and custody of the unlawful enemy combatants held here at Guantanamo--a responsibility we take very seriously.

The question of what to do with enemy combatants--committed jihadists and terrorists--is relevant and important. As the person responsible for the detention of our nation's enemies held here, I appreciate and applaud the Chicago Tribune's posing of this serious question to your readership Sunday. Col. Robert McCormick would be pleased with the Tribune's efforts to address the pressing issues of our day.

The Tribune's characterization of Guantanamo as a "detention camp" is precisely correct. Despite our persistent efforts to correct the record, many mainstream outlets--print, voice and electronic--persist in referring to this facility as a "prison camp." This is not mere parsing of words or semantic folderol. Prisons are about punishment and rehabilitation; Guantanamo is about neither. What we are about is the detention of unlawful enemy combatants--dangerous men associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban captured on the battlefield waging war on America and our allies, running from that battlefield, or otherwise closely associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban--and, as you correctly pointed out, preventing them from returning to the fight. We hold men who proudly admit membership at the leadership level in Al Qaeda and the Taliban, many with direct personal contact and knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, attackers. We are keeping terrorist recruiters, facilitators, explosives trainers, bombers and bombmakers, Osama bin Laden bodyguards and financiers from continuing their jihad against America.

Virtual tour

I do reject out of hand, however, the Tribune's notion that we are somehow delinquent in our moral responsibility to transform the camp and that the camp is "unsatisfactory." This is simply not true. Your editorial is either misleading or ill-informed. Conditions have improved dramatically for detainees since they first arrived in 2002. More important, we aggressively look for ways to build on the "safe and humane care and custody" mission with which I opened this dialogue.

Today, a large number of detainees live in Camp 4, a communal-living facility where they are housed in a barracks setting with access to 12 hours of recreation and exercise per day. We provide ample exercise areas and equipment for them. Additionally, work is nearly complete on our new Camp 6, a $30 million modern medium-security facility that will make life even better for the detainees, while adding safeguards for the troops and civilians who work here. The design of Camp 6 is based on a medium-security facility in the U.S.

All detainees at Guantanamo are provided with three meals a day that meet cultural (halal) dietary requirements--meals which, incidentally, cost three times what meals for our servicemen and -women here cost. We fully meet special dietary needs (e.g., Type 2 diabetics, vegetarians, fish-but-not-red-meat-eaters etc.) of many of our detainees. We provide safe shelter and living areas with beds, mattresses, sheets and running-water toilets. We also provide adequate clothing, including shoes and uniforms, and the normal range of hygiene items, such as a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap and shampoo. Even so, many detainees have taken advantage of this--crafting killing weapons from toothbrushes and garrotes from food wrappers, for example.

In good faith

Detainees enjoy broad opportunities to practice their Muslim faith, including the requisite calls to prayer five times per day, prayer beads, rugs and copies of the Koran in their native languages from some 40 countries. Directional arrows pointing to Mecca have been painted in every cell and camp. The American guard force is specifically prohibited from touching detainees' Korans. Some detainees have attempted to use this restriction to their advantage by secreting messages, contraband and the like within their Korans. When prayer call is sounded, the guards set out "prayer cones"--traffic cones stenciled with the letter "P"--for the 30 minutes of prayer call, as a visible reminder for the guards to avoid noise and disruption. This procedure was implemented after it was suggested by a detainee.

We have other camps where detainees who fail to follow camp rules are housed. As with Camp 4, these detainees are provided fair and humane treatment, have ample access to recreation time and equipment, equal access to medical and dental care, equal opportunity to practice their religion and other privileges. As are their colleagues in Camp 4, they are well-cared for and protected from inhumane treatment.

Detainees have sent and received more than 44,000 pieces of mail since February 2002, and our fully staffed detainee library has thousands of books and magazines for their use. Our library team just returned from a book-buying trip, adding nearly 2,000 Arabic titles to the library.

Doctors in the house

We provide outstanding medical care to every detainee, the same quality as what our service members receive. We are improving the health and extending the life span of the detainee population in our charge. Last year, we completed building a $2.4 million camp hospital to treat detainees. To date, we have completed more than 300 surgeries, including an angioplasty, and more than 5,000 dental procedures. We provide eye care and issued almost 200 pairs of glasses last year. We have given nearly 3,000 voluntary vaccinations, including diphtheria, tetanus, mumps, measles and rubella--in many cases they are the first immunizations detainees have ever received--as well as treatment for hepatitis, influenza and latent tuberculosis. We offer complete colon cancer screenings to all of our detainees who are more than 50 years old, and a variety of medical specialists provide preventive and restorative care.

Two weeks ago, a detainee broke his ankle playing soccer--what makes his case extraordinary is that he is a one-legged man! The quality of the prosthetic device he was given and the therapy he receives enabled him to play soccer. I have every confidence that he will soon return to that playing field. That said, many detainees persist in mixing a blood-urine-feces-semen cocktail and throwing this deadly concoction into the faces of the American men and women who guard them, feed them and care for them. Most of the time after such an assault, our guards decline the opportunity to take a day off. After a quick medical checkup and a shower, they prefer to put on a clean uniform and return to duty. And the only retribution they exact on the detainees is to simply continue to serve with pride, dignity and humanity.

Passing inspections

The International Committee of the Red Cross, which enjoys full diplomatic status, has unfettered access to the detainees. Their reports are useful, meaningful and confidential. They have helped us improve conditions here. I will note that, on April 25, Reuters reported that "detainees are enjoying better treatment at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, and the Red Cross is satisfied with its access to them ... Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said detention conditions at Guantanamo had `improved considerably' over the past four years ... He called it `extremely regrettable' that the intense media focus on Guantanamo seemed to distract from troubled sites in places like Chechnya and Myanmar, where the ICRC has suspended prison visits over disagreements with local authorities."

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe had positive remarks to say about us based on its visit here this past March. As reported by Reuters, Alain Grignard, deputy head of Brussels' federal police anti-terrorism unit, at a press conference following an OSCE visit, said, "At the level of the detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons." Anne-Marie Lizin, chairwoman of the Belgian Senate, told reporters at this same press conference that she saw no point in calling for the immediate closure of Guantanamo.

Danger within

The U.S. government remains committed to not detaining any person any longer than is absolutely required. We are, in fact, outright releasing or transferring detainees to their home countries and other nations willing to accept them. In my reading of history, simply releasing enemy combatants during the course of an ongoing war is unprecedented.

Despite articles written by defense attorneys and young translators arguing the contrary, these are, in fact, dangerous men in our custody. Make no mistake about it--we are keeping enemies of our nation off the battlefield. This is an enormous challenge. These terrorists are not represented by any nation or government. They do not adhere to the rules of war. That said, we treat them humanely, in full compliance with all laws and international obligations.

The young Americans serving here in Guantanamo are upholding the highest ideals of honor and duty in a remote location, face to face with some of the most dangerous men on the planet. Your readers should be proud of them. I am proud to be their commander.

----------

Navy Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr. is commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which is responsible for detainee operations and intelligence gathering at the camp.


By Navy Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which is responsible for detainee operations and intelligence gathering at the camp
Published May 17, 2006
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Clintonian On the Board by Rich Lowry

President Bush has a bold new approach to immigration enforcement: He wants to police the Mexican border with symbolism.

That's the point of his proposal to send the National Guard to our border with Mexico. This represents Bush's final, desperate descent into Clintonian sleight of hand. He wants to distract enough of his supporters with the razzle-dazzle of "National Guard to the Border!" headlines that they won't notice he is pushing through Congress a proposal that essentially legalizes all the population influx from Latin America that has occurred in the past 10 years and any that might occur in the future.

Like President Clinton's gesture of sending more U.S. troops to Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" battle in Mogadishu, when everyone knew we were really on our way out, Bush's Guard deployment is a prelude to surrender. The immigrants who have come here in defiance of our laws will get to stay, bring their families and be joined by just as many immigrants in the future—at least if Bush gets his way.

It is with this position that Bush has wrecked his political standing, kicking out from under himself the support of his conservative base. Bush's National Guard feint is a sign that the White House thinks conservatives are not just disaffected, but credulous. The Guard won't have any real enforcement duties. It will merely provide logistical backup to the Border Patrol. The Guard's presence will be temporary, until a proposed doubling of Border Patrol agents takes place. But if the past is any guide, all of those new positions ultimately won't be funded, once the political heat passes.

Having the National Guard sharpen pencils and fetch coffee for the Border Patrol can't fix our broken immigration system. It is no substitute for a fence, nor for real interior enforcement that punishes employers for hiring illegal labor. The Bush approach to the latter also relies on symbolism. A 26-state immigration raid garnered extensive press attention last month, but most of the aliens arrested were quickly released again.

There is no sign that the raid was a harbinger of a broader crackdown on the employment of illegals, which is the source of the surge of illegals. This isn't surprising, since if it were a Bush priority to enforce the immigration laws, there presumably would have been some sign of it prior to the sixth year of his presidency. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, Bush's position on enforcing these laws has been only a firm, "I'd prefer not to."

That a president from the country's law-and-order party has been so blase about both when it comes to immigration presents an obvious opening to the opposition. Shrewder Democrats are picking up on it. A new report from the centrist Democratic group Third Way notes that from 2001 to 2004, border apprehensions declined 31 percent from the last four years of the Clinton administration, and apprehensions within the country dropped 36 percent. There were only 46 convictions for violations of laws against hiring illegals in all of 2004.

