http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7777/pub_detail.asp
October 29, 2010 Geostrategic Fairy Tales <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.138/author_detail.asp> Peter Huessy Print This <javascript:%20printVersion()> E-mail This <javascript:%20emailVersion()> <javascript:void(0);> http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/images/share.png ShareThis <javascript:void(0);> Comments <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/comments.asp?id=7777> (0) http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20101028_RidingHood.jpg What are the choices America faces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we pursue victory or do we leave as soon as possible? Is Iraq in fact "a war of choice" and a terrible mistake? Is Afghanistan, although linked to 9/11, a war not worth pursuing? I am going to argue today that we are facing mortal enemies that seek our destruction. Our enemies are states such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela; they are allies or subsidiaries of those states-- such as Hezbollah, FARC, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hamas; and their many accomplices, strategically located in state entities in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Pakistan, such as the ISI. Liberating Iraq and Afghanistan was critically necessary, as they were both government sponsors of terrorism. While their liberation remains tenuous, and has entailed great cost, it was both necessary and justified. Of particular concern today is the ISI of Pakistan. They are giving support to terror group sanctuaries in Pakistan who are working to develop chemical and biological weapons according to Robert Woodward's new book "Obama's War". In addition, they are working to recruit terrorists from countries not needing visas to enter the US, a parallel effort that echoes the abuse of the Visa Express program as a prelude to the attacks of 9/11. Lastly, as Woodward explains, prior to the end of his administration, President Bush expanded the use of drone attacks in Pakistan, which the current administration has not only continued but also expanded, precisely because elements of the Pakistani ISI were supporting terror attacks against Americans in Afghanistan. In short, we still face a poisonous coalition of state terror masters, intelligence services, terror groups, individual terrorists, wealthy financiers, arms dealers and bomb makers. At best, today we clearly recognize only parts of this coalition landscape. Why? Well, because we have, unfortunately, remained fixated on two false narratives: (1) we again think terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue. We nab the perps, try 'em and fry 'em; and (2) We think much of the terrorism we face has been brought about by our own failures in foreign policy, and our supposed sinful behavior toward the Muslim world, especially the Palestinians. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20101028_KhobarTowers.jpg Khobar Towers, June 25, 1996 To illustrate this point, let us go back to the 1990s. Here is the account given in Richard Lowry's " <http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Paying-Price-Clinton-Years/dp/0895261294> Legacy": "In the administration's debate over how to respond to the booming of Khobar Towers in which 19 American service members were killed, the Saudi Ambassador to the US told our FBI Director Freeh that the White House wanted to 'avoid confrontation at all costs'. Apparently the US just wanted to use "the law enforcement approach to terrorism"-- in part out of fear that identifying state sponsors would require us to face the daunting dilemma of whether to actually go to war or pretend war was not necessary." At the time, Dale Watson, executive assistant director of the FBI for counter-terrorism, was asked about Khobar Towers, writes Lowry: "What would you do if there was a state sponsor behind this?" In Watson's view, the administration's outlook "was an attitude of look the other way." Why? Well, because to admit a state sponsor was behind terror attacks against the United States was an implicit understanding that states were at war with us. However, we could not afford to be at war with these states, especially if they were Middle Eastern powers. Why? Lowry explains: Confronting Saudi Arabia or Syria which would be required by any policy that looks seriously at state terror sponsors. But these countries were looked upon as "peace partners" and to go after another Arab country such as Iraq for the attack would "blow away one of the foundations of the peace process--'evenhandedness'". And why was evenhandedness so important? One reason was the view, already mentioned, that we ourselves were largely responsible for the terror being waged against us. As former President Clinton is quoted as saying: "It may be that the Iranian people hate the United States and it would be easy for us to respond in kind. But Iran has been subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations. And I think sometimes it's quite important to tell people you have a right to be angry at something my country did to you fifty or one hundred years