Never knew he drank til I saw him sober and That's All Folks!

George Friedman provides an analysis of Blackwater and what it means to have civilians in such position(s.) (See 1 below.)

A supposed speech by a Marine General. I never know whether these e mails are authentic but it claims to be and was made to a small San Diego California group. Whether real or not it is worth reading. (See 2 below.)

The United States is one of the world's wealthiest, largest and most populated countries. That so, then lets take a kaleidoscope look at the major and most likely candidates seeking their party's nomination for President.

Democrats:

Gov. Richardson: Politician, diplomat and Governor of one of our nation's least populated states. New Mexico has many native Americans and Hispanics living there. Has not accomplished anything necessarily outstanding. Wants out of Iraq. Doesn't say much about Iran and N Korea but seems to want to do more talking.

Senator Clinton: Former wife of a president, a Senator, a lawyer. Has never run anything but her mouth, a stealth type candidate the media fears interviewing in a hardball fashion, very cautious campaigner and tends to say what her selected audience most wants to hear. Questionable marriage. High negative ratings. Wants out of Iraq but not always sure and is not happy with Iran and N Korea but other than rhetoric no espoused plan to deal with them.


Former Senator Edwards: A trial attorney, Senator and former V.P candidate on losing ticket. Never ran anything but his mouth as well. Made a lot of money suing people and entities and has turned populist so he can align himself with the poor and downtrodden from whence he claims he came. Solid marriage. For sure wants out of Iraq. Not much comment about Iran and N Korea but sure he wants to take shirts off rich and give to poor.

Sen. Barak: Politician, first serious black candidate, never ran anything, inexperience has begun showing on campaign trail, proven money raiser, plays charisma to the hilt an would like to be considered another Jack Kennedy. Solid marriage. Wants out of Iraq. Uncomfortable thinking about Iran and N Korea but not about showing voters he is serious so he took flag pin off his lapel.

Republicans:

Former Senator Thompson: Came late to campaign because wasn't sure he had the fire in his belly, media star, never ran anything, darling of the far right wing of his party and has non-threatening cancer. Recently married and very young son. Might stay in Iraq a little longer. Hasn't been around to say too much about N Korea and Iran but maybe his TV acting and scripted dialogue will give us some clues.

Former Mayor Giuliani: Prosecutor and Mayor of one of world's largest cities. Many of his Wall Street convictions overturned, presided over city during 9/11 and demonstrated take over leadership. Catholic married to a Jewess and somewhat testy relationship with sons from former marriage. Prostate cancer Too liberal for extreme right of Party. Would continue presence in Iraq. As a former prosecutor and victim of 9/11 takes a tough stance on Iran, N Korea and terrorism.

Former Governor Romney: If varied accomplishments mean anything to voters Romney wins hands down. Solved serious problems of Olympic operation, founded one of world's largest and most successful companies - Bain Capital and Consultants - Governor of liberal eastern state with Democrat Legislature and a Mormon. Solid marriage, seems to have fine children. Appears too qualified and party voters fear he might have more than one wife stashed somewhere. Would stay in Iraq until more accomplished. Not overly verbal about Iran and N Korea.

Former Gov. Huckabee: Extreme right of his party consider him very qualified because he was a former preacher, did a decent job as Governor of a small southeastern state known for past problems with integration. He speaking style folksy and makes a lot of sense but does not have the money to make the impact equal to his qualifications. Demonstrated self-control by losing a lot of weight. Would stay in Iraq until more positive results achieved. Seldom says much about Iran and N Korea.

Sen. John McCain: Feisty hawk, war hero, Viet-Nam POW,somewhat quirky on a host of other issues. Skin cancer. For sure would finish mission in Iraq, adamant about Iran and N Korea. Married, wife wealthy. Right Wing of party has a love hate relationship with the Senator.

Democrats seem to believe voters are so disaffected with GW and Republicans they will vote for anyone who breathes, is a Democrat who wants to get us out of Iraq post haste and, at the present time, seem willing to hold their noses and vote for Sen. Clinton because they love her husband Bill.

Republicans are dis-spirited and confused and have just about given up on all their candidates. Their candidates fear embracing GW will doom their chances so they mouth their "Support For The Troops."

As Bugs Bunny would say, "That's All Folks."

Has Syria begun to develop an "airburst" radiological missile capability and been assisted by N Korea? GW is seeking clarification and more proof from Israel. Sec's Rice and Gates remain suspicious of Israel's proof, V.P Cheney and his supporters are not. If Israel is correct then GW and the Administration will have to consider altering their thinking. (See 3 below.)