Bush's heart just isn't in enforcement. Perhaps it's a tribute to his sincerity that he is so bad at faking it. With his sympathy for the struggle of desperate people coming here for work, his "compassionate conservatism" doesn't stop at the Rio Grande. And it is reinforced by his chamber-of-commerce conservatism that wants to welcome the world's huddled masses as long as they will work without complaint on hot roofs for cheap wages.

The Senate bill Bush hopes to help pass would put 12 million illegal aliens on the path to citizenship, double the level of legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year and welcome hundreds of thousands of guest workers, according to the Washington Times. Those are the numbers that reflect Bush's true policy preferences, not the couple of thousand unarmed National Guard troops that he wants to deploy to the border as a political prop.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

Terrorist's Morale slippage in Iraq by Cal Thomas

Morale is slipping in Iraq. Fighters are growing doubtful of success. A comprehensive strategy for winning the conflict is nonexistent.

Is this an assessment of the U.S. military? No, it is an assessment about the insurgents who oppose the elected Iraqi government. While U.S. opinion polls show a growing number of Americans are pessimistic about the prosecution of the war, documents authored by an al-Qaida operative and seized by U.S. soldiers during an April 16 raid in the Yusufiyah area (12 miles south of Baghdad) offer hope to the American side that success may be closer than we think.

The author's name is not known, but his conclusion about the lack of progress by the insurgent-terrorists is revealing. In the translated documents released May 9, the al-Qaida operative says the insurgency is "disorganized and lacks a comprehensive strategy;" the Mujahidin are "not considered more than a daily annoyance" to the Iraqi government; the terrorists lack the proper equipment and have "very small numbers" compared to the personnel and equipment of the American and Iraqi forces; American and Iraqi troops are strong and resilient; American outreach to Sunni leaders is harmful to the terrorist cause; and "the policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media-oriented policy."

This last one is of particular interest because it is a strategy specifically designed to shape American public opinion and reduce support for the war. The documents lament the lack of a "clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center," the purpose of which would be to "show in the media that the Americans and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction."

From comments made by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and others, we know the terrorists believe America will give up as it did in Vietnam, Lebanon and Mogadishu when a majority ceases to support an operation. This is the main strategy of the terrorists. The documents not only underscore that strategy, they reveal the terrorists' frustration in their inability to make it work beyond an occasional car bombing, attack on a police station or civilian gathering. This ought to further encourage Americans and Iraqis about which side is losing and which is winning.

The documents are cause for optimism, not pessimism. Here are words that should delight Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose Iraq war strategy has been heavily criticized: "The Americans and the (Iraq) government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after another. This is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad."

Every year is worse for the terrorist insurgents? How can opinion polls reflect the opposite? Maybe the al-Qaida media strategy is working better than the insurgents think.

The documents also show that the American and Iraqi side is doing a better job than the terrorists in communicating with the Iraqi people. They state: "…the media power (in Iraq) is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media, which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events."

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

The documents reveal "The Mujahidin do not have any stored weapons and ammunition in their possession in Baghdad" and that there are as few as 30 or 40 insurgents in some areas compared to "tens of thousands of the enemy troops."

"The only power the Mujahidin have," says the al-Qaida operative, "is what they have already demonstrated." That consists of sniper fire, "planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government."

These documents ought to encourage not only the U.S. government, but also American public opinion, that the virtues of patience and commitment are likely to achieve the stated objectives of freedom and a self-sustaining Iraqi government.

by Cal Thomas

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com

10 Ways to Stop Hillary Clinton by NewsMax.com

New York Post columnist John Podhoretz is warning that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will win the 2008 presidential election unless Republicans start focusing now on a plan to defeat her.

"If you Republicans don't get real serious real fast, if you don't wise up and settle down and get focused, it will be Hillary up there on the podium taking the oath of office" in January 2009, he writes in his new book: "Can She Be Stopped?: Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President Unless ..."[Editor's note: Get this book FREE with our special offer Click Here Now]

Podhoretz says the answer to that question is yes -- and he offers the GOP a 10-point plan of action to expose Hillary as the far-left liberal that she truly is.

#1 Smoke Her Out: "Republicans must now -- right now, this week, today -- declare [Hillary] the leader of the Democratic Party and insist that she become its primary voice and its primary spokesman." Enough "blather" from the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, argues Podhoretz, when Hillary is the real party leader. "On blogs and radio shows, in letters to the editor and op-eds in newspapers, and in communications with reporters, we should insist on 'hearing it from Hillary.'"

#2 Make Her Vote: "One of the priorities of Republicans in the Senate should be to use their power to make her vote ... on matters of controversy where she would prefer to remain silent." Podhoretz urges the GOP to introduce Sense of the Senate resolutions on parental rights, gun control and eminent domain.

#3 Make Her Criticize Tax Cuts: Podhoretz invokes Hillary's infamous 2004 quote, "For America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut [the Bush tax cuts] short ... We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." The comment is "pure gold for Republicans" he writes, urging the GOP to focus an ad campaign on Hillary's tax hikes if she wins the White House.

#4 Talk Up Free Trade: One of the crown jewels of the Clinton economic program was the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. But Hillary voted against a more modest proposal by President Bush for Central America - CAFTA. The vote against free trade indicates Hillary felt the need to tack left on the issue, contends Podhoretz. "There's a gap there. Toss her into it," he urges.

#5 Talk a Lot About Health Care: "Clearly the Stop Hillary movement can't leave her alone on this matter," Podhoretz says. "If it makes her uncomfortable, her discomfort should only be enhanced" by having Republicans talking up market-oriented reform plans.

#6 Suggest a Pullout from the U.N.: Podhoretz notes that Hillary "has a long record of institutional support for the United Nations." He says that in 2008 her GOP opponent should float the idea of creating a new international agency to replace the failed world body. "Would Hillary be prepared," he asks, "to defend the United Nations hotly? To argue forcefully that the United States cannot do without?"

#7 Fight the Culture War, but with Delicacy: For all her traditional values talk during the coming campaign, says Podhoretz, Hillary "will have nonetheless handed her IOUs out to liberal groups who will expect her to deliver on their anti-traditionalist wishes once the election is over." Gay marriage will still be a hot-button issue that could put Clinton on the defensive, he says. But with the GOP unlikely to nominate another born-again Christian, Republicans will have to tread lightly.

#8 Run a Reform Campaign: Podhoretz says Republicans must acknowledge that "things got messy" on the ethics front on their watch. For 2008, he says, the party "must commit itself to an agenda of reform."

#9 Go Outside Washington for a Candidate: Podhoretz says the GOP would do well to look beyond the D.C. beltway for their next standard bearer. He doesn't like McCain, complaining that the GOP maverick "is a creature of Washington." He dismisses arguments that Condoleezza Rice could defeat Hillary, noting: "The presidency is not an entry-level job."

#10 Nominate Rudy: "The events of September 11 are nearly five years in the past, and yet [Rudy] Giuliani remains the only American figure whose enhanced standing as a result of the attacks on America remains undiminished," writes Podhoretz. To get the nomination, the former New York City mayor will have to relinquish his pro-choice credentials and "declare himself opposed to abortion," he says.

Predicting Rudy will eventually come around on the issue, he notes: "If there's one thing Rudy Giuliani's political career demonstrates, it's that he's willing to commit to a controversial course for a higher purpose ... Defeating Hillary Clinton while becoming president himself - could there be any higher purpose?"

Connecting-the-Dots, Data Mining and the Loss of Real Civil Liberties by John McIntyre

In the run up to the 2004 election I debated a very left-wing professor who went on and on about how the Patriot Act was essentially a reincarnation of Gestapo or KGB tactics. I responded that I was of course concerned about individual liberties and the unfettered power of the state, but that in the post-9/11 world there is a balancing act between liberty and security, and that I would be more sympathetic to critics of the Patriot Act if they could point to specific cases of abuse. Show me the real alive Jane and Joe Americans who have had their liberties violated in some grotesque manner by the Patriot Act. Needless to say, the professor moved on.

I ask the same question today to the bloggers and pundits out there who are hyperventilating over the latest revelation that our security agencies are actually trying to do their job. Many of the people decrying these violations of civil liberties are the same ones who ripped the government for its inability to "connect-the-dots" prior to 9/11.

But the paranoia on the left, and in particular, the hatred for the Bush administration has become so intense there is an automatic assumption that the NSA has to be engaging in nefarious activity, spying on you and your neighbor. The idea that the agency is thinking creatively and proactively about how they can legally monitor the bad guys instead of just going about business as usual is, apparently, out of the question for some. The sad truth is it is probably going to take another devastating attack to convince many in this country that we are actually at war against Islamic jihadists.

That is something true civil libertarians should think long and hard about. The more vigilant we are today in preventing attacks, the more it will pay off in spades in terms of protecting our civil liberties in the future. Because if this country gets hit with a small nuke and 30,000 or 100, 000 Americans die, all of the debating will be over. The ensuing crackdown will be massive, and the loss of REAL civil liberties will become very, very possible.