ago." (From Thomas Lippman's "Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy"). And second, creating a Palestinian state required the US to be an honest and "evenhanded" broker between Israel and the Palestinians, including the entire Arab world. Now let us turn to the present. In fact, just last week former President Clinton was now telling us how to end terrorism. He says it all depends upon Israel delivering a state to the Palestinians. Moreover, the deal he offered them in 1998 would, he claims, still do the trick. He was quoted in a recent editorial by JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, saying: ... "Solving" the Palestinian problem "could result in Syria ending its support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Iran turning back its controversial nuclear program. It will take away... the impetus for.terror in the whole world -- not just the region, the whole world ... It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.'" Indeed, much of the Moslem world argues that the absence of a Palestinian state is the reason behind much of the terrorism we face. The conventional wisdom in Europe holds similar beliefs. Academia, Hollywood and the drive-by media here in America echo these views. I call this the "grievance" theory of terrorism. It is a very useful and convenient cudgel with which to beat the US over the head. For example, the Soros funded "J Street Project" asserts "Israeli settlements in the occupied territories have for over 40 years been an obstacle to peace." And further: "Real friends of Israel oppose retaliatory rocket attacks by the IDF". And even more: "We object to further sanctions against Iran". So too do Reverend Wright and Michael Moore, and former President Carter, cite the failure of the US to adequately support a Palestinian state as being at the heart of the grievances that we are told motivate much of the terrorism we have faced over the past near half century. At the heart of this narrative is that the Israeli tail wags the US dog, most recently laid out by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who write that the "Israel lobby" virtually controls American foreign policy. Owing too this pernicious Israeli influence, we see the absence of a Palestinian state. And it is our fault. And thus we are being attacked. But we have been through this debate before. The late U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrick in her 1984 speech to the Republican National Convention identified the syndrome as "blame America first". Now, terrorism is not a new problem, though it has grown in scale and scope. And differing analyses of the problem are not new either. In 1980, President Reagan clearly saw that the Soviets were the world's prime sponsor of terrorism. He initiated through his director of the CIA an assessment of exactly that issue. His Secretary of State, Al Haig, said that to stop terrorism the US "had to go the source". The reaction at home and abroad was swift and angry. Reagan and his friends were upsetting "detente" and "peaceful coexistence". And there was a ready counter-argument: in order to address terrorism, we need to address its "root causes." >From a surprising source, Reagan found support. According to McGeorge Bundy, writing in Foreign Affairs, (Spring 1981), "The Soviet Union has been and remains a central contributor [to terrorism], often indiscriminate and with some unforeseen results; Cuba, the radical PLO and Qaddafi the principal immediate promoters. And the results of their parallel efforts have been to transform what would otherwise have been small local movements into major menaces..." (McGeorge Bundy, Spring 1981, Foreign Affairs). Secretary of Defense Robert Gates underlines this conclusion in his 1996 book "From the Shadows". He concludes that Reagan, Haig and Casey, if anything, underestimated the huge role the former Soviet Union played in promoting terrorism -- in creating terror groups, and providing them sanctuary, weapons, and money. Unfortunately, Clinton and the foreign policy establishment still have their feet solidly implanted in the intellectual cement of the "peace process". They are fixated on the "grievance theory" of terrorism, whose primary conclusion is the need for a Palestinian state established on its own terms. They have discarded any notion that historical envy, religious messianic beliefs, lust for power, empire-building and old-fashioned "revenge" play any part in the terrorism of today. And they particularly reject the role of state sponsors in promoting terrorism. It gets even more absurd. In February 2002, Charlotte Beers of the US Department of State produced commercials to show Moslems "they do not need to kill us to get our attention". The Pakistani director of an extremist madrassa, known as the "Father of the Taliban", says the atrocities of terrorism will stop once "solutions" to Palestine are found. We know that attacks against our forces in Beirut in 1983 were sponsored by Iran. And the attack on a Berlin disco frequented by US soldiers was run by Libya. And we know the destruction of the Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie in 1988 was a joint operation of Iran