17 Die as Suicide Blast Hits U.S. Bus in Afghanistan

At New York Times, "17 Are Killed as Suicide Bomb Hits a U.S. Bus in Afghanistan."

KABUL, Afghanistan — At least five American soldiers, eight American contract workers and four Afghans were killed when a Taliban suicide car bomber attacked an armored shuttle bus in Kabul on Saturday, a military official said.

It was the single deadliest attack for Americans in the capital since the war began, military officials said, and follows brazen Taliban assaults on the American Embassy and NATO headquarters in the city last month.

A NATO official said all of the contract workers were Americans, but the coalition did not officially confirm that.

Such high-profile attacks have been seen as a shift in Taliban strategy as they struggle against a surge in American troops that has loosened the militants’ grip on the Taliban heartland in the South and compromised their ability to stage more conventional attacks on NATO forces. American officials see the latest assaults as the Taliban’s attempt to shake confidence in the Afghan government, which is taking over security from NATO in Kabul and other areas of the country.

Iran Defeats the United States in Iraq?

From Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, at Los Angeles Times, "Out of Iraq":

Iran has just defeated the United States in Iraq.

The American withdrawal, which comes after the administration's failure to secure a new agreement that would have allowed troops to remain in Iraq, won't be good for ordinary Iraqis or for the region. But it will unquestionably benefit Iran.

President Obama's February 2009 speech at Camp Lejeune accurately defined the U.S. goal for Iraq as "an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant." He then outlined how the U.S. would achieve that goal by working "to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists."

Despite recent administration claims to the contrary, Iraq today meets none of those conditions. Its sovereignty is hollow because of the continued activities of Iranian-backed militias in its territory. Its stability is fragile, since the fundamental disputes among ethnic and sectarian groups remain unresolved. And it is not in any way self-reliant. The Iraqi military cannot protect its borders, its airspace or its territorial waters without foreign assistance.

Although Obama has clearly failed to achieve the goals for Iraq that he set five weeks after taking office, Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to achieving its strategic objectives. Since 2004, Tehran has sought to drive all American forces out of the country, to promote a weak, Shiite-led government in Baghdad, to develop Hezbollah-like political-militia organizations in Iraq through which to exert influence and intimidate pro-Western Iraqi leaders, and to insinuate its theocratic ideology into Iraq's Shiite clerical establishment. It has largely succeeded in achieving each of those goals.

Well, they don't beat around the bush, do they?

There's more at that top link.

And see Omri Ceren, at Commentary, "Untangling Ideology From Incompetence on Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal."

Harvard's Stephen Walt: 'The Myth of American Exceptionalism'

At Foreign Policy.

I saw this a couple of weeks back and wasn't the least bit surprised, especially since I learned that Walt was a featured speaker at communist Code Pink's Jew-hating anti-AIPAC conference in May. I considered writing a full take-down, but thought better of my time. Besides, Walt gets hammered in the comments:

Typical Revisionist Thinking

As an American, I have absolutely no qualms with the content of this article. That said, we all need to take a deep breath and realize that this is just another contribution to the millions of pages of standard revisionist political thinking in the US. And it seems like every time another page or two is written, the author and/or his/her readers act as though they have just unearthed a treasure trove of hidden truth that typical "brainwashed" Americans have never heard before.

There is nothing in this article that is not taught in every basic