RealClearPolitics.com

Don't Let 'Moderate' Hillary Fool You by Kathleen Willey

Hillary Clinton weighed in on the immigration reform debate recently by accusing the House Republicans of passing a bill that would “criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.” Hillary also opined that the House bill “flew in the face” of Republicans’ stated support for faith and values.
Buy Now
Save 13%

Hillary eagerly pounces on her political opponents’ supposed betrayal of their values, but what about her values? Far from walking in the footsteps of the Good Samaritan or “Jesus himself,” Hillary has consistently revealed a personal and political character the core values of which are ruthlessness, unbounding arrogance and endless ambition.

One of us had the surreal experience of being confronted by Hillary -- self-declared feminist and champion of “women’s rights” -- as she protected her husband Bill against the charge of rape. Another of us worked with the Clintons prior to being sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, and witnessed her dismissive, contemptuous interactions with others whenever the cameras weren’t present. Our experience of Hillary Clinton as ruthless and vindictive is validated in a newly released book, “I’ve Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words,” by Tom Kuiper.

“I’ve Always Been a Yankees Fan” is a collection of quotes -- hundreds of them -- by and about Hillary Clinton, spanning her entire life and career, complete with pictures, captions and humorous but spot-on commentary. The quotes show a crass, insensitive side of Hillary, and in the foreword Dick Morris writes of this “wonderful little book” that “No politician could possibly amass quotes like this and expect to run for office. Nobody would dare.” Hillary Clinton, however, possesses an extraordinary level of arrogance (even for a politician), and expects to claw her way back to the White House despite being called out for her despicable attitudes and statements.

Our perception of Hillary, one shared by Tom Kuiper and Dick Morris, stands in stark contrast to the one touted by feminist legal scholar and author Susan Estrich. In her recent book, Estrich opines that Hillary can and should be elected the first female president. Estrich writes, “I think that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, soon-to-be second-term senator from New York, centrist Democrat, strong on security, tough, moderate, family values, middle-aged, qualified, managed by Bill Clinton, is the next president of the United States.” Moderate? Family values? Kuiper’s new book goes a long way toward discrediting the version of Hillary Clinton that permitted her to launch her own political career, and on which she hopes to ascend to the presidency in 2008.

For example, Kuiper quotes multi-millionaire Hillary opining that “The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.” It is difficult to discern any moderation in that statement. Or in this response by Hillary to a constituent who expressed concern over being forced into a government-run health-care plan: “It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals.” Or in this explanation to wealthy donors regarding her support for repealing the Bush tax cuts: “Many of you are well enough off that [the] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

How about Hillary’s supposed support for family values, which should include justice for abused women and children? “I’ve Always Been a Yankees Fan” presents Hillary publicly announcing, “I am proud that my husband has stood up as president to confront the violence and to protect American women.” But Kuiper also accurately recounts how Hillary privately revealed a complete lack of concern for “protecting women against violence” when she asked to meet Juanita Broaddrick just weeks after Juanita had been raped by Bill Clinton. Hillary was willing to do whatever it took to prevent Juanita from holding her husband accountable for an unspeakable act of violence.

Kuiper also quotes Hillary Clinton as saying of the many women who have reported having sexual encounters with Bill Clinton (forced or otherwise): “These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” This is hardly how “Jesus himself” would respond to women reporting what often amounted to sexual mistreatment, and we doubt that He would “crucify” Gennifer Flowers for daring to disclose her affair with Hillary’s husband -- even though Bill Clinton himself eventually admitted under oath to having the affair with Flowers. Hillary professes to be “a voice for America’s children,” yet at an event with preschoolers at the governor’s mansion as first lady of Arkansas Mother Clinton was overheard on the intercom system saying, “I want to get this s--- over with and get these damn people out of here.” Hillary has not demonstrated a consistent track record of treating women and children -- at least children not her own -- with care and concern. She was certainly quick enough to demand that taxpayers fund a pool for the governor’s mansion while first “lady” of Arkansas.

Hillary invariably relies on the maxim “the best defense is a good offense” to deflect attention from her own wrongdoing. She refuses to address or apologize for the statements -- many of them vulgar and outrageous -- that Tom Kuiper has painstakingly assembled, but she audaciously continues to malign others for supposedly failing to act on “faith” and “values.” Based on our personal experiences with Hillary Clinton, we encourage others to explore the true nature of this woman through Kuiper’s entertaining but revealing book before throwing political support to Hillary on the misguided impression that she is the moderate, family-values candidate she wants you to think she is.

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Mexico's Addiction to Dollars From Illegals by Victor Davis Hanson

Economists have long pointed out that relying on oil as a natural resource can be a long-term disaster for a developing nation. The income from exporting petroleum provides cash infusions that can distort a country's economy and mask structural problems while impeding reform. Petrodollars act like a lethal narcotic: A formerly impoverished country depends on short-term relief from oil profits at the risk of being reduced to an enfeebled addict.

Easy oil income also often promotes dictatorial government by allowing nationalist thugs to buy pricey weapons to threaten neighbors or to buy off internal dissent with lavish cash subsidies. Take away oil from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez would be just another failed Castro. Evo Morales is able to offer the old bankrupt socialism to poverty-stricken Bolivia largely due to the country's natural gas reserves.

Mexico also suffers from this unhealthy oil-exporting syndrome, as the government uses profits from its inefficient state-run industry to spread around subsidies in lieu of enacting long overdue wealth-creating measures. But worse still, Mexico suffers a double whammy by also receiving between $10 billion and $15 billion annually in remittances from its expatriate population in the United States.

Exporting its own poor turns out to be about the cash equivalent each day of selling on the open market about half a million barrels of $70 a barrel oil. The muscles of Mexico's former residents can prove just as deleterious as oil derricks to the long-term health of the country's economy.

Millions of unemployed Mexicans are now dependent upon money wired from the United States, where low-skill wages are now nine times higher than in Mexico. On the national level, such subsidies, like oil windfall profits, allow just enough money to hide the government's failure to promote the proper economic conditions - through the protection of property rights, tax reform, transparent investment laws, modern infrastructure, etc. - that would eventually lead to decent housing and well-paying jobs.

It may be counterintuitive to think that checks from hard-working expatriates are pernicious. But for a developing nation, remittances can prove as problematic as the proverbial plight of the lottery winner - sudden winnings that were not earned. In short, remittances, along with oil and tourism - not agriculture, engineering, education, manufacturing or finance - prop up an otherwise ailing Mexican economy. This helps explain why half of the country's 106 million citizens still live in poverty.

The billions of dollars Mexicans in the U.S. send back to their country pose another economic and ethical dilemma. Many illegal aliens in the U.S. allot nearly half their weekly paychecks to relatives in Mexico. But such deductions come right out of the workers' food, housing and transportation budgets here. So to survive, illegal aliens in the U.S. must endure cheap, substandard and often overcrowded housing. They cannot easily purchase their own health care or invest in safe and reliable cars.

Because the United States is a caring nation, the state often intervenes to offer illegal aliens costly entitlements - emergency-room medicine, legal help and subsidized housing and food - that provide some sort of parity to all its residents.

And when aliens are often paid in cash - that is off the books - the problem of remittances only worsens: The beneficiary Mexico still gets help from workers' pay, while the benefactor United States does not collect taxes.

Along with the lack of English, illegal status and insufficient education, remittances explain the poverty of many Mexican aliens in the U.S. In the American Southwest, it is now possible to see apartheid communities of Mexican nationals whose standard of living does not meet national norms.

Americans are often blamed for such disparities, as we saw in the recent immigration protests. But the tragedy is more complicated than the failure to offer workers sufficient compensation - especially when such communities are often the recipients of millions in federal dollars to improve schools, roads and police forces that cannot be maintained through customary taxation of local residents.

It might be cruel should remittances somehow come to an end. But it may be even crueler in the long run not to deal with a broken system that facilities such massive transfers - both for millions here in dire need of retaining all their earnings, and millions more in Mexico in more dire need of vast structural reform.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

NSA Accused of Protecting U.S. From Terrorists by PowerLineBlog.com

Liberals are jumping up and down about USA Today's publication of another leak relating to the National Security Agency. It's considered a news flash that the NSA is collecting data on phone calls, with the cooperation of almost all of the major telecom companies, to look for suspicious patterns. This is a "data mining" project that does not involve listening in on conversations, but merely identifying phone numbers involved in possible terrorist communications.

Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of reaction to the story. I'd add just a few comments.

One, as A.J. Strata points out, the USA Today article identified Qwest as the one major carrier that declined the NSA's request for cooperation. Presumably Qwest has now become the terrorists' telecom company of choice. Way to go, USA Today!

Two, it's obvious that what the NSA does with this vast amount of data is to run it through computers, looking for suspicious patterns, especially involving known or suspected terrorist phone numbers. I did a quick calculation: assuming that there are 200 million adult Americans, each of whom places or receives ten phone calls a day (a conservative estimate, I think), it would require a small army of 35,000 full-time NSA employees to pay a total of one second of attention to each call. In other words, lighten up: the NSA obviously isn't tracking your phone calls with your friends and relatives.

Three, it's interesting to juxtapose the NSA stories--this one plus the Agency's international terrorist surveillance program--with this account of a report earlier today by Britain's Intelligence and Security Committee on the subway bombings in London last July:

The suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on London's transit system had a string of contacts with someone in Pakistan just before striking, Britain's top law enforcement official said Thursday.

