First question.... Is the civil strife/war as fierce as we see on CNN and major networks?
Everything needs to be taken in perspective. There has been considerably more violence in Al Anbar than Baghdad and none of it is sectarian. The civil strife is created by Al Qaida in Iraq – divide and conquer concept. Historically Baghdad residents never cared about such things. They were Iraqis first.
Do we have enough troops there to do the job? No

Is the sectarian animosity to great to overcome?
It’s not too great to overcome, it’s not even founded. Its outsiders (Iran, Saudi and Al Qaida) taking advantage of this volatile situation. Historically this similar craziness has occurred in every country after a government had been taken out. South Africa, Germany, Japan, etc.
...or WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO FOSTER THE SECURITY IN IRAQ?

Time and other than that, I don’t know. I know that what we are doing isn’t helping. Iraq needs to take responsibility, but it’s hard to get people who are accustomed to being taken care and having everything handed to them to take responsibility for their own security, etc.  It reminds me of Vietnam. They are accustomed to a Socialistic Monarchy and we’re trying to get them to be a democracy but they don’t have the mindset for that. I think all human beings inherently have that desire within, but it will take time to chip away the current mindset.  
Are the Iraqi military good enough to be loyal to the nation as not break ranks to sectarian divide to an acceptable level?

Yes, and they are still working on it.
I’m trying to get unclassified INTEL on reconstruction summaries to put in my documentary.

I’ll see what I can locate.

How has your interface with Iraqi’s... And especially Iraqi women been?

The women are amazing. They are beautiful and strong and everyone is uniquely different in personality, education, and thinking. I’ve met many of them and feel they are a key to restoring this country to some sort of stability, but it’s like pulling teeth to get others to realize this. Violence against women is on the rise and human trafficking as well.
Do you see Iraqi women as being a major influence in the future of Iraq?

Yes. The Iraqi Women are the caretakers of the future of Iraq (the children). If we can get them to take responsibility for their communities or even just the space outside their house they could bring a ton of stability. The problem is that through the years they’ve lost their extended families and are living in a nuclear family still setup so the women are isolated from each other, their communities and their country and the world.
Historically women have been educated professionals and more free. In the nineties they were wearing short skirts and listening to George Michael. Now 60-70% of the women are illiterate and they are kept home from school. This started during the Saddam years but got increasing worse with the sanctions we inflicted on the country.
With the recent “Islamtization” throughout the whole world things are digressing for women. There is an increase in honor killings, female genital mutilation (female circumcision), and human trafficking for sex trade.
Is your sense of a federated Iraq with Kurdistan and Shia’s breaking away and leaving the middle of country/ Al Anbar to fight it out?
No clue.

Those are some of the broadband questions that come to mind.



Are you up for a vacation before Feb?
No I don’t get a vacation until I come home in February.

Rumsfeld: Terrorists Plan Attacks To Manipulate U.S. Media
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2006 – Terrorists operating in Iraq are staging attacks that garner negative press coverage so that the American people become soured on the war, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told two radio talk show hosts yesterday.

"You know, they're very good at manipulating the American press and managing the news in a way that advantages them and tries to break the will of the American people," Rumsfeld told Bill LuMaye during a telephone interview on WPTF in Raleigh, N.C. "And they're good at it. They know what they're doing. They consciously plan their attacks to achieve that end."

Rumsfeld said the terrorists' efforts to affect American will have shifted what he called the war on terror's "center of gravity" away from the battlefield.

"The military always talks about the center of gravity of a conflict, and logically one would think it would be in Afghanistan or Iraq or in the struggle against the violent extremists," he said. "But in fact, because they are so calculating in attempting to break the will and to terrorize people and to alter our behavior, the center of gravity of this conflict very much is back in the United States. And they're very good at attempting to alter our behavior."

The struggle in Iraq won't be solved solely on the battlefield, the secretary said, but will require progress on the political, economic and governance fronts as well.

Citing "good progress" in Iraq, Rumsfeld noted that Iraq's political leaders are shouldering difficult challenges. "You've got to give them a lot of respect for having the courage to take those positions and to put their lives at risk, these Iraqi political leaders," he said. "And we wish them well."