Abbas lays out the specifics with respect to what he wants by way of borders. (See 4 below.)

Putin says Russia has no proof that Iran is developing a bomb and that his nation has been co-operative with the U.N. regarding this issue. Russians never lie and most assuredly Putin does not. Of course I never knew Putin drank till I saw him sober, either. (see 5 below.)

Does Olmert have a saviour in Dichter? Some think so. (See 6 below.)


Dick


1) The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater
By George Friedman

For the past three weeks, Blackwater, a private security firm under contract to the U.S. State Department, has been under intense scrutiny over its operations in Iraq. The Blackwater controversy has highlighted the use of civilians for what appears to be combat or near-combat missions in Iraq. Moreover, it has raised two important questions: Who controls these private forces and to whom are they accountable?

The issue is neither unique to Blackwater nor to matters of combat. There have long been questions about the role of Halliburton and its former subsidiary, KBR, in providing support services to the military. The Iraq war has been fought with fewer active-duty troops than might have been expected, and a larger number of contractors relative to the number of troops. But how was the decision made in the first place to use U.S. nongovernmental personnel in a war zone? More important, how has that decision been implemented?

The United States has a long tradition of using private contractors in times of war. For example, it augmented its naval power in the early 19th century by contracting with privateers -- nongovernmental ships -- to carry out missions at sea. During the battle for Wake Island in 1941, U.S. contractors building an airstrip there were trapped by the Japanese fleet, and many fought alongside Marines and naval personnel. During the Civil War, civilians who accompanied the Union and Confederate armies carried out many of the supply functions. So, on one level, there is absolutely nothing new here. This has always been how the United States fights war.

Nevertheless, since before the fall of the Soviet Union, a systematic shift has been taking place in the way the U.S. force structure is designed. This shift, which is rooted both in military policy and in the geopolitical perception that future wars will be fought on a number of levels, made private security contractors such as KBR and Blackwater inevitable. The current situation is the result of three unique processes: the introduction of the professional volunteer military, the change in force structure after the Cold War, and finally the rethinking and redefinition of the term "noncombatant" following the decision to include women in the military, but bar them from direct combat roles.

The introduction of the professional volunteer military caused a rethinking of the role of the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine in the armed forces. Volunteers were part of the military because they chose to be. Unlike draftees, they had other options. During World War II and the first half of the Cold War, the military was built around draftees who were going to serve their required hitch and return to civilian life. Although many were not highly trained, they were quite suited for support roles, from KP to policing the grounds. After all, they already were on the payroll, and new hires were always possible.

In a volunteer army, the troops are expected to remain in the military much longer. Their training is more expensive -- thus their value is higher. Taking trained specialists who are serving at their own pleasure and forcing them to do menial labor over an extended period of time makes little sense either from a utilization or morale point of view. The concept emerged that the military's maintenance work should shift to civilians, and that in many cases the work should be outsourced to contractors. This tendency was reinforced during the Reagan administration, which, given its ideology, supported privatization as a way to make the volunteer army work. The result was a growth in the number of contractors taking over many of the duties that had been performed by soldiers during the years of conscription.

The second impetus was the end of the Cold War and a review carried out by then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin under then-President Bill Clinton. The core argument was that it was irrational to maintain a standing military as large as had existed during the Cold War. Aspin argued for a more intensely technological military, one that would be less dependent on ground troops. The Air Force was key to this, while the Navy was downsized. The main consideration, however, was the structure of the standing Army -- especially when large-scale, high-intensity, long-term warfare no longer seemed a likely scenario.

The U.S. Army's active-duty component, in particular, was reduced. It was assumed that in time of war, components of the Reserves and National Guard would be mobilized, not so much to augment the standing military, but to carry out a range of specialized roles. For example, Civil Affairs, which has proven to be a critical specialization in Iraq and Afghanistan, was made a primary responsibility of the Reserves and National Guard, as were many engineering, military-intelligence and other specializations.

This plan was built around certain geopolitical assumptions. The first was that the United States would not be fighting peer powers. The second was that it had learned from Vietnam not to get involved in open-ended counterinsurgency operations, but to focus, as it did in Kuwait, on missions that were clearly defined and executable with a main force. The last was that wars would be short, use relatively few troops and be carried out in conjunction with allies. From this it followed that regular forces, augmented by Reserve/National Guard specialists called up for short terms, could carry out national strategic requirements.