However, authorities admitted they didn't know what was discussed in those contacts and stuck with their contention that the blasts were a home-grown plot and that the degree of involvement by al-Qaida, if any, was unknown.

Thursday's report by the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that intelligence agents had been alerted to two of the suicide bombers before the attacks but limited resources prevented them from uncovering the plot.

Reid, speaking of the contacts in Pakistan ahead of the attacks, said authorities did not know what was discussed. *** "There are a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings," Reid said after his department released its narrative of the attacks. "We do not know their content."

Sounds like they should have listened in on those calls. These are exactly the kind of communications that are intercepted by the NSA under the terrorist surveillance program that has been widely denounced by Democrats.

Progress in Iraq by Real Clear Politics

New Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki says the job of forming a government in Iraq is 90% done. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon has delayed deployment of 3,500 troops to Iraq "to give more time and flexibility to U.S. commanders in Iraq, led by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., while they and Iraqi leaders assess the insurgency and sectarian violence amid the formation of a new Iraqi government."

Along those lines, al-Qaeda correspondence recently captured and translated by CENTCOM (via Captain's Quarters) suggests that the U.S. military and Iraqi security forces are, slowly but surely, diminishing the influence and effectiveness of the insurgency:

"At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad."

This is the most heartening news of all, because while the formation of a new government will be a victory and will add a much needed sense of optimism and positive momentum, security remains the paramount concern.

www.RealClearPolitics.com
May 09, 2006

U.S. Disrupted al Qaeda WMD Grab

U.S. and international programs to defeat al Qaeda have limited the terrorist group's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the No. 2 U.S. intelligence official said.

Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, said in a recent speech that al Qaeda remains dangerous but has grown more diffuse.

In explaining successes in the global war against terrorists in the past 4½ years, Gen. Hayden noted that the United States and its allies "disrupted [al Qaeda´s] efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

He and other intelligence officials declined to provide specifics of the disruption.

However, administration officials said operations in Afghanistan and a few recent incidents show that al Qaeda continues to seek nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

One official said the killing of al Qaeda explosives specialist Abu Marwan in Pakistan last month was one of the successes. Marwan was thought to be linked to al Qaeda's efforts to build nuclear and other unconventional explosives.

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have stepped up monitoring of the sale and movement of goods that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, including high explosives and chemical precursors, the officials said.

The surveillance has led to instances in which al Qaeda members or those linked to its affiliates were spotted making inquiries about purchases, the officials said.

Gen. Hayden also said in the little-noticed speech to the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association in Texas on Wednesday that key successes in the war on terrorism include denying al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan, killing or capturing large numbers of its leaders, cutting funding sources and forcing terrorists to spend more time protecting themselves.

"Most fundamentally, we have prevented any further attacks against the homeland," he said.

"The global jihadist movement is evolving in many ways," Gen. Hayden said. "The movement is spreading and adjusting to our counterterrorism efforts, and it is also exploiting the communications revolution, the Internet and media sensationalism."

A State Department report on terrorism made public last week said the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is one of the "gravest potential risks to the national security."

Al Qaeda has stated openly its goal of acquiring and using nuclear weapons, the report said. The spread of information about nuclear arms development, including data on the Internet, poses an increased risk that "a terrorist organization with the right material could develop its own nuclear weapon."

Although making nuclear weapons is likely beyond the capability of most terrorists for the immediate future, "terrorists may seek to link up with a variety of facilitators to develop their own nuclear capability," the report said.

FDR's Domestic Surveillance by Adam White & Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.

In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation's security in 1940, when he did all of these things.

It is worth remembering FDR's example as the debate over the NSA's warrantless surveillance continues to heat up. After a few months' lull, it seems that the issue is again creeping into the headlines. On April 27, for example, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter convened a press conference demanding that President Bush disclose the details of the NSA's surveillance program, and threatening to suspend the program's funding.

As with so many issues central to the global war on terror in which the need for security must be balanced against individual liberties, there is no fool-proof answer to the questions raised by the NSA's surveillance program. Yet broad sections of the left have personalized this debate around President Bush. Their hatred and distrust of Bush drives them to see the administration's actions in the worst light possible. To that extent, it's important to understand how President Roosevelt -- a paragon of the left -- dealt with similar problems.


PRESIDENT BUSH FACES CHALLENGES on two fronts. First, it's been argued that there is no authority for the NSA surveillance, either statutory or constitutional. Second, congressional critics demand that the administration disclose the details of the surveillance program. The Roosevelt administration faced similar challenges in the days leading up to World War II. Documents that we obtained from Justice Robert Jackson's archives at the Library of Congress, some of which have never before been discussed in the press, show that President Roosevelt did not doubt his authority to conduct such surveillance in the interest of national security.

In 1937 and 1939, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions in the matter of Nardone v. United States. The Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 barred federal surveillance of telephone lines, and that evidence obtained from such surveillance couldn't be introduced at trial.

In response, Attorney General (and future Supreme Court justice) Robert Jackson ended the FBI's longstanding surveillance of suspected saboteurs and spies. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover protested this decision. In an April 13, 1940 memorandum to Jackson, Hoover outlined a number of pending investigations that were hampered by Jackson's decision. Hoover concluded, "Frankly, the Bureau cannot cope with this problem without the use of wire taps and I feel obligated to bring this situation to your attention at the present time rather than to wait until a national catastrophe focuses the spotlight of public indignation upon the Department because of its failure to prevent a serious occurrence."

President Roosevelt sided with Hoover, not Jackson. In a signed May 21, 1940 memorandum to his attorney general, FDR wrote:

I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wire-tapping in investigations. The Court is undoubtedly sound both in regard to the use of evidence secured over tapped wires in the prosecution of citizens in criminal cases; and is also right in its opinion that under ordinary circumstances wire-tapping by Government agents should not be carried on for the excellent reason that it is almost bound to lead to abuse of civil rights.

However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.

It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of propaganda of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.

It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and "fifth column" activities are completed.

You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.


FDR's assertion that the Supreme Court didn't read the Communications Act to bar surveillance for national defense wasn't based on the statute's text. The Communications Act provided that "no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person." The only source for FDR's national-security exception was the same as the one now presented as a defense of the NSA surveillance program: the president's inherent constitutional authority, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to conduct surveillance as an incident to the military's defense of our nation.

Despite FDR's readiness to use his inherent authority, he and Jackson pushed Congress to give the administration statutory authority. As Jackson recounted in his memoir, the administration sought authorization for surveillance for not only "espionage [and] sabotage," but also "extortion and kidnapping cases." The House was willing only to authorize FBI wiretapping "in the interest of national defense." As today, any such legislation was opposed by the ACLU, as well as (in Jackson's words) "others of liberal persuasion."

FDR and Jackson also opposed those who sought to require that surveillance be approved not only by the attorney general but also by the courts, through warrant requirements. As Jackson wrote in a March 19, 1941 letter to Rep. Hatton Summers, "I do not favor the search warrant procedure.... Such procedure means loss of precious time, probably publicity, and filing of charges against persons as a basis for wire tapping before investigation is complete which might easily result in great injury to such persons."

In the end, FDR and the Congress weren't able to agree on a legislative compromise. Nonetheless, President Roosevelt continued to authorize national-security surveillance. All of this predated America's entry into the Second World War.


AFTER CHOOSING TO AUTHORIZE SURVEILLANCE, President Roosevelt faced angry legislators (similar to Senator Specter and others today) who called for disclosure of the surveillance program's details in order to inform the legislative debate. FDR decided that Congress was not entitled to, and could not be trusted with, such information. He thus refused to comply.

Attorney General Jackson spelled this out in an April 30, 1941 letter to Rep. Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs. Jackson reviewed the history of presidential refusals to disclose national security information, beginning with President Washington's 1796 refusal to disclose the details of treaty negotiations. Jackson warned that to provide such information to Congress would enable congressional personnel to leak details to the public, thereby tipping off targets and embarrassing informants. He said that disclosure would "prejudice the national defense and be of aid and comfort to the very subversive elements against which you wish to protect the country." And despite the fact that Congress was attempting to pass legislation pertaining to that very program, Jackson concluded that information regarding the surveillance "can be of little, if any, value in connection with the framing of legislation or the performance of any other constitutional duty of the Congress."

Jackson recognized that the president and Congress face different responsibilities, making agreement between the two branches difficult on such weighty, heated, time-sensitive issues. The Constitution gives the president the responsibility to act quickly and decisively to defend the national security. Congress, freed from such responsibility, could indulge other preoccupations. At one point, Jackson wrote Rep. John Coffee that "I am confident that if you and any of the other liberals in Congress sat in my seat and were held to some degree of responsibility for the perpetration of acts of sabotage and espionage in this country you would feel differently about the wire tapping bill."


AND SO IT GOES TODAY. In the coming weeks, Senator Specter and others may threaten to withhold funds from the NSA or block nominations (such as General Hayden's nomination to head the CIA). The prerogatives of spending cuts and nominations blocks are within the power of the Congress, just as defense of the national security is committed to the president. President Bush can only hope that cooler heads prevail among House and Senate majorities. But in pursuing his own course of action, President Bush should keep in mind -- and cite as justification -- the example of the opposition party's greatest hero, President Roosevelt.