Rumsfeld told Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham during an interview on WLW that the troops he's spoken to in Iraq display high morale, but are aware of the debate taking place at home.

"They know that the enemy is trying to influence the American people and to try to weaken their will to prevail and to persist and to show perseverance in this conflict," he said. "So I suppose the only thing I'd say is God bless them for their courage and their intelligence and their contribution that they're making to our country."

Rumsfeld said it would be a tragedy if violent extremists were to take over Iraq. The terrorists would turn Iraq into a haven and base of operations, the secretary told Cunningham, from which to destabilize the Middle East and launch new attacks against America and its allies.

"So I think that most people who look at the situation understand how important prevailing in that conflict is," he said, "and how tragic it would be were people to decide that it wasn't worth the cost or it wasn't worth the time."

The terrorsists, he told Cunninghamn, won't give up. "These people are determined, and they're going to keep after us," he said. "And our only task is to see that they don't prevail."

A policy support document for OSD-Policy prepared by the Center for International Issues Research.
31 October 2006

Insight on Al-Qaida’s Strategy to Influence U.S. Midterm Elections

A posting appearing on multiple militant radical Islamic (MRI) websites describes the current period proceeding the U.S. midterm elections as “the most serious and dangerous weeks in the plan of Al-Qaida.” The writer, an anonymous Al-Qaida sympathizer, contends that a Democratic Party victory in midterm elections may lead to an American withdrawal from Iraq. This result would endanger the main objective of Al-Qaida’s current stage in its long term plan, direct military engagement with the enemy. The writer suggests that Al-Qaida will attempt to influence elections either by issuing a public statement from Usama bin Laden or Aymin Zawahiri, attacking American Allies or interests, or executing another “great attack” on American soil, any of which should ensure a Republican electoral victory. In addition to arguing that Al-Qaida has the ability, foresight, and power to influence U.S. domestic politics, he also states that this period constitutes a major turning point in Al-Qaida’s strategy. Although it is not clear if the author has direct ties to Al-Qaida, this posting could encourage autonomous MRI actors to conduct terrorist operations within the next two weeks.

The author initially focuses on the current stage in Al-Qaida’s long-term strategy, which involves:

…pulling the enemy into direct military engagement and direct fighting in Muslim lands, which economically, morally, and socially exhausts and bleeds America, and mobilizes and recruits Muslims against this enemy…. And we all know that this stage successfully began with the American invasion of Afghanistan after the blessed September attack and the great development of the fall of America in the swamp of Iraq….

Then, he asks the question that drives the rest of his posting, “Is Al-Qaida on the verge of announcing the end of this stage?” Using a systematic explanation with fifteen distinct points, the author attempts to answer the question. After reviewing Al-Qaida’s current successes and stating that military victories and terror operations shook the “infidel alliances,” he asserts that the USG has attempted to withdraw from direct military engagement with the enemy. However, he claims that these attempts failed because Al-Qaida “…did not permit it to succeed, because this period has not yet reached its fruition, and the enemy had not yet reached the stage of near total collapse and weakness that Al-Qaida wants.”

The author asserts that every time there has been the mention of withdrawal, Bin Laden or Zawahiri have released statements to remind the USG of its failure and threatened further suffering and terrorist acts. He further contends that Al-Qaida has been successful in changing the “American voice of reason” into a “cowboy mentality.” As an example, he attributes President Bush’s 2004 reelection to the 24 October 2004 video release in which Bin Laden said, "... I tell you in truth that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

After attempting to establish both Al-Qaida’s success in its current stage, and its ability to influence the American electoral process, the author confidently asserts that “…Americans have completely despaired in continuing with direct military engagement…whoever follows American papers and the words of the American politicians clearly feels the defeatist mood accumulating in the people.” In support of this, he cites the recent interview with a State Department representative, Alberto Fernandez on Al-Jazeera, the articles of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, and a poll allegedly asserting that 70% of all Americans support the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The writer states that if Al-Qaida does not interfere, the Democrats will use Iraq as a major election issue and win both the House and the Senate:

The elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate will take place in less than 15 days, and all the polls show that the Democrats will win and that Iraq is the main issue in the election. The Democrats are seriously advocating withdrawal and 70% of all Americans support immediate withdrawal.… If the Democrats win, as expected, they will be obliged to fulfill electoral promises, especially the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If this happens, the next two years will be a living hell for Bush that may eventually push him to withdraw [U.S. troops from Iraq]. The Republican Party needs a miracle to win. All of these signs lead one to conclude that it has been finalized that the Americans have already taken their decision to withdraw from Iraq….