The third impetus was the struggle to define military combat and noncombat roles. Given the nature of the volunteer force, women were badly needed, yet they were included in the armed forces under the assumption that they could carry out any function apart from direct combat assignments. This caused a forced -- and strained -- redefinition of these two roles. Intelligence officers called to interrogate a prisoner on the battlefield were thought not to be in a combat position. The same bomb, mortar or rocket fire that killed a soldier might hit them too, but since they technically were not charged with shooting back, they were not combat arms. Ironically, in Iraq, one of the most dangerous tasks is traveling on the roads, though moving supplies is not considered a combat mission.

Under the privatization concept, civilians could be hired to carry out noncombat functions. Under the redefinition of noncombat, the area open to contractors covered a lot of territory. Moreover, under the redefinition of the military in the 1990s, the size and structure of the Army in particular was changed so dramatically that it could not carry out most of its functions without the Reserve/Guard component -- and even with that component, the Army was not large enough. Contractors were needed.

Let us now add a fourth push: the CIA. During Vietnam, and again in Afghanistan and Iraq, a good part of the war was prosecuted by CIA personnel not in uniform and not answerable to the military chain of command. There are arguments on both sides for this, but the fact is that U.S. wars -- particularly highly politicized wars such as counterinsurgencies -- are fought with parallel armies, some reporting to the Defense Department, others to the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The battlefield is, if not flooded, at least full of civilians operating outside of the chain of command, and these civilian government employees are encouraged to hire Iraqi or other nationals, as well as to augment their own capabilities with private U.S. contractors.

Blackwater works for the State Department in a capacity defined as noncombat, protecting diplomats and other high-value personnel from assassination. The Army, bogged down in its own operations, lacks the manpower to perform this obviously valuable work. That means that Blackwater and other contract workers are charged with carrying weapons and moving around the battlefield, which is everywhere. They are heavily armed private soldiers carrying out missions that are combat in all but name -- and they are completely outside of the chain of command.

Moreover, in order to be effective, they have to engage in protective intelligence, looking for surveillance by enemy combatants and trying to foresee potential threats. We suspect the CIA could be helpful in this regard, but it would want information in return. In order to perform its job, then, Blackwater entered the economy of intelligence -- information as a commodity to be exchanged. It had to gather some intelligence in order to trade some. As a result, the distinction between combat and support completely broke down.

The important point is that the U.S. military went to war with the Army the country gave it. We recall no great objections to the downsizing of the military in the 1990s, and no criticisms of the concepts that lay behind the new force structure. The volunteer force, downsized because long-term conflicts were not going to occur, supported by the Reserve/Guard and backfilled by civilian contractors, was not a controversial issue. Only tiresome cranks made waves, challenging the idea that wars would be sparse and short. They objected to the redefinition of noncombat roles and said the downsized force would be insufficient for the 21st century.

Blackwater, KBR and all the rest are the direct result of the faulty geopolitical assumptions and the force structure decisions that followed. The primary responsibility rests with the American public, which made best-case assumptions in a worst-case world. Even without Iraq, civilian contractors would have proliferated on the battlefield. With Iraq, they became an enormous force. Perhaps the single greatest strategic error of the Bush administration was not fundamentally re-examining the assumptions about the U.S. Army on Sept. 12, 2001. Clearly Donald Rumsfeld was of the view that the Army was the problem, not the solution. He was not going to push for a larger force and, therefore, as the war expanded, for fewer civilian contractors.

The central problem regarding private security contractors on the battlefield is that their place in the chain of command is not defined. They report to the State Department, not to the Army and Marines that own the battlefield. But who do they take orders from and who defines their mission? Do they operate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or under some other rule? They are warriors -- it is foolish to think otherwise -- but they do not wear the uniform. The problem with Blackwater stems from having multiple forces fighting for the same side on the same battlefield, with completely different chains of command. Indeed, it is not clear the extent to which the State Department has created a command structure for its contractors, whether it is capable of doing so, or whether the contractors have created their own chain of command.

Blackwater is the logical outcome of a set of erroneous geopolitical conclusions that predate these wars by more than a decade. The United States will be fighting multidivisional, open-ended wars in multiple theaters, and there will be counterinsurgencies. The force created in the 1990s is insufficient, and thus the definition of noncombat specialty has become meaningless. The Reserve/Guard component cannot fill the gap created by strategic errors. The hiring of contractors makes sense and has precedence. But the use of CIA personnel outside the military chain of command creates enough stress. To have private contractors reporting outside the chain of command to government entities not able to command them is the real problem.