Adam White's review of Justice Robert Jackson's draft opinions in the famous Korean War-era Steel Seizure Cases will appear in the Albany Law Review later this year; his defense of the Senate's power to filibuster judicial nominations appeared last year in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is an attorney and counterterrorism consultant. His first book, My Year Inside Radical Islam, will be published in winter 2007 by Tarcher/Penguin.

The Lessons of History by Victor Davis Hanson

Listen to the present televised hysteria. Too few troops! No, too many still there! The CIA is out of control! No, it is weak and irrelevant! The Iraq mess only empowered Iran! No, its democratic experiment is the best way to undermine that neighboring theocracy.

Such frenzy of the 24-hour news cycle is now everywhere, as we are lectured that our victories over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein have caused as many problems as they solved.

But in war aren't choices usually between the bad and the far worse? So often victory leads not to utopia, but only something better.

Take our past ambiguous successes. Recall that the outcome of America's horrific, but successful, Civil War that ended slavery led not to racial harmony. Instead followed over a decade of failed Reconstruction and another century of Jim Crow apartheid in the South.

We saved a reeling Britain and France in World War I. But an isolationist United States did not occupy a defeated Germany. So we fought a resurgent Hitler little more than twenty years later, who talked of the 'stab in the back,' while he bragged that imperial Germany had withdrawn unbeaten from foreign soil.

The outcome of World War II (note the sudden need for the Roman numerals) was not perpetual peace or even the freedom of Eastern Europe, but rather its enslavement and a Cold War of a half-century.

The United States prevailed in saving South Korea. Yet it still bequeathed a lunatic nuclear communist state to our grandchildren.

Gulf War I was a smashing success. But it was followed by the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds, twelve years of no-fly zones, and yet another war against Saddam.

Almost every controversy in this present war also proves to be a rehash of the past. Poorly armored Humvees? Thousands, not hundreds, of Americans perished, in thin-skinned Sherman tanks ("Ronson lighters") that never were up-armored even at the end of World War II.

Too few troops? In late July 1944 as Gen. George Patton raced eastward through France, the topic never came up. But by autumn as several under-strength American armies suddenly stalled on the distant Rhine, national recrimination replaced the earlier euphoria. What fool planner had advocated a broad-front advance into Germany with far too few soldiers?

Did removing Saddam empower Iran? No more so than ending Nazism gave more opportunity for our "ally" Stalin to enslave Eastern Europe.

Why was our Iraqi intelligence so poor in assessing the potential for postwar insurgency? The same was asked how some surprised American divisions near the end of World War II were nearly annihilated by Germans in the Bulge and by the Japanese on Okinawa?

Won't Iraq require years of occupation? We hope not. But years after our victories, American troops are still residing in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and the Balkans.

The point of these historical comparisons is not to excuse our present mistakes by citing worse ones from the past--or to suggest that all wars are always the same. Much less should history's examples be used to stifle necessary contemporary criticism that alone leads to remedy.

Rather knowledge of the capricious nature of wars of the past can restore a little humility to our national psyche.

We need it. Ours is the first generation of Americans that thinks it can demand perfection in war. Our present leisure, wealth, and high technology fool us into thinking that we are demi-gods always be able to trump both human and natural disasters. Accordingly, we become frustrated that we cannot master every wartime obstacle, as we seem otherwise to be able to do with computers or cosmetic surgery. Then, without any benchmarks of comparison from the past, we despair that our actions are failed because they are not perfect.

But why did a poorer, less educated, and more illiberal United States in far bloodier and more error-ridden wars of the past still have greater confidence in itself? Was it that our ancestors, who died younger and far more tragically, did not expect their homeland to be without flaws, only to be considerably better than the enemy's?

Perhaps we have forgotten such modesty because we have ignored the study of history that alone offers us guidance from our forbearers. It now competes as an orphan discipline with social science, -ologies and -isms that entice us into thinking that the more money and education of the present can at last perfect the human condition and thus consign our flawed past to irrelevance.

The result is that while sensitive young Americans seem to know what correct words and ideas they must embrace, they derive neither direction nor solace from past events. After all, very few could identify Vicksburg or Verdun, much less have any idea where or what Iwo Jima was. In such a lonely prison of the present what are historically ignorant Americans to make of a Fallujah or an Iranian madman's threat of annihilation other than such things can't or shouldn't or must not happen to us?

So, of this present war, I think our war-torn forefathers would say to us that both messy Afghanistan and Iraq are better places without their dictators even if they never will resemble Carmel or Austin.

They would add that it is not unusual to be confronted with new crises even after such apparently easy victories. And they would shrug that however scary Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran now appears, it poses nothing new or insurmountable to a confident and strong United States that has dealt with far more serious enemies in the past with its accustomed wisdom and resolve.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

Amnesty Through Irish Eyes by Kieran Michael Lalor

The “one-time” amnesty of 1986 legalized two million aliens. However, it inspired six times that number to enter the United States illegally and emboldened them remain until their numbers reached a critical mass big enough to demand a logically absurd “second one-time” amnesty. As that critical mass begins to mobilize it is helpful to view the illegal immigration issue through the paradigm of Irish illegals, avoiding the hyper-emotional rhetoric of race politics, which can make honest debate impossible.

At a recent speech by Senator John McCain (R, AZ) in an Irish section of the Bronx, the truth about so-called “earned citizenship” legislation like the McCain-Kennedy bill was exposed. McCain bristles when the bill that bears his name is said to grant amnesty. Yet the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) which hosted Senator McCain and views him as the “champion of the undocumented immigrant” bluntly condemns in its mission statement all legislation that would:

“enforce new laws without any amnesty provision for those here illegally.”

McCain beamed while the Master of Ceremonies at the ILIR event got a standing ovation when, in his frank introduction of the presidential aspirant, he said,

“If he was the man in charge we’d all have green cards in the morning.”

Speakers at the rally openly admitted that illegals disrespect for American law goes far beyond simple immigration violations. The standing room only audience at the Irish event chuckled and then sprang to their feet in thunderous applause when a speaker complimented them for fraudulently obtaining driver’s licenses.

This cavalier attitude toward the procurement of fraudulent documents prevails in the midst our war on terror despite the fact that this war for our country’s survival was started by brutal, murderous men in the country illegally using forged paperwork. It is jarring just how little regard illegal immigration advocates have for the security of America.

Several speakers at the ILIR rally claimed that illegals contribute their fair share by paying sales tax, and in some cases payroll and property taxes. This misleading and simplistic assertion conveniently omits the fact that some illegals don’t pay one dime of federal and state income tax.

Moneyed legal immigrant business owners are one driving force behind the call for amnesty. The ILIR’s chairman Niall O’Dowd owns a newspaper and a magazine that cater to the Irish in America. O’Dowd as well as wealthy contractors, shopkeepers and publicans profit handsomely from a steady stream of illegal immigrant customers. Making the wealthy wealthier is hardly the humanitarian mandate behind which amnesty advocates hide.

The Executive Director of ILIR Kelly Fincham thanked by name six illegals who were helpful in starting and growing the political organization to the point where it was able to get an audience with Senators McCain and Hillary Clinton (D, NY). It is unfathomable that a group of people whose very presence in the country is a breach of U.S. law have the ear of two ranking presidential contenders.

Like other illegal immigration agitators, the ILIR has stooped to playing on ethnic pride by emblazoning on T-shirts the battle cry “Legalize the Irish.”This slogan epitomizes the attitude of the illegal immigration movement and explains why so many Americans have dug in their heels against amnesty. Perhaps if their motto reflected a desire to become Americans and turned their give-us-what-we-want-now mantra into something like “Let us be American” there would be less resistance.

In one respect the slogan “Legalize the Irish” is a dishonest attempt to make themselves victims by conjuring up memories of legal immigrants who endured discrimination. In another regard it is brutally honest and reveals their goal: to stay in America without becoming Americans.

The American prosperity that illegal immigrants break the law to enjoy is derived from our long history of political stability which above all requires a respect for the rule of law. By their presence in the United States illegal immigrants are emphatically stating their belief that the ends justify the means, the antithesis of the rule of law.

Why should America make lawful those who don’t desire to be American nor respect American law?

by Kieran Michael Lalor is the Founder of the Eternal Vigilance Society
AmericanThinker.com

US, Iraqi forces kill 100 insurgents

US and Iraqi forces killed more than 100 insurgents last week in the town of Ramadi in the rebel heartland of Anbar province, the US military said yesterday.
Two Iraqi soldiers died in the fighting and no Americans were killed, the military said in a written response, confirming a media report. It did not provide more details.

Reuters witnesses in Ramadi, 115km west of Baghdad, said there were heavy clashes last week between US forces and insurgents inside Ramadi but could not independently confirm such a high number of insurgents killed.

Ramadi is a stronghold of Sunni Arab insurgents fighting US and Iraqi forces and the Shia and Kurdish-led government in Baghdad.

Despite large-scale US support, Iraq and Afghanistan rank among the world's 10 most vulnerable states, according to a private survey being released yesterday.

In its second annual "failed states" index, Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace concluded that Sudan is the country under the most severe stress because of violent internal conflict.

