by Rupe | Nov 4, 2005 | Military-Political
The Muslim holy month of Ramadan concluded Nov. 3 with celebrations marking the holiday of Eid al-Fitr. Many believe that Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim calendar, constitutes a greater terrorist threat than other months because of Ramadan’s great religious and historical significance. Though several reports indicated that militants were planning to carry out global offensive attacks against Western targets during the 2005 Ramadan season, as Stratfor predicted such attacks did not materialize. There are several reasons for this.
Historically, al Qaeda has made strategic decisions to attack only when operational components are in place that would allow for an attack’s successful completion. To al Qaeda, the fulfillment of its operational planning is much more important than striking on a particularly significant date. Though it is certainly possible that militant attacks could be launched during Ramadan, it is no more likely than at any other time of year.
Despite the popular idea that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were carried out on that date to increase the attacks’ significance — because of the numbers “911” — the attacks were in fact planned to occur much earlier. According to the 9/11 Commission report, al Qaeda operational planners, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, originally intended to carry out the attacks in May 2001. However, because the operational teams were not fully prepared to strike, the attacks were postponed. When al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden learned that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would be visiting the White House that summer, Mohammed was urged to strike in June or July 2001. But again, the operation was put off because the hijackers were not yet prepared. Planning and readiness trumped the possible benefits of launching the attacks to coincide with a particular date or event.
Also, once preparations for an attack are complete, any militant group exposes itself to additional risks by waiting for a specific date — and the longer the wait, the higher the risk. As a potential attack moves further into the operational cycle, the chances of detection grow significantly. Hesitation after preparations are complete can put the entire plan in jeopardy — an unacceptable risk. Al Qaeda emphasizes the successful completion of attacks and thus will strike as soon as possible once all operational components are in place.
Al Qaeda’s operational planning and training also show a preference for striking at times when attacks are unexpected. Specific anniversaries and dates seem to increase the amount of law enforcement vigilance as authorities attempt to thwart potential attacks. That additional attention creates an added risk for terrorists, who prefer to operate in times of decreased attention and awareness.
Al Qaeda’s leadership undoubtedly has read the 9/11 Commission report and thus learned just how close the attackers were to being thwarted on several occasions. With law enforcement’s increased awareness of al Qaeda tactics and vulnerabilities, the group’s leadership likely is more aware than ever that waiting to carry out an attack could be a serious miscalculation and could result in failure.
Recent years have seen some increase in attacks in the Iraqi theater during Ramadan, but this probably is because the number of large soft targets increases significantly during this time and probably has little to do with the holy month itself. Large groups of Muslims congregating in mosques, restaurants and other gathering places during Ramadan — and similarly in Muharram, the first month of the Muslim calendar that holds particular significance for the Shia — are attractive targets that have the potential for particularly high casualties.
by Rupe | Nov 4, 2005 | Mad Musings, Military-Political
By AFSHIN MOLAVI
Published: November 3, 2005
Washington
WHEN Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called last week for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” he raised fears not only abroad but also at home, particularly among Iran’s sizeable, democratically minded middle class. The new president’s confrontational tone threatens to deepen the isolation of Iran’s democrats, pushing them further behind his long shadow. Western powers have a dual challenge: to find a way to engage this population even as they struggle to address the new president’s inflammatory rhetoric.
Skip to next paragraph
Igor Kopelnitsky
By the time Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected in June, a sustained assault by hard-liners had left Iranian democrats disoriented and leaderless, their dissidents jailed, newspapers closed and reformist political figures popularly discredited.
But democratic aspirations should not be written off as a passing fad that died with the failure of the reform movement and the replacement of a reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, with a hard-liner, Mr. Ahmadinejad. The historic roots of reform run deep in Iran, and support for democratic change remains widespread.
Iran’s modern middle class, which is increasingly urbanized, wired and globally connected, provides particularly fertile soil for these aspirations. The Stanford University scholar Abbas Milani has described Iran’s middle class as a “Trojan horse within the Islamic republic, supporting liberal values, democratic tolerance and civic responsibility.” And so long as that class grows, so too will the pressure for democratic change.
If Mr. Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy results in further global economic isolation or military intervention, however, the situation for Iran’s democracy-minded middle class could deteriorate. Foreign hostility will furnish additional pretexts for the regime to frighten its people and crack down on dissent. Particularly if the European Union decides to participate in a tougher sanctions regime, liberal-minded Iranians will lose contact with the foreign investors, educators, tourists and businessmen who link them to the outside world.
Now more than ever, middle-class and other democracy-minded Iranians need to preserve and expand their network of institutions independent from the government – institutions in which they can take refuge from the rapacious hardliners who seek to control all aspects of Iranian life. That network should include a strong private sector; a rich array of nongovernmental organizations dealing with issues like poverty, women’s rights and youth unemployment; and social, intellectual and cultural associations that communicate with counterparts abroad.