A failure that is rooted in the national consensus of the 1990s was compounded by the Bush administration's failure to reshape the military for the realities of the wars it wished to fight. But the final failure was to follow the logic of the civilian contractors through to its end, but not include them in the unified chain of command. In war, the key question must be this: Who gives orders and who takes them? The battlefield is dangerous enough without that question left hanging.

2)I want to open by offering LtGen Mattis' apologies for missing this event. Until recently he certainly looked forward to being here, but an unexpected change in a three and four star executive offsite in Washington prevents him from joining you today. I am his recently joined deputy at the First Marine Expeditionary Force at Pendleton, and will have the honor of taking the next Marine rotation to Iraq early next year. I was also General Mattis' deputy once before when he commanded the 1st Marine Division on the march to Baghdad , Tikrit and beyond four years ago, and when we went back into Iraq in March 2004 relieving the 82nd Airborne in Al Anbar Province.
I am just two months out of the pentagon where I served as the Commandant's Legislative Advisor, and deputy advisor to the SECNAV, so I know the Congress and the Secretary's and Commandant's Hill agendas pretty well. I'll be glad to speak to amphibious ship requirements, V-22 Ospreys, VSTOL Joint Strike fighters, a Marine Corps growing by 27,000 or anything else for that matter during the Q+A.
I left Iraq three years ago last month. I returned a week ago after a two week visit of getting the lay of the land for my upcoming deployment. It is still a dangerous and foreboding land, but what I experienced personally was amazing and remarkable - we are winning, we are really winning. No one told me to say that, I saw it for myself. The higher command in Baghdad told us four years ago when we first took responsibility for the Al Anbar not to worry about victory, as no one-military or civilian-thought it possible. That thirty years from now when the rest of Iraq was a functioning democracy, Al Anbar would still be a festering cancer within...
Continued after the Jump.
...Our success, so we were told, would be in containing violence, not defeating the Al Qaeda and other foreign born terrorists that were deeply entrenched in the Province. The reality is that today the incidents of attack in Al Anbar-mostly by Al Qaeda-are down by over 80% in the last six months-that translates to dozens and dozens everyday then, to perhaps three or four today. Since the spring local inhabitants and their sheik leadership, are now joined with us at the shoulder in fighting the extremists that plague their country. Three weeks ago I went to a gathering of sheiks from the Province outside of Ramadi that numbered over 300 of the most influential men in the west. Three years ago my entire days and nights were devoted to tracking many of these same men down, and capturing or killing them, which is exactly what they were trying to do to me. However, by relentless pursuit by a bunch of fearless 19 year olds with guns who never flinched or gave an inch, while at the same time holding out the carrot of economic development, they have seen the light and know AQ can't win against such men. By staying in the fight, and remaining true to our word, and our honor, AQ today can't spend more than a few hours in Fallujah, Ramadi, or the Al Anbar in general, without being IDed by the locals and killed by the increasingly competent Iraqi Army, or by Marines.That's the way it is today in this war, but it is also the way it has been since the birth of our nation.
Since our Declaration of Independence 42 million Americans have claimed the honor of having served the nation in its military forces. Since that time over a million have lost their lives serving the colors, with millions more wounded. Since George Washington first took command of the Continentals besieging Boston, America's warriors have stepped forward and endured horrors unimaginable to most Americans, and saw it all with their young eyes so those safe at home would never have to. With all this service and loss of life, we as Americans can be proud of the kind of people we are as we have never retained a square foot of any country we have defeated. We possess no empire. No man or woman call us master, as we have never subjugated any society. On the contrary, billions across the planet -and billions more yet unborn-are today free and increasingly prosperous because America took a stand; but it has always fallen on the shoulders of our soldiers, sailors, airmen Coast Guardsmen, and Marines that the task fell to...and they have never wavered. Never, with the exception of World War II, has it been particularly crowded at the recruiting offices, and in recent years it's an increasingly slim slice of the American public who believe in this country enough to put life and limb on the line particularly in the Army and Marine Corps to serve without qualification, and without personal gain. Yet still for whatever reason they come-even though there is great pressure from our society to sit it out and not get involved.