The author then asks, “Will Al-Qaida permit this American withdrawal and the disengagement from direct fighting [between Coalition Forces and insurgents]?” Answering in the negative, he states, “It is better that the fighting continues and its scope is expanded until it completely eats away at the Americans and they are completing lacking any capacity to return to the region. I see that their capacity, although it is much weakened, is still enough for them to last a number of years….” Because Al-Qaida has not reached all of its goals in this stage, he concludes that “it will try to do everything in its power to stop this withdrawal.” According to the author, it is first necessary that the Republicans win the mid-term elections “…to ensure that there will not be a quick and hasty withdrawal from Iraq, [which] would happen if the Democrats win.” Furthermore, he contends that even if the Republicans win, Al-Qaida will need to influence President Bush, who “…is also thinking of withdrawing in a slow, scheduled manner.” To prevent the American departure from Iraq before Al-Qaida’s goals are completed, the author believes that Al-Qaida will execute a second “great American strike” to ensure the continuation of direct combat with Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps the Levant.

The author then asks “Could Al-Qaida, if it wanted, as a first step in preserving the state of direct military engagement, permit Bush’s party to win the upcoming elections?” Answering affirmatively, he says that “It [Al-Qaida] has the power to grant Bush and his party the miracle that no one else can give:”

This miracle in my view is very simple and easy for Al-Qaida and its sheikhs. All that is required of the situation is the release of a video from Sheikh Usama or Ayman...which announces that there has been a campaign or [the establishment] of a state for Al-Qaida in Afghanistan or Iraq and that mentions a great failure in the pursuit of the mujahideen. If one of the sheikhs of Al-Qaida did that, I guarantee you the victory of the party of Bush in the elections and a continued state of direct military engagement, for reasons that return to the essence of American society and the way the American mentality is formed. The leaders of Al-Qaida understand [the Americans] better than anyone before them.

Additionally, the author writes that Al-Qaida could substitute this video or accompany it with a military operation [fr example] against an important oil center or [against] American Allies within the next 15 days, “…as this tape or these operations or both will guarantee victory for the Republicans in the coming elections.” Alternatively, if Al-Qaida has completed its preparations for another great attack in America to be implemented in the next two weeks, it would in one step preserve the opportunity for direct military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The author presents two [possible directions] for Al-Qaida:

Building on all that was presented, I am able to say with full confidence…that ahead of us in the next 15 days, Al-Qaida will undoubtedly declare one of two things: First, if Al-Qaida is completely quiet, this will mean that it approves the end of the phase of direct engagement, and that it has declared the start of the next phase. Secondly, if one of the two sheikhs [makes an] announcement, [it signals] the continuation of the phase of direct military engagement, and that Al-Qaida is not yet content with the blood of the Americans....

At the end of the posting, the author reiterates, “I think that we face two of the most dangerous and important weeks in...[either] the continuation of a stage that is not yet completed, or the beginning of a completely new stage, which will bring changes.”

The argument of this Al-Qaida sympathizer is consistent with Al-Qaida’s seven phase strategy where the period of 2003-2006, Phase 2, includes the opening of a front in Iraq, establishing a base of operations, and moving outward from there. This is to be followed by the “Rising and Standing Up” phase to last until 2010 that will include attacks on Israel and other countries in the region that will help the group become a legal, recognized organization within the context of international law, leading to the establishment of the Islamic nation.

The author also attempts to demonstrate the potential of Al-Qaida to influence American domestic politics as a direct result of its ability to understand and manipulate the American political system and “mentality.” The posting’s distribution on multiple MRI websites and the number of responses to it indicates that its message is resonating within the MRI community. Most importantly, even if the message was neither endorsed nor written by an official Al-Qaida member, it could encourage MRI elements around the world to conduct terrorist operations in the attempt to influence American mid-term elections.