and Libya. http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/1993WTC.jpg World Trade Center bombing, February 26, 1993 And then there is the bombing attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This was not an Al Qaeda operation, which is a common misperception. It was led by Ramzi Yousef, who was known to his fellow conspirators as "Rashid the Iraqi" (and whose uncle would go on to orchestrate 9/11). The bombing occurred on the second anniversary of Iraq's surrender in the Gulf War ceasefire, in 1991. The FBI immediately suspected Iraq, but that investigation was left hanging. Did state sponsorship of terrorism suddenly vanish with the end of the Cold War? Throughout the decade leading up to the World Trade Center attack of September 2001, it became apparent that the Clinton administration was simply unwilling to deal with the implications of state sponsors of terrorism - and therefore chose to disregard the evidence. Although Iraq and Sudan were officially added to the list of official "state sponsors of terrorism", the administration never moved to act on the implications of such findings. In fact, four different books relate that, when confronted with evidence of states being behind terrorism, the former President said simply: "That is too hard to do". Andy McCarthy, the US prosecutor of Sheikh Omar, the cleric indicted for inciting violence, reveals in Willful Blindness the consequences of this mind-set. While the US government believed terrorism was primarily a law enforcement problem, and was successful in rounding up loose bands of terrorist jihadis, the master mind of 1993 got away to plot more attacks against the U.S. We as a country did not recognize we were in the midst of an ongoing war in which states, terror groups, and others formed a poisonous coalition to fight the United States. This new definition of terrorism fit neatly into the worldview of the left in America. Our foreign policy -- our arrogance, our treatment of former colonies, and especially our alliance with Israel -- "causes" people to fight us, especially in the Muslim world. Investor's Business Daily writes that US officials currently believe that 9/11 was a day of "vengeance", "payback for America's past history of sins". This fairy tale gained prominence after 9/11: people seized on Osama Bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War" as proof of the grievance theory of terror. But while Osama did mention the Palestinian issue, his primary anger was directed at US policy toward Iraq as well as Saudi Arabia: we had kicked Saddam out of Kuwait; we enforced the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq; and we implemented UN sanctions. Most importantly, Osama claimed that the US was killing young children because we refused to allow sufficient health supplies to get into the country. That fairy tale, by the way, was recently cited by the Imam of the controversial mosque planned for lower Manhattan as justification for the threat that without permission to go forward with the mosque, it would appear America was "once again" at war with Islam. He said former Secretary of State Albright agreed that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children had died of malnutrition because of the US-led Iraqi sanctions! In reality, Saddam and his sons were stealing health supplies and selling them on the black market, to further line their pockets with what general Tommy Franks called the UN "Oil for Palaces" revenue. How many Americans, even US officials, realize that Bin Laden's position was to support Saddam against the United States -- in direct contradiction of the dominant theory that Bin Laden wanted nothing to do with Saddam's secular regime because Al Qaeda was "religious". (The theory is sometimes stated in reverse.) Only by turning a blind eye to the massive evidence of Saddam's systematic support for terrorism - through both direct funding, arming and running training camps - can we conclude that Iraq was a "war of choice" rather than necessity. Because the Taliban gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda, Afghanistan was designated, in contrast, the "necessary war," because we were taking down a "state sponsor of terrorism". But support for the war in Afghanistan has by now seriously deteriorated, as US leaders remain unclear as to why we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, what the nature of the war is, and why it matters. State sponsorship is still the main address of terrorism. The government of Iraq has bitterly complained that Syria is supporting those attacking Iraq's cities, with sanctuary and training. What has been our response? That this is a diplomatic issue between Syria and Iraq. What do the recent Wiki leaks papers show? At least two things. First, that Iran was "orchestrating one side of the Iraqi insurgency" with assistance from Hezbollah. Robert McGinnis summarizes: "The leaked documents demonstrate Tehran routinely equipped and trained Iraqi militia, and Iranian agents and soldiers operated inside Iraq killing American forces." And second, as former Prime Minister Blair relates in his new memoirs, the Bush administration repeatedly said that