The reality was that when many in this room grew up, and I know I am showing my age here, we were surrounded by men, real men, who had gladly worn the country's cloth in wars against fascism and communism. The earliest memories we had as kids back then were of comic books and paper backs that honored the sacrifices of the super heroes of those conflicts. It was a time when little boys could play guns, and weren't considered at risk to be psychopaths. To stand up when the national anthem was played or say the pledge of allegiance and a prayer to any God you worshiped before school, wasn't considered offensive to the sensitivities of the nation's selfproclaimed intellectual elite. Places like Guadalcanal, Coral Sea , Normandy , Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, and Hue City , were real to us then, and we knew without thinking that we owed the nation a debt.
We live in a very different world today, and we have indeed lost something of quality over the years. We don't always see that same selfless devotion to something bigger than self, which the lucky among us learned from past generations. Today, unfortunately, to most it's about quick gratification, and what's in it for me. Memorial and Veteran's Day are more about a day off to take advantage of the big sales at the malls, or fighting the traffic to get a long weekend at the seashore. But we should not forget that as we stand here today we are at war, and a new Greatest Generation is fighting a merciless enemy on our behalf in the terrible heat of Iraq , and mountains of Afghanistan . Like it or not America is engaged in - and winning - a war today against an enemy that is savage, offers no quarter, whose only objectives are to either kill every one of us here in our homeland, or enslave us with a sick form of extremism that serves no God or purpose that rational men and women can ever understand. Given the opportunity to do another 9/11, our vicious enemy would do it today, tomorrow, and everyday thereafter. In addition to killing thousands of innocent victims that day, they also killed hundreds of heroes: police, firefighters, and first responders of every sort that were not victims in their deaths, but the first fallen warriors of this generation's war. Given nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons-and the experts bet they will get them-these extremists would use these terror weapons against our cities, and smile. I don't know why they hate us, and I frankly don't care and they can all go to hell, but they do hate us and they are driven irrationally to our destruction. The best way to fight them is somewhere else, and for whatever reason they want to destroy our way of life I thank God we still have enough, just enough, young people in American today willing to take up the fight and defend us all.
This fight is today, not against some potential peer competitor that might emerge 30 years from now, and will be with us for another generation or more. Our enemy is on a 100 year campaign to victory, and believes without question that he is winning. We, on the other hand, look out two years at best and seem to be wavering and looking for a way to rationalize our way out. The problem is our enemy is not willing to let us go. Regardless of how much we wish this bad dream would go away, he will stay with us until he hurts us so badly we surrender, or we kill him first. To him this is not about jobs, economic opportunity, or solving social problems in the Middle East . It is about way of life, about everyman's and every woman's worth and equality in the eyes of the law, about the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He doesn't believe in these cherished concepts - we do. Our positions are irreconcilable.
The good news is our service members are as good today, as their fathers were in Vietnam , and their grandfathers were in Korea and World War II. In my two tours in Iraq as an infantry officer with the 1st Marine Division I never saw an American hesitate, or do anything other than lean into the fire and with no apparent fear of death or injury take the fight to our enemies. As anyone who has ever experienced combat knows, when it starts, when the explosions and tracers are everywhere and the calls for the Corpsman or medic are screamed from the throats of men who know they are dying - when seconds seem like hours and it all becomes slow motion and fast forward at the same time-everything in one's survival instinct says stop, get down, save yourself -yet they don't. When no one would call them cowards for cowering behind a wall or in a hole looking to their own self preservation, none of them do. It doesn't matter if it's an IED, a suicide bomber, mortar attack, fighting in an up stairs room of a house, or all of it at once; they talk, swagger, and, most importantly, fight today in the same way our young warriors have since the Revolution. They also know whose shoulders they stand on, and would die before anyone of them shamed any veteran of any service, living or dead.