Editor’s Note: This posting indicates that the author is familiar with Al-Qaida strategy. Whether or not the author is affiliated with Al-Qaida is uncertain. The exact propaganda purpose of the posting is difficult to determine, although the author states a belief that bin Laden’s video tape a week before the 2004 Presidential election influenced the results. What is clear is that the posting is spreading across hostile websites, indicating popularity with hostile website content managers.

November 1, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Taxi Driver

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Paris

I arrived at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport the other night and was met by a driver sent by a French friend. The driver was carrying a sign with my name on it, but as I approached him I noticed that he was talking to himself, very animatedly. As I got closer, I realized he had one of those Bluetooth wireless phones clipped to his ear and was deep in conversation. I pointed at myself as the person he was supposed to meet. He nodded and went on talking to whomever was on the other end of his phone.

When my luggage arrived, I grabbed it off the belt; he pointed toward the exit and I followed, as he kept talking on his phone. When we got into the car, I said, “Do you know my hotel?” He said, “No.” I showed him the address, and he went back to talking on the phone.

After the car started to roll, I saw he had a movie playing on the screen in the dashboard — on the flat panel that usually displays the G.P.S. road map. I noticed this because between his talking on the phone and the movie, I could barely concentrate. I, alas, was in the back seat trying to finish a column on my laptop. When I wrote all that I could, I got out my iPod and listened to a Stevie Nicks album, while he went on talking, driving and watching the movie.

After I arrived at my hotel, I reflected on our trip: The driver and I had been together for an hour, and between the two of us we had been doing six different things. He was driving, talking on his phone and watching a video. I was riding, working on my laptop and listening to my iPod.

There was only one thing we never did: Talk to each other.

It’s a pity. He was a young, French-speaking African, who probably had a lot to tell me. When I related all this to my friend Alain Frachon, an editor at Le Monde, he quipped: “I guess the era of foreign correspondents quoting taxi drivers is over. The taxi driver is now too busy to give you a quote!”

Alain is right. You know the old story, “As my Parisian taxi driver said to me about the French elections ... ” Well, you can forget about reading columns starting that way anymore. My driver was too busy to say hello, let alone opine on politics.

I relate all this because it illustrates something I’ve been feeling more and more lately — that technology is dividing us as much as uniting us. Yes, technology can make the far feel near. But it can also make the near feel very far. For all I know, my driver was talking to his parents in Africa. How wonderful! But that meant the two of us wouldn’t talk at all. And we were sitting two feet from each other.

When I shared this story with Linda Stone, the technologist who once labeled the disease of the Internet age “continuous partial attention” — two people doing six things, devoting only partial attention to each one — she remarked: “We’re so accessible, we’re inaccessible. We can’t find the off switch on our devices or on ourselves. ... We want to wear an iPod as much to listen to our own playlists as to block out the rest of the world and protect ourselves from all that noise. We are everywhere — except where we actually are physically.”

A month ago I was in San Francisco and went for a walk. I was standing at an intersection waiting to cross the street when a man jogging and wearing his iPod came up next to me. As soon as the light turned green he sprinted into the crosswalk. But a woman driving a car — running a yellow light — almost hit him before she hit the brakes. The woman was holding a cellphone in her right ear and driving with her left hand. I thought to myself, I’ve just witnessed the first postmodern local news story, and I crafted the lead in my head: “A woman driving her car while speaking on her cellphone ran over a man jogging across the street while listening to his iPod. See page 6.”

Hey, I love having lots of contacts and easy connectivity, but in an age when so many people you know — and even more you don’t know — can contact you by e-mail or cellphone, I’m finding this age of interruption overwhelming. I was much smarter when I could do only one thing at a time. I know I’m not alone.

A few weeks ago I was trying to find my friend Yaron Ezrahi in Jerusalem. I kept calling his cellphone and getting no answer. I eventually found him at home. “Yaron, what’s wrong with your cellphone?” I asked.

“It was stolen a few months ago,” he answered, adding that he decided not to replace it because its ringing was constantly breaking his concentration. “Since then, the first thing I do every morning is thank the thief and wish him a long life.”