Eleven of the 20 most vulnerable countries of the 148 examined in the survey are in Africa. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ivory Coast, both chronically volatile in recent years, ranked second and third.


Reuters, ap, Baghdad/ Washington

Senator Formerly Known as Hillary Clinton

A recent CNN poll shows that Americans might be more inclined to support Hillary if she uses her maiden name.

This includes a solid 7% increase in her favorability rating among Republicans, whose support ballooned to 23% if she put "Rodham" in her name.

A similar jump was noticed among so-called Independents as well, as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was favored by 48%, as compared with 42% for just "Hillary Clinton."

Ironically, the name change actually makes Democrats -- who one would think would support the feminist idea of a woman keeping her last name -- like her less, with her approval rating slipping one point, from 77% to 76%.

The only scenario that seems to make sense, and where the use of "Rodham" didn't help Hillary is with Southern voters, as "Hillary Clinton" got a favorable rating from 52%, compared with 45% for "Hillary Rodham Clinton."

In the rest of the country, the opposite was true: 43% of all people polled gave "Hillary Clinton" a positive rating and 53% rated "Hillary Rodham Clinton" positively.

All this Rodham talk is reminiscent of when then-Governor Clinton lost re-election in 1980, and much of the blame was assigned to his wife, Ms. Hillary Rodham, because she didn't take his name. But when Bill ran again for Arkansas governor two years later, she had changed her name to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, and the happy couple returned to Little Rock. Of course, when Bill won the White House a decade later, Hillary immediately added Rodham to her title. Oh how times change. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll in January 1993 ask Americans "Should the first lady be known as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton?" An overwhelming 62% picked the shorter name, while a paltry 6% chose HRC.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Immigration Madness by Tony Blankley

As I watch our country almost hopelessly divided and wandering off in all sorts of wrong directions, I think of the last verse of John Milton's "Paradise Lost," when Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden:

"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld of Paradise, so late their happy seat, Waved over by that flaming brand, the gate With dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms:
"Some natural tears they dropped, but wiped them soon; The world was all before them, where to choose Their place of rest, and Providence their guide;

"They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow, Through Eden took their solitary way."

Of course, all is not lost. Some years later, Milton wrote "Paradise Regained." But what a terrible journey of rediscovery was before Man, once he had foolishly succumbed to temptations that forced him to leave Eden and live amongst Satan and his servants in the outer world.

I know America has not been a Garden of Eden, but for a temporal land, how wonderful it has been. And how casually we are casting off its manifold blessings. And for what future.

It is almost inconceivable that an argument is taken seriously that we don't have the right to secure our borders and determine who shall enter our country. Not only has such lunacy become respectable, but our mainstream media instantly, instinctively embraces such a position. Every radio headline newscast, almost every newspaper and television report willfully refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. Each report stamps the mark of evil on the forehead of all who would guard our borders.

Even the Republican president of the United States makes the nonest of non-sequiturs, when he justifies doing nothing to enforce the border laws by claiming that these are decent humans just looking for a chance in life.

Well, with the exception of the 29 percent of federal prisoners and similar numbers in state prisons, with the exception of those who seek our welfare, rather than a job -- the rest of the wayfarers are indeed far from their native lands for the most decent and best of intentions.

I would guess that of the world's 6 billion or so souls -- probably about 75 percent are good and decent folks who only want the best for their children and the world. It's the same all over -- England, Mexico, America, Africa, throughout the world -- about a quarter of the population are bums, the rest are pretty good.

And most of them would like to live in America. But why stop with 85 million Mexicans? For the open border crowd -- which apparently includes virtually the entire American political, media, academic and business establishment -- there is no reason to try to keep out anyone who wants to come in. (The Senate and the president have made it quite clear that they have no plans to actually secure the border. Their border security proposals are charades and calculated pretenses.)

There are still about 700 million Chinese peasants waiting impatiently for a decent job; probably about an equal number of Indians. And most of the African continent could surely live better in Phoenix than they do being butchered in genocidal wars or starving in man-induced famines.

What is the moral basis for discriminating against that part of suffering humanity unlucky enough to find itself not sharing a border with the good old U.S. of A.? Perhaps the Dubai Ports World company could start chartering ships to bring the rest of suffering humanity to our shores.

Perhaps we have a moral obligation to tax ourselves to pay to transport to America all 4 billion or so humans who would prefer to live here, rather than where cruel fate has placed them. Surely there must be a Clinton-appointed federal judge somewhere who can provide the constitutional argument for such a mandated tax.

Frankly, that last lunatic idea doesn't sound any more far-fetched than the first lunatic idea -- that we have no right to keep anyone out of the country who goes to the bother of coming here. You can't do satire in a lunatic asylum or in present-day American politics.

Apparently the American establishment has finally taken to heart the teaching of Karl Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. America should house and feed and educate and provide health care and employ all the world according to our ability. And surely the people of the world will provide the need.

And why not? After all, it is just dumb luck that each of us finds ourselves in God-blessed America.

Well, if we keep going at this rate we will soon run out of luck. But apparently we will never run out of dumb.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Bob Herbert's Single Note by Nancy Kruh

Since the Iraq invasion in March 2003, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has established himself as one of the strongest voices nationally to oppose the war. His work has been embraced by the anti-war movement and reviled by war proponents.

But as a professional pundit-watcher who has read Herbert's Iraq-related columns, one after another after another, I've had a much different response ... Um, haven't I read this before?

To test my suspicions, I set off on a lengthy Lexis-Nexis expedition, and what I've found is a columnist who seems to be stuck in an endless loop of the same catch phrases, the same themes, the same arguments. It's a numbing repetition that, I fear, is diminishing the impact Herbert has on the one issue he probably feels the most passionately about.

We all know about the drumbeat of war. Well, this is the drumbeat of Bob Herbert's war commentary: war bad, Bush bad, war bad, Bush bad. As my mother said five minutes into watching a performance of cloggers, "I think I get the idea."

I wouldn't hold Herbert up for such criticism - it's unrealistic not to expect some repetition in any columnist dealing with an ongoing issue - except for the fact that, he has written so often, he almost can't avoid repeating himself.

Of his 290 bylines since March 2004, 128 (about 44 percent) have included a substantial portion devoted to some aspect of the war and its ancillary issues (what he refers to religiously as "the so-called war on terror"). This figure doesn't include the columns that mentioned the war or Bush's handling of it simply in passing (of which there are many), and I also threw out columns that only glanced off the issue, such as his Dec. 15 tribute to anti-war icon Eugene McCarthy.

How extraordinary is this amount? For comparison's sake, I took a look at two other columnists, Herbert's New York Times colleague Thomas L. Friedman and The Washington Post's Richard Cohen. Friedman, of course, specializes in foreign affairs, and both journalists keep the war and terrorism on their short list of go-to topics.

Here's how the three match up for the 12 months of 2005: Friedman wrote 33 of his 86 columns, or 38 percent, on the war and terrorism (though I excluded his columns that dealt with Middle East politics in general). Cohen - who has flagellated himself many times over for his early support of the war - wrote 29 out of 95 columns, or 30 percent. Herbert wrote 49 out of 95, or 51 percent.

In June and August 2005, six out of his nine columns were Iraq-related; in May '05, six out of eight.

During these 12 months, Friedman actually traveled to Iraq (and, for that matter, published The World is Flat). Though Herbert has staked out the military's role as a major topic of interest, he has never reported from the battle zone.

More recently, it seemed Herbert was pulling himself away from the topic during the first three months of 2006 (only six out of 23 columns), but after coming off a two-week vacation in early April, he's brought his numbers back up. As of Monday, May 1, four of his past five columns are on Iraq.

Maybe, you could argue, the man has simply carved out a speciality. The war and terrorism are complicated topics. There's a lot to cover. True, but if that were the case, why does he keep covering the same ground?

Yes, most of the columns are off some news development - the 2000th military casualty, Rep. John Murtha's opposition to the war, Abu Ghraib - but to a troubling degree, they seem to disintegrate into the same tired refrains.

To truly appreciate the redundancies, you have to read the columns in their entirety. And if you do, you'll start to notice the patterns - his fixations on Condi Rice's specter of "mushroom clouds," on Gen. Eric Shinseki's questionable departure, on Dick Cheney's promise the troops would be "greeted as liberators," but most of all on Bush's "campaign of deceit," his arrogance, his questionable grasp on reality, his lack of an exit strategy.

Here's just a glimpse of his obsession with Bush's swagger:

May 8, 2003: "While our 'What, me worry?' president is having a great time with his high approval ratings and his 'Top Gun' fantasies, the economy remains in the tank."

July 31, 2003: "For the Bushes and the Rumsfelds, this is a grand imperial adventure, with press-conference posturing and wonderful photo-ops, like the president's 'Top Gun' moment on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln."

Sept. 19, 2003: "Republicans are not eager to have the general's career contrasted with the military misadventures of George W. Bush, who ... celebrated the alleged end to major combat in Iraq by staging his very own 'Top Gun' fantasy aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln."

April 2, 2004: "The president's giddily choreographed 'Top Gun' spectacle was designed to take full public relations advantage of his triumphant announcement that 'major combat operations in Iraq' had ended."

April 30, 2004: "The sad truth about Iraq is that one year after President Bush gaudily proclaimed victory with his 'Top Gun' moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, we don't know what we're doing in Iraq."