Unfortunately, United States sanctions now prevent any American person or group from financially supporting, say, a microfinance bank, a program to train future political leaders or even an education initiative for rural women in Iran. That is a mis- take. Elsewhere in the Middle East, the United States has programs that provide exactly these kinds of grants, in the name of democratization.
The United States should ease such sanctions in order to match its rhetorical commitment to Iranian democracy with meaningful action. The European Union should also step up its support for democratic activists and its commitment to the protection of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, development institutions like the World Bank should invest in Iran’s emerging private sector, which is not affiliated with the country’s business mafias or the government-linked foundations that control about a quarter of the country’s wealth.
Critics may protest that bolstering Iran’s economy through such middle-class development will prolong the Islamic regime. But that’s unlikely, if history is any guide. Certainly two decades of economic growth, during which the middle class swelled and political and economic ties to the United States were tight, failed to preserve the regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.
But the authoritarian theocracy that followed was not the aspiration of middle-class Iranian revolutionaries, who lost the post-revolution power struggle to supporters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Ayatollah Khomeini, like Mr. Ahmadinejad, was a master at combining economic populism with religious fervor in appealing to the poor and dispossessed.
Today poverty, not prosperity, again propels Iran toward extremist politics. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s election – however flawed – did not reflect a popular desire for a harder-line foreign policy or for a rush to obtain nuclear weapons. Rather, it emerged from a persistent sense of low-grade economic pain, resentment of the ruling elites’ corruption and frustration with widening income gaps. Most Iranians concern themselves far more with the price of meat and onions than with the Arab-Israeli peace process or uranium enrichment.
In portraying himself as an outsider, a “man of the people” and an anti-corruption crusader with a bag full of economic promises, Mr. Ahmadinejad tapped into these sentiments. His second-round opponent, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, proved to be the perfect foil: a multimillionaire mullah widely derided for his personal corruption and family business ties.
Tellingly, the leading reformist candidate, Mustafa Moin, placed fifth after campaigning almost exclusively on human rights and democratic freedoms. Today many reformists recognize that their movement had lost touch with the economic preoccupations of ordinary people. Stagnant wages, double digit inflation and high unemployment proved more than passingly distracting to Iranians who might otherwise have continued agitating for change.
Before the revolution, American officials often urged the dictatorial shah to share power with the emerging middle class. The shah chose to ignore that advice, and Americans eventually stopped offering it. Now is the time to dust off such thinking and pursue a policy that targets economic support to our natural allies in Iran’s economic center. Only a strong and stable middle class can ensure that Iran’s inevitable winds of change do more than knock down a few trees – or produce another populist demagogue.
Afshin Molavi, a fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of “The Soul of Iran: A Nation’s Journey to Freedom.”
by Rupe | Sep 30, 2005 | Military-Political
I came across the following post during my daily reading and found it pretty interesting. Not that I think the fellow being maligned is headed down the right track, but the self righteous admonition of some within ranks just chaps my hide. Here is an excerpt of the article at DefenseWatch:
—————-
09.23.2005
Navy Coward or Conscientious Objector?
By Matthew Dodd
On September 23, 2005, a small, select group of U.S. Navy officers is scheduled to have an opportunity to help make a very important decision that will potentially affect the good order and discipline in the ranks of all our military Services. Specifically, these officers will recommend the type of administrative discharge to be given to a sailor who has claimed to be a conscientious objector to our ongoing global war on terrorism, and specifically our combat operations in Iraq.
On December 6, 2004, Navy Petty Officer Pablo Paredes showed up at the San Diego pier where his amphibious assault ship, the USS Bonhomme Richard, was scheduled to deploy to the Persian Gulf, in a black tee-shirt with white letters that read, “Like a Cabinet Member, I resign.” At Paredes’ request, there were many media representatives at the pier to report his actions.
R.: Pablo Paredes, Photo: Citizens for Pablo. 
Paredes refused to board the ship, thereby missing his scheduled six month deployment, which is a violation of Article 87 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): “Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court martial may direct.”
Click to read the full article
by Rupe | Jan 10, 2004 | Military-Political
Being a cynic at heart, I really don’t Profess any one Particular Preference for any Political Party over the other. I have voted for both parties in the past, but in general I have become jaded over the years. I have realized that regardless of one’s individual preferences and thoughts, the dominant parties in our society espouse, reflect, (sorry I am on a big word run) very little differences.
I believe in the democratic principles on which our country was formed, but our system (financial, governmental, etc..) is now so perverted it’s ridiculous. I think I talk for most American, when I say, it really doesn’t matter who sits at the top of government.
Now, there are core issues that the parties like to take up as their battle songs – the Democrats are all for social programs and helping “the man”, while the Republicans are all about moral constraints and bootstrap ideology to achieve. I am all about both of those so no sweat. What I think I have a problem with is how we are going to resolve issues such as racism, abortion, mercy killing, cloning, etc… Obviously there are extremes on how to approach these social issues in either party, but I think that these issue are what most Americans care about…well, besides making sure they have a job of course.