You should see them. They have a look in their eye and a way of walking that marks them as warriors as good as any that have ever marched to the guns, but they are not born killers. They are, on the contrary, good and decent youngsters mostly from the neighborhoods of our cities, and small towns across America . Almost all are from "salt of the earth" working class homes, and more often than not are the sons and daughters of cops and firemen, factory workers and farmers. Kids who once delivered your papers, stocked shelves in the grocery store, played Little League, and served Mass on Sunday morning. They were athletes, as well as "couch potatoes," drove their cars and motorcycles too fast, and blasted their music a bit louder than they should. They are ordinary young people, performing remarkable acts of bravery and selfless acts of devotion to a cause bigger than themselves. They could have done something more self serving, but chose to serve knowing full well Iraq and Afghanistan was in their future. They did not avoid the most basic and cherished responsibility of a citizen, on the contrary they welcomed it. They did not fail in school and without prospects, as the chattering class believe is why they are in the military and fighting and dying for the nation, but rather are the best our nation has to offer and have put every one of us above their own self interest. They are all heroes, but they know and understand fear in a way that few Americans do. It is not as much the fear of death or maiming they think about, but, rather, they are most terrified of letting their buddies down...but they never do.
Ladies and Gentlemen I had a unique experience a few years ago when serving as the Assistant Division Commander, of the 1st Marine Division. We were just south of Iraq along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, and poised to launch an attack that would take us over the next three weeks 650 miles into the guts of Iraq , far beyond Baghdad and indeed to Saddam's hometown palace in Tikrit. When the artillery fires commenced just as the sun went down, and the evening sky above us was one endless formation of Marine, Navy and Air Force fighter aircraft speeding north to smash targets deep in Saddam's vitals, I was sitting taking it all in with my driver Cpl Dave Hardin from Dallas, and with a reporter from the Los Angeles Times. The reporter asked me a question that I'd never considered in my entire 36 years in the Marine Corps as both enlisted man and officer before the asking, but one I took up in my mind when he did. He pointed out the size and capability of the Iraqi forces in front of us that was many, many times bigger than we were in men, tanks, and artillery. He emphasized much to my discomfort the massive supplies of chemical weapons Saddam was thought to have, and the multiple means he had to rain their terrible kind of death upon us. He asked if I'd ever contemplated defeat. If it was even possible? My thoughts immediately took me back to trips I'd made to Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Inchon Korea , and Vietnam , and the conversations I'd had with veterans of those battles, mostly old men now. They tell of friends who made it, and many who didn't. About the good times, and the bad, but mostly about the good as is typical of our veterans. My response to the reporter was something like: "hell these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took Iwo Jima, Baghdad ain't shit." This same sentiment could, and does, apply to any American serviceman or woman. We who serve, who are sent to fight wars and have nothing whatsoever to do with starting them, have never known defeat on the battlefield. When we have lost, we lost at home, and others declared defeat - not us.
America's Armed Forces today know the price of being the finest men and women this nation has to offer, and pay it they do everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over four-thousand one hundred in all services have died in Iraq and Afghanistan , over a thousand of this number Marines, and Sailors serving with Marines - our precious Docs. And the sacrifice continues as Americans have gone to God since we all went to bed last night and slept free and protected. Their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, aunts, uncles, cousins and fiancés have only just learned of their deaths and begun to deal with the unimaginable pain that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Thousands more have suffered wounds since it all started, but like firefighters and cops who fall protecting us here in America, they are not victims as they knew what they were about, and were doing what they wanted to do.
Many of today's pundits and media commentators want to make them and their families out to be victims but they are wrong, and this only detracts from the decision these patriots made to step forward and protect the country that has given so much to all of us. We who are serving, and have served, will have none of that. Those with less of a sense of service to the nation never understand it when strong men and women stand tall and firm against the our enemies, just as they can't begin to understand the price paid so they and their families can sleep safe and free at night-the protected never do. What they are missing, what they will also never understand, is the sense of commitment, joy, and honor, of serving our country in its uniform, but every American veteran, and their loved ones who supported them and feared for them everyday, do.
It's been my distinct honor to have had the opportunity to be here today with you. Rest assured, my fellow citizens, the nation you are a part of, this young experiment in democracy called America started just over two centuries ago, will forever remain the "land of the free and home of the brave" so long as we never run out of tough young Americans willing to look beyond their own self interest and comfortable lives, and go into the darkest and most dangerous places on earth to hunt down, and kill, those who would do us harm.
Semper Fidelis!