Sept. 22, 2005: "Mr. Bush's 'Top Gun' moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was two-and-a-half years ago. It was another example of the president in fantasyland."

Jan. 26, 2006: "This guy is something. Remember his 'Top Gun' moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln?"

April 27, 2006: "[A]s president, he's suddenly G.I. George, strutting around in a flight suit, threatening to wage war on all and sundry, and taunting the insurgents in Iraq with a cry of 'bring them on.'"

Clearly, with Iraq, Herbert has picked his war. But has he picked too many battles?

With each repetition, he diminishes his ability to persuade, to attract attention, to fully engage his readership. He's trading substance for bluster, squandering a power that most members of the media can only dream of.

The eight columnist positions at The New York Times are among the most influential print real estate in the country. They offer a forum that has helped change national and foreign policy, save lives and right wrongs of colossal proportion. As a Texan, I am deeply grateful to Herbert for his tenacity in reporting on the imprisonment of several African-Americans wrongly accused and convicted of drug-dealing. It was a story he reported with more passion, indignation and enterprise than most Texas media could muster. Over the course of a year, he traveled to the state and wrote a series of columns that are generally considered crucial in helping gain his subjects' release.

Herbert's passion and indignation are still front and center in his Iraq columns, but he has put himself at dire risk of anyone who keeps repeating himself: People stop listening.

Nancy Kruh’s digest of syndicated columns, Balance of Opinion, appears twice weekly in The Dallas Morning News. Balance of Opinion is syndicated by InOpinion. A longer version of this piece is posted on Kruh’s blog, Conversations, at www.inopinion.com..

Media Ignores War On Terror Heroes by Jack Kelly

The last of Cap Weinberger's many services to his country, completed just days before his death, is the book "Home of the Brave."

In "Home of the Brave," President Reagan's secretary of defense and co-author Wynton Hall tell the stories of American heroes in the War on Terror the news media should be telling, but mostly haven't.

One story that has been reasonably well told is that of Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the Kentucky Army National Guard, the first woman to be awarded the Silver Star, America's third highest combat decoration, since nurse Mary Louise Roberts in World War II.

Sgt. Hester, 23, won the Silver Star for her role in repulsing an ambush by more than 50 insurgents of a convoy her military police squad was escorting on March 20, 2005. When the day was over, 27 of the insurgents were dead, seven more were prisoners.

"Raven 42" of the 617th Military Police Company was one together group. In addition to Sgt. Hester, two others of the ten member squad won the Silver Star for their actions that day; three were awarded the Bronze Star, and two the Army Commendation Medal with combat V. Not bad for weekend warriors.

Thanks mostly to the efforts of Alex Leary of the St. Petersburg Times, the story of Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, the only Medal of Honor recipient in the war so far, has also been told pretty well.

At the Baghdad International Airport on April 4, 2003, SFC Smith held off, essentially by himself, an attack by 100 or more insurgents, killing nearly 50 before he himself was mortally wounded.

But Sgt. Rafael Peralta, LtCol. Mark Mitchell, Staff Sergeant Stephen Achey, Hospitalman Luis Fonseca and the 13 others profiled by Mr. Weinberger and Mr. Hall are household names chiefly only in their own households, and in the units in which they served.

Of the 19 heroes whose exploits are recounted in this book, eight are Army soldiers; eight are Marines; two are Air Force tactical air controllers, and one is a Navy corpsman who serves with Marines. Three won their awards in Afghanistan; 16 in Iraq.

The story that caused me to tear up the most is that of Marine Sgt. Peralta, who has been recommended, posthumously, for the Medal of Honor.

Sgt. Peralta was killed on Nov. 15, 2004, during the second battle of Fallujah. His squad was clearing a house. Sgt. Peralta was the first into a room where at least three insurgents lay in ambush. He was shot in the chest and the face, but still had the presence of mind to jump into an adjoining room to give the Marines behind him a clear field of fire.

Four Marines maneuvered into the room where Sgt. Peralta lay when an insurgent tossed a grenade into it. Sgt. Peralta pulled the grenade to him and smothered it with his body, saving the others from death or serious injury.

Sgt. Rafael Peralta died for a country he loved, but of which he was not yet a citizen. A Mexican immigrant who lived in San Diego, Sgt. Peralta enlisted in the Marines the day he received his green card.

"Be proud of being an American," Sgt. Peralta had written to his younger brother in the only letter he ever sent him.

Of the 19 heroes described in the book, three others besides Sgt. Peralta -- Army Sergeant First Class Javier Camacho; Marine Sgt. Marco Martinez, and Luis Fonseca, the Navy corpsman -- are Hispanics. This is a fact that I think has some relevance in the current immigration debate.

In an afterword, Secretary Weinberger and Mr. Hall say they wrote "Home of the Brave" to compensate in part for the lack of coverage in the news media of the good things our servicemen and women are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The dearth of hopeful or heroic stories reported has given viewers a lopsided perspective," they wrote.

Soldiers who misbehave make the front page. Soldiers who perform nobly do not. When SFC Smith was awarded the Medal of Honor, the New York Times put the story on page A-13.

I did a Nexis search on "New York Times and Abu Ghraib." It came back with more than 1,000 hits. The Times has run exactly one story that mentions Sgt. Peralta, and he had to share billing in it with SFC Smith and Sgt. Hester.

"A nation that ignores, or, worse, attacks its heroes erodes and disparages its own ethos," warn Mr. Weinberger and Mr. Hall.

May 02, 2006

By Jack Kelly

A strike against America by Patrick J. Buchanan

It was billed as "A Day Without Immigrants."

According to its propagandists, official and media, the purpose of the May Day walkout from schools and jobs and boycott of shops and stores was to show how much immigrants contribute and how they deserve appreciation and respect, and not to be treated like criminals.

But if this was all it was about, there would have been no need to go on strike. Americans have always welcomed immigrants. They are better treated here than anywhere on earth. While most Americans believe we now need a timeout to assimilate the 36 million here and their children – like the moratorium we had in the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy years – no one urges any denial of rights to legal immigrants.

What, then, was May Day really all about?

May Day was a strike against America. It was a show of force, a demonstration of raw street power to force the government of the United States into granting to 12 million illegal aliens, who have broken our laws and broken into our country, not only the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, but full citizenship.


It was brazen act of extortion to coerce Congress to grant amnesty now, and not to enforce our immigration laws or secure the Mexican border – or to be ready for big trouble in the streets.

Congress cannot capitulate. The response of any Congress that calls itself American to such extortion should be a direct one:

"We are not intimidated. There is going to be no amnesty. The border fence goes up this summer. Those are our non-negotiable answers to your non-negotiable demands. Demonstrate all you want. We're not capitulating."

The message that would go out to the world would be electric: Congress will have said, first, that the United States will not be cowed by strikes or boycotts by law-breakers. Second, America intends to re-establish control of her border. Third, the invasion route from Mexico is going to be closed, forever.

Fourth, those who come to America henceforth will be those we invite in. And, as guests, they will behave as guests – or they will be going back home. As for businesses that cannot get along without illegal foreign labor, if some of their CEOs are prosecuted and put to work in Arizona building that security fence, they will rapidly rediscover how to make a buck without colluding in an invasion of their country for commercial purposes.

We are at a turning point in American history. In July of 1954, President Eisenhower, discovering that illegal aliens were pouring into the Southern United States at a rate of a million a year, put in motion Operation Wetback, which halted the invasion and sent back scores of thousands of illegals to Mexico. Many more returned voluntarily.

Thirty years later, Ronald Reagan declared an amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens, conditioned on sanctions on U.S. businesses that did not cease to hire them. Following that amnesty, the flood began. Now we have 12 million illegals here.

Between 2000 and 2005, 4.5 million were caught at the border. Four million are believed to have gotten in. No one knows exactly how many. Even Bush concedes that, among the illegals, one in 12 has a criminal record. If we have 12 million illegals here now, that means the U.S. government, in dereliction of its duty, has let into this nation in the last 20 years 1 million criminals – like Beltway sniper John Lee Malvo – to prey on American citizens.

While almost half of all Mexicans, in a national poll, indicated a desire to move to the United States, the rest of the Third World has gotten the message. One in every 10 citizens of Central America and the Caribbean countries has already arrived. During the War on Terror, the number of those coming into the United States illegally from countries "other than Mexico" (OTM) has tripled.

These OTMs are coming from as far away as China and Iraq.

Fifteen years ago, when this writer ran in the California GOP primary against the first President Bush, calling for a border fence along the crucial 70 miles where illegals were massing and coming in by the thousands every day, there were 3 million to 4 million illegals here.

Nothing was done. There are now 12 million. If these 12 million are amnestied and the border fence is not built along all 2,000 miles, the next amnesty will be for 20 million or 30 million.

During the "Generals' Revolt," when half a dozen senior officers called for the firing of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush saw a challenge to his authority and had to throw it back. If Congress does not throw back this challenge, if Congress now capitulates to this extortion, America should start shopping for a new Congress in November – an American Congress.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taliban Threat Is Said to Grow in Afghan South

Building on a winter campaign of suicide bombings and assassinations and the knowledge that American troops are leaving, the Taliban appear to be moving their insurgency into a new phase, flooding the rural areas of southern Afghanistan with weapons and men.