Syria was training and arming terrorists attacking Iraq. And what do the Wiki leak papers show? Extensive Syrian involvement in the arming, training and recruitment of terrorists attacking Iraq. Once we recognize that terrorism is a tool being used by governments -- intelligence services, militaries and other state entities -- we can see Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, FARC, the FMLN and the rest as tools of our mortal enemies, rather than as reform-seeking jihadis or guerillas looking to redress historical grievances. Terrorism is the most convenient weapon for governments precisely because it breaks the string of attribution that would otherwise make retaliation and deterrence possible. While these state connections to terrorism are not all proven, they underline the folly of ruling out the possibility of state sponsorship on arbitrary grounds. State activities in support of terrorism are by definition murky, because people are making an effort to conceal them. That is their value as enemy tactics. What is remarkable today is the avalanche of material connecting states to terrorism. For example, the IBD published an excellent editorial on October 21, 2010 regarding a new addition to the state sponsors of terrorism--(this is not yet the view accepted by Foggy Bottom). Chavez of Venezuela is planning two 1200 Megawatt nuclear reactors 1400 miles from our shores--the exact range of the Iranian shahab missiles. A spokesperson said the US believes Chavez will act responsibly in buying these reactors from Russia's Putin, who is also completing the fuel loadings in the Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20100927_Chavez2.jpg Chavez says he will bring in Iranian and Russian experts. We have to wonder what baggage these experts might bring with them. After all, at the edges of Iran and Russia's power structure are not only terror groups but also drug cartels. For example, when Columbian forces killed a FARC senior commander in 2008, his computer revealed plans to arm FARC and other terrorists-- including Hezbollah-- with $300 million in weapons from Russia, to be shipped through Mirabella in Venezuela, for conducting terrorist attacks against the United States. FARC also has been caught trying to secure nuclear materials for a dirty bomb in Ukraine and Russia. Now ponder what this story links: two terrorist groups (FARC and Hezbollah); drug cartels and organized crime syndicates; three state sponsors of terror--Russia, Venezuela and Iran; along with nuclear power and potentially nuclear weapons. What does all of this have to do with securing a Palestinian state? Nothing. Now, let us turn to my favorite subject: missiles and missile defense. Now of course you all know, avid New York Times readers that you are, that missiles and missile defense have nothing to do with terrorism, right? Well, as the Gecko says: "Let me give it to you straight". On October 25th, in the Lincoln Journal Star, our MDA director General O'Reilly pointed out that 19 countries have 6000 missiles, noting "the trend is not good". And here is where the General nailed it: "Missile defense has become increasingly vital as missile technology spreads to dozens of countries and....to state-sponsored terrorist groups". According to the French defense ministry, Hezbollah has three military units dedicated to the transportation and maintenance of its rocket arsenal. In January they received from Syria missiles with a range of 250km; the same unit has another base next to Damascus airport, "which is vital for the handling of weapons shipments from Iran" says The Jerusalem Post October 26th, 2010. "The manufacture of Iranian missiles is now being handled by Syria, for ease of transport". My guess is that these missiles were not "nicked" by Hezbollah operators while on R&R in Tehran! http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20101028_Rogozin.jpg Dmitry Rogozin And just this past week, the Russians informed us they want to be partners in missile defense in Europe. They doubted the US would allow them to "have a finger on the button", but none the less insisted on being part of any threat assessment of missile threats to NATO or from Iran. They insisted Iran posed no missile threats to Europe. Hold that thought...while we examine our policy options. Just to make General O'Reilly's job easier, the Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin, complained "Unfortunately, we do have problems with our NATO colleagues already having branded Iran 'a bad guy'", while the Turkish Foreign Ministry "...told US officials that Iran and Syria should not be cited as 'threats' for the NATO's planned missile shield". (October 18th, 2010) A full and unblinking look at state terrorism indicates a broad array of necessary national policies. Let us look at the policies we urgently need -- divestment, serious economic sanctions, nuclear forensics, DTRA and Nunn-Lugar, missile defense, border and maritime security, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and immigration reform, to name the most obvious. First, let us start with sanctions and divestment. AFP reports (October 26th) that BP will close a gas field off Scotland that