3) Washington asks Jerusalem to clarify the Israeli dossier on North Korean-aided Syrian nuclear and missile activity presented by Turkish foreign minister to Assad


The New York Times reveals Turkish officials presented Damascus on Oct. 6, with an “Israeli dossier” on a Syrian nuclear program [which Israeli relayed to Washington before its Sept. 6 air strike]. However Assad “vigorously denied the intelligence and said that what the Israelis had hit was a “storage depot for strategic missiles.”

Turkish foreign minister Ali Babacan, who presented the Israeli dossier to president Bashar Assad, also delivered his reply to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a one-on-one conversation in Jerusalem Oct. 7. Washington is now demanding Israel’s response to Assad’s claim. The purpose of relaying the “Israeli dossier” to Ankara in the first place was to demonstrate that Syrian nuclear activity aided by North Korea potentially menaced neighboring Turkey as well as US regional interests and Israel.

According to the NYT, the debate in the Bush administration is over whether the Israeli evidence points to a Syrian nuclear program that does indeed pose a significant threat to the Middle East and should therefore lead to critical changes in Bush administration policies for the Middle East and North Korea.

Vice President Cheney and other officials argue Israeli intelligence is credible and should cause the United States to reconsider diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea, whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does not believe the intelligence presented so far merits any change in American diplomatic approach. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was cautious about fully endorsing Israel’s warnings that Syria was on the way to a nuclear weapon.

Cheney’s faction is uneasy about the decision to proceed with the supply to North Korea of economic aid in return for disabling its nuclear reactor. They argue Israeli intelligence shows that North Korea cannot be trusted.

It has long been known that North Korean scientists have aided Damascus in developing sophisticated ballistic missile technology. There is little debate that North Koreans frequently visited the site in the Syrian desert Israel jets attacked Sept. 6.

A CIA veteran Bruce Riedel told the NYT: ”Israel would not have launched the strike in Syria if it believed Damascus was merely developing more sophisticated ballistic missiles or chemical weapons… Those red lines were crossed 20 years ago.”

Another former intelligence official said Syria is trying to develop an airburst capability for its ballistic missiles which would allow warheads to detonate in the air to disperse its contents more widely.

Military sources report this type of warhead is capable of damaging much broader areas than the conventional warhead. In particular, any radioactive materials it contained would scatter and contaminate wide, densely populated urban areas. Of late, US sources have voiced strong suspicions that Syria and Iran have acquired “dirty bombs.”

The question is whether North Korea has been helping Syria build missiles packed with radioactive materials and fitted with an airburst capability to boot.


4) Abbas lays out first precise demands for Palestinian borders

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday laid out his most specific demands for the borders of a future independent state, calling for a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Abbas' claim comes as Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams are trying to hammer out a joint vision for a future peace deal in time for a U.S.-hosted conference next month.

With Israel seeking to retain parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Abbas' comments appeared to set the stage for tough negotiations, which are expected to include complicated arrangements such as land swaps and shared control over holy sites.

In a television interview, Abbas said the Palestinians want to establish a state on 6,205 square kilometers of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It was the first time he has given a precise number for the amount of land he is seeking.

"We have 6,205 square kilometers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," Abbas told Palestine TV. "We want it as it is."

According to Palestinian negotiating documents obtained by The Associated Press, the Palestinian demands include all of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, east Jerusalem and small areas along the West Bank frontier that were considered no-man's land before the Six-Day War.

Abbas said his claim is backed by United Nations resolutions. "This is our vision for the Palestinian independent state with full sovereignty on its borders, water and resources."

Government spokeswoman Miri Eisin declined to comment, saying she did not want to prejudice negotiations. But the Palestinian demands appear to exceed anything that Israel would be willing to offer.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators held their first working meeting this week as they try to hammer out a joint declaration in time for next month's conference. The U.S. hopes the document will provide a launching ground for full-fledged negotiations on a final peace agreement.

Israel captured the territories in the Six-Day War and hopes in a final peace deal with the Palestinians to hold on to parts of the West Bank where settlement blocs are located. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Despite Abbas' tough public stance, aides to Abbas said he has agreed in recent talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to exchange West Bank land Israel wants to keep in a final peace deal with an equal amount of Israeli land. This would allow Israel to annex the West Bank area where the settlement blocs are located.

As part of the proposal, Abbas offered Olmert about 2 percent of the West Bank, the aides said. Olmert is seeking some 6-8 percent of the West Bank, but has said the exact amount of territory should be decided in future negotiations. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity since they were not authorized to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters with the media.

In exchange for the West Bank land, Israel is reportedly considering transferring to the Palestinians a strip of area between the Gaza Strip and West Bank to allow for a connection between them.

Abbas said the joint statement at the conference must deal with the main hurdles preventing a final peace agreement.

"The international conference must include the six major issues that are Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, water and security," Abbas said.

5) Putin says Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

We do not have data that says Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, Russian president says at news briefing with visiting French leader Nicolas Sarkozy. 'Therefore we proceed from a position that Iran has no such plans but we share the concern of our partners that all programs should be as transparent as possible,' he adds.


Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a news briefing with visiting French leader Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday that he has not seen any real evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.


"We do not have data that says Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. We do not have such objective data," Putin says.

"Therefore we proceed from a position that Iran has no such plans but we share the concern of our partners that all programs should be as transparent as possible.



"We are sharing our partners' concern about making all Iranian programs transparent," Putin said.



"We agreed yesterday, and Mr. President confirmed it, that Iran is making certain steps toward international community to achieve that," he added.



Putin is to make his first visit to Iran early next week for a summit of Caspian Sea nations. Sarkozy said Putin's trip to Tehran could encourage Iran to be more cooperative.





"After the trip, there could be a will to cooperate - that is essential," he said.



Russia has opposed the US-push for tougher sanctions against Iran and called for more checks and inspections of Iranian facilities by an international nuclear watchdog.



"We have worked cooperatively with our partners at the United Nations Security Council, and we intend to continue such cooperative work in the future," Putin said.

6)Rescuing Olmert: It's hardly surprising that Dichter, who's familiar with rough interrogations, wants to save PM
By B. Michael

The prime minister's personal interrogation began this week. People with files were photographed Tuesday slipping through the gates of his home where they tried to determine whether they would leave with all the files in tact, or whether one or two would stick to Olmert as well.


Even prior to the launch of this investigation it brought to the surface one of the most foolish proposals ever made in Israeli politics. A proposal that – as it is well known - is replete with stupidity and blandness: Namely, to suspend the prime minister's investigation until the end of his term in office. "Similar to France," they added with universal knowledge, even though any kid that has ever read a newspaper knows all too well that France is undoubtedly a wonderful role model for bakery shops, but it is only barely a model for good governance.



The proposal has many patrons; one of them is a loyal and dedicated friend. The other is a loyal and dedicated appointee. The third is a loyal and dedicated enemy, and there are many other loyal and dedicated persons who were summoned to the rescue.



Among them was of course the minister of police (or by his official title, internal security minister) and former head of Shin Bet Avi Dichter. He too, the super-policeman, is proposing to offer the suspect a few more years of power, in which he can (if heaven forbid, there is a desire and a need) blur footprints, appoint useful appointees, build himself up from the waning memories of witnesses and carry out various other acts that any other person under investigation would have sold his soul to the devil for if only he too were allowed to do the same.


Minister Dichter of course drew a lot of fire from the opposition benches. They of course would like to see Olmert ousted from office as soon as possible. One of them, Knesset member Gilad Erdan, got so carried away in his anger, that he leveled the following at Avi Dichter:


"Dichter is better suited to command over police forces in dark regimes in a banana republic!"


Again and again my eyes scoured the words, and nonetheless, I was unable to understand why Knesset Member Gilad Erdan decided to give the details of Dichter's CV. Alternately, is it possible that Erdan is not quite familiar with the internal security minister's history? That he doesn't remember who the man is and where he came from? Oh, how embarrassing.



Squeal on everyone

Hence, it would be a good idea if one of Erdan's associates would politely take him aside and whisper in his ear that it wasn't by chance that he thought Dichter "was better suited to command over a police force in a dark regime in a banana republic."



He indeed filled such role. That's where he came from. Someone thought he was suitable. Although he didn't command a police force, but rather, the secret police. And no, it wasn't a republic, but rather, a military tyranny. And no, it wasn't bananas, but rather, olives. Yet the required skills are pretty similar.


On the other hand, thanks to Knesset Member Erdan, we can perhaps understand why Dichter was so perturbed and why he hurried to make his proposal: In his experienced mind's eye, he already envisioned the prime minister tied in a banana knot (a banana again…) to a wooden chair, his head buried in a stinking hood. Opposite him would be an Abu something or other, and he would be shaken profusely (of course only to extricate where the privatization ticking bomb is hidden).



In Dichter's imagination they hadn't let Olmert shut his eyes for hours. The investigators just completed detailing what they would do to members of his family. The toilet bowl is just a far-off dream. Approaching the door is Captain Abu-Truncheon, "the fear of those being interrogated." The suspect Olmert begins to "loosen his tongue": Yes he privatized the bank. Yes he founded an underground cell. Threw stones. Murdered Arlozorov. Gave uranium to Ahmadinejad. Yes, he will collaborate, he will squeal on everyone. He loves the Jews, just let them take Abu-Truncheon away.


These are after all the type of interrogations Avi Dichter is familiar with. Should we wonder why there are those who would want to rescue him from such a fate?