Each spring with the arrival of warmer weather, the fighting season here starts up, but the scale of the militants' presence and their sheer brazenness have alarmed Afghans and foreign officials far more than in previous years.

"The Taliban and Al Qaeda are everywhere," a shopkeeper, Haji Saifullah, told the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, as the general strolled through the bazaar of this town to talk to people. "It is all right in the city, but if you go outside the city, they are everywhere, and the people have to support them. They have no choice."

The fact that American troops are pulling out of southern Afghanistan in the coming months, and handing matters over to NATO peacekeepers, who have repeatedly stated that they are not going to fight terrorists, has given a lift to the insurgents, and increased the fears of Afghans.

General Eikenberry appealed for patience and support. "There has not been enough attention paid to Uruzgan," he said in a speech to the elders of Uruzgan Province gathered at the governor's house in Tirin Kot, the provincial capital. "I think the leaders, the Afghan government and the international community recognize this. There is reform coming and this year you will see it."

The arrival of large numbers of Taliban in the villages, flush with money and weapons, has dealt a blow to public confidence in the Afghan government, already undermined by lack of tangible progress and frustration with corrupt and ineffective leaders.

This small one-street town is in the Taliban heartland, and the message from the townspeople was bleak.

Uruzgan, the province where President Hamid Karzai first rallied support against the Taliban in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, is now, four years later, in the thrall of the Islamic militants once more, and the provincial capital is increasingly surrounded by areas in Taliban control, local and American officials acknowledge. A recent report by a member of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan shown to The New York Times detailed similar fears.

The new governor, Maulavi Abdul Hakim Munib, 35, who took up his position just a month ago, controls only a "bubble" around Tirin Kot, an American military officer said. The rest of the province is so thick with insurgents that all the districts are colored amber or red to indicate that on military maps in the nearby American base. Uruzgan has always been troublesome, yet the map marks a deterioration since last year, when at least one central district had been colored green, the officer said.

"The security situation is not good," Governor Munib told General Eikenberry and a group of cabinet ministers at a meeting with tribal elders. "The number of Taliban and enemy is several times more than that of the police and Afghan National Army in this province," he said.

Uruzgan is not the only province teetering out of control. Helmand and Kandahar to the south have been increasingly overrun by militants this year, as large groups of Taliban are reportedly moving through the countryside, intimidating villagers, ambushing vehicles, and spoiling for a fight with coalition or Afghan forces.

Insurgents also have the run of parts of Zabul, Ghazni and Paktika Provinces to the southeast, and have increased ambushes on the main Kabul-Kandahar highway.

The Bush administration is alarmed, according to a Western intelligence official close to the administration. He said that while senior members of the administration consider the situation in Iraq to be not as bad as portrayed in the press, in Afghanistan the situation is worse than it has been generally portrayed.

Asked about the surge in Taliban activity in southern Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said: "We have seen Taliban activity fluctuate from time to time." The British-led NATO force taking over from the American troops in the south "has well-equipped, well-led and fully prepared forces to operate in this challenging environment and deal with any threats," he added.

He noted that the United States would continue to be the largest contributor of troops to Afghanistan, and would continue to have primary responsibility for counterterrorism operations and for training Afghan Army units, even with NATO taking over in the south.

In one of the most serious developments, some 200 Taliban have moved into the district of Panjwai, only a 20-minute drive from the capital of the south, Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home city. The police and coalition forces clashed with them two weeks ago, yet the Taliban returned, walking in the villages openly with their weapons, and sitting under the trees eating mulberries, according to a resident of the district.

The resident, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, said the Taliban had been demanding food, lodging and the Muslim tithing, zakat, from villagers. Their brazenness and the failure of the United States-led coalition to deter them is turning public opinion about the effectiveness of the government.

For the first time the Afghan government has sent 500 men of the newly trained Afghan National Army to the neglected province. The official police force of Uruzgan is 347 strong, with 45 men deployed in each of the five districts, but far fewer actually turn up for work. American officials estimated armed Taliban in the province numbered from 300 to 1,000 men. The governor estimated there were 300 armed insurgents in each district.

The Taliban are warning the people to expect more attacks, the shopkeeper, Mr. Saifullah, told General Eikenberry. "During the day the people, the police, and the army are with the government, but during the night, the people, the police, and the army are all with the Taliban and Al Qaeda," he said.

Another man, Rahmatullah, told the general that his brother had been arrested by American forces and the raids and house searches had made the young men take to the hills to join the militants. "Release my brother and the tribal elders will persuade the young men to come back home and stop fighting," he said.

"The unemployment rate is very high and the people of Uruzgan are very poor," said Mullah Hamdullah, the elected head of the provincial council.

Unsure of the strength and commitment to fight of the incoming NATO forces — with British, Canadian, Dutch and Australian contingents — Afghan provincial officials, who stand first in the Taliban's firing line, have demanded that Mr. Karzai provide them with hundreds more police officers and weapons.

The governors of Uruzgan and Kandahar both said in interviews that they have lobbied the president for a force of 200 police officers for every district — four times current numbers — and to provide more resources to equip and supply them properly.

In a recent strategy review, Mr. Karzai agreed to increase the government presence in the frontline provinces, his chief of staff, Jawed Ludin, said. "We are increasingly hearing this, that there only 40 officers per district, and half of them are protecting the district chief as bodyguards, and the other half are on leave," he said.

A deputy minister of the interior, Abdul Malik Siddiqi, told the gathering that the government had a plan to send 200 to 250 police officers to each district of Uruzgan, and to find resources to equip them and pay their salaries.

General Eikenberry expressed caution about the idea, warning that there were not enough trained officers to send to the area, and more important, a lack of good leaders to control those police forces.

Uruzgan has suffered from a lingering Taliban presence and its forbidding terrain, which has made security and governing extremely difficult, resulting in neglect from the central government, he said. There has been no police reform or training here, no presence of the Afghan National Army and virtually no development, he said.

General Eikenberry is hoping to turn things around this year with new and better local leaders. "Now we see a lot of those conditions changing," he said, in an interview in the cockpit of the C130 military plane on the way to Uruzgan. Replacing the governor, and police and intelligence chiefs, should allow for reform and better governance, he said. Some 500 men of the national army have been deployed in the province and the police should receive better resources.

Hopes are pinned on Maulavi Munib, an educated, religious man from eastern Afghanistan, who was deputy minister of tribal affairs of the Taliban government. He is starting from scratch since the former governor sold all his vehicles, including police vehicles, and all the arms and ammunition owned by the province.

Governor Munib's past brings an added complication, since he remains listed by the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee as a wanted member of the Taliban leadership, which technically bars any government from providing financial, technical or military assistance to his province.

The Afghan government has formally requested that he, and three other former Taliban officials, including two members of Afghanistan's new Parliament, be removed from the list, a process that demands the agreement of all Security Council members, but Afghan officials said Russia remained opposed to the proposal.

By CARLOTTA GALL

Sheriff to Start Posse Patrols to Curb Illegal Immigration Flow

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that approximately 100 volunteer posse and Sheriff's Deputies will soon begin randomly patrolling the desert areas and main roadways in southwest Maricopa County as a part of an operation to curb the flow of illegal immigrants entering the county.

Arpaio made the announced just as 11 more illegal immigrants were being booked in jail after a Ford Windstar with California plates and 16 people packed inside was stopped by a Sheriff's deputy early Tuesday morning on a traffic violation near Gila Bend.

Despite the growing controversy about illegal aliens nationwide, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office remains the only Arizona law enforcement agency willing to enforce a new state anti-smuggling law.

"There are so many illegals trying to make it into the county that it's overwhelming my deputies, so I have called on members of my 3000 member volunteer posse to assist," says Sheriff Arpaio. "It's not only illegals we find and arrest out there, we've also made some recent huge drug seizures involving illegal aliens including nearly 100 pounds of methamphetamine and approximately three pounds of heroin."

Posse man Andrew Ramsammy, who was part of Tuesday's arrest team, says that he believes he represents many of his peers when he says that the posse is anxious to be a part of the Sheriff's solution to the immigration problem.

"As a group of law abiding people, we are fed up with the number of people who come into this county illegally. We're tired of the drugs that some of them bring to sell to our young people and we're ready and willing to assist the Sheriff's deputies in the fight against illegal immigration," says Ramsammy.

Sheriff Arpaio says Tuesday's arrests include two coyotes, one of whom may be charged with a far more serious offense - endangerment.

Virgilio Parra Sabori may face a class 6 felony charge if it is determined that he recklessly left one of his customers to die in the desert.

That customer who may have paid as much as $1100 to gain entrance into the country, was a 24-year-old Mexican male found near death by deputies who combed the desert earlier today after being told by other people in the vehicle that one man was left behind. That young man was found lying in the sun on the desert floor and is currently in serious condition in a west valley hospital.

Arpaio says today his deputies so far have made seven anti smuggling cases in the last few weeks alone and that 120 illegals have been arrested and jailed.

Arpaio houses 10,000 prisoners in his jails, including almost 2000 in a tent city he erected in 1993. Tent City is being expanded to hold an anticipated increase in of inmates being incarcerated in the Maricopa County jails.


CBS News KPHO AZ