is jointly owned by Scotland, in response to a "tough line against the Iranian energy sector was announced by European foreign ministers..." But unfortunately, as Ilan Berman writes in Forbes, "even as other foreign stakeholders have constricted their financial stakes in Iran, Beijing has done the opposite, reaching a $40 billion deal to revitalize Iran's petroleum refining industry". On top of which China National Petroleum Corporation inked a $2 billion deal to develop the North Azadegan oil field. Sinopec, the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation is also deeply invested in Iran's gas industry. And Iran just announced signing a $5 billion gas deal, possibly with India's state run Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited to develop the offshore Farsi block of the Farzad-B gas field. But the complicity of China in helping Iran goes beyond the energy sector. According to Global Security Newswire, China is selling Iran carbon fiber for use in uranium enrichment centrifuges, just as the US intelligence community suspects Chinese firms of selling Iran controlled military equipment. And remember, as we mentioned earlier, Saddam was months away from a nuclear weapons capability in 1991 despite being a member of the NPT and being subject to IAEA inspections. In light of these facts, why do our state pension funds and retirement funds on Wall Street, and the endowments of our major universities and college have upwards of $1,400 billion in stocks owed by companies that do business with Iran and Syria, including these Chinese companies? Seventeen US states have some form of divestment policies adopted. Maryland has eliminated hundreds of millions in suspect investments. Some believe deterrence will work because we will be able to determine from where a nuclear device originated. One missile defense critics claimed the US now had the capability to determine a weapons origin even if detonated in an EMP mode, a claim the EMP Commission experts say is unfounded. And however good nuclear forensics may become, we are not now able to attribute a weapon to its owner. In the July 30, 2010 edition of the New York Times, William Broad warned "Nuclear Forensics Skill Is Declining In U.S." Some believe the NPT will save us and the UN inspectors in Vienna at the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Administration. Yet when we interdicted nuclear centrifuges from the Khan Nukes 'R Us group, we were astounded, as noted earlier, at the subsequent findings of the extent of the Libyan nuclear weapons program, despite Tripoli's membership in the NPT. We now find that the past IAEA's Director General falsified data on Iran's nuclear program. (And received $7 million in his presidential campaign in Egypt from Tehran). The current Director General Amano says Syria continues to block inspection requests. According to the Global Security Newswire, "Fearing a confrontation, IAEA is not willing to request from Damascus a special inspection to probe allegations that Syria" has built a clandestine nuclear reactor. On October 4th, 2003, the US and its allies intercepted and boarded a German freighter, "The BBC China", carrying 13,000 centrifuges from Malaysia being sold by the A.Q. Khan network for the creation of nuclear weapons material. The destination: Libya. According to the Washington Times, "Gadhafi's subsequent confession staggered the CIA and MI6. Libya's secret nuclear purchase included the entire kit and caboodle for a nuclear enrichment plant and detailed how-to plan for assembling a nuclear weapon". All was supplied by Pakistan's Dr. A.Q. Khan's Dubai-based holding company, and a nuclear centrifuge plant in Malaysia, as well as a network of 75 suppliers throughout the world. It was also learned that Khan's cash and carry nuclear centrifuge deal with Iran's mullahs was some two decades old." >From this intercept, we created the PSI or Proliferation Security Initiative. Since then, there have been over a dozen successful intercepts of nuclear related material including the prevention of two deliveries to North Korea, and the seizure of ballistic missile and nuclear related material to Iran, as well as nuclear material transiting the Balkans and Georgia, and Hezbollah bound missiles and weapons. One hundred nations are now members of the PSI. So where are we? We now take divestment and sanctions more seriously but we repeatedly let China and Russia off the hook. The IAEA cannot do its job with uncooperative states, yet we pretend that it can. The PSI is necessary and very valuable but not sufficient. Missile defense provides us protection from blackmail and coercion, but only if we are clear eyed about what to deploy and with whom we should (and should not) cooperate. An independent Iraq and Afghanistan solidly out of the terror sponsoring business would place a security net on Iran's borders that would be extraordinarily helpful in containing Tehran's ambitions, but there is grave uncertainty whether we want to finish that job. To do things right takes a seriousness that is not often on display in either Washington or Europe. Over a decade ago, the legendary head of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud sought to rid Afghanistan of its repressive Taliban rulers and the terrorist network they sheltered, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida and some two dozen other terrorist groups. He warned us: "Al Qaeda.was just one element in a 'poisonous coalition'" that included "Pakistani and Arab intelligence agencies; impoverished young students bused to their deaths as volunteer fighters from Pakistani religious schools; exiled Central Asian Islamic radicals; ... and wealthy sheikhs and preachers who jetted in from the Persian Gulf." On September 9, 2001 he was murdered by terrorists. We indeed today face a similar poisonous coalition. Now imagine. The year is 2015. It is late January. The Iranian mullahs provide Hezbollah operatives a nuclear device. The device was designed in China, and reworked by the Pakistan-based Khan network with help from North Korean technicians. >From Tehran to Damascus and then to Caracas it is shipped, on one of the special twice-monthly "Axis of Evil Express" that shuttles "passengers" between Iran, Syria and Venezuela -- with occasional stops in Lebanon says Peter Brooks of the Heritage Foundation. A freighter, outfitted with a Scud-derivative missile, now solid fueled, is loaded in the port of Mirabella, Venezuela. It steams for three days. It reaches its destination, some 350 kilometers off the coast of North Carolina. On February 1, the 36th anniversary of the arrival in Tehran of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah> Ayatollah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini> Ruhollah Khomeini, the rocket is launched. At an altitude 30 miles above Washington, D.C., its nuclear warhead is detonated. An EMP, an electromagnetic pulse, fries every computer and computer chip. Everything from New York to Atlanta stops working. Water, sewerage, electricity, traffic, flights, ports, cars, financial networks, and computers. Now, are we going to get serious? Let us look at two serious threats, Syria and North Korea, and how we have historically reacted. Remember in 2006 Syria murdered prominent Lebanese including the Prime Minister of the country. They used their proxies to make war on Israel, and acted as HQ and quartermasters of Sunni guerillas killing US troops in Iraq, (called AQ in Iraq--now that is rich!). But remember, as Angelo Codevilla wrote in "Advice to War Presidents: "No words spoken by Syria heralded these threats. Yet our words of opposition spoke not at all loudly but our acquiescence in their actions did." To paraphrase Angelo, "We are in danger of seducing ourselves with our own words or of confusing our press releases with reality. When we claim negotiations are likely to be fruitful, we become hostage to our own statements, and remove incentives for concessions by the other player..." A few years ago, upon learning that North Korea had nuclear weapons, UN experts moved quickly to "encourage the three countries most threatened, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan...to reaffirm their commitment to the NPT and their non-nuclear status." Dr. Kissinger once remarked: "A free standing diplomacy is an ancient American illusion. History offers few examples of it. The attempt to separate diplomacy and power results in power lacking direction and diplomacy being deprived of incentives." (Henry Kissinger, 1/21/07) Put slightly less diplomatically, "Diplomacy without the threat of force is but prayer", said former Senator Malcolm Wallop, in his farewell Senate address, October 1994. Too often we are asked whether we favor "diplomacy" and "dialogue". But again as Codevilla explains, "Emphasizing diplomacy is inherently meaningless. To speak thus is to pretend either that the war's issues are trivial or that words can make them so. Such pretense enables the further pretense that the speaker is not on either side, rather than on the side of peace..." Conclusion and Implications If the threat of "terrorism" is not primarily loose bands of "jihadis", but state sponsors of terror, the implications for US policy are serious. Iran, Pakistan, Syria and others seek to create their own "empires", whether it is masters of a region, the Middle East or the Islamic world. Their accomplices, including China, Russia, and Venezuela seek power and riches, and are willing to use whatever means necessary to do so. The Russians see the energy resources of the Caspian as their "patrimony". China seeks to "lock-up" energy supplies for its 1.3 billion people and is willing to seek partnership with nuclear armed states to do so, whether Iran or Pakistan. Venezuela and its "Marxist" allies in the Americas seek partnerships with drug cartels, terror groups and others to do America harm and do Russia and Iran's bidding. Indeed, is this anything but a new "poisonous coalition"? <http://www.fsmarchives.org/> FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor <http://www.fsmarchives.org/publications/id.6785/pub_detail.asp> Peter Huessy is on the Board of the Maryland Taxpayers Association and President of Geostrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland, a national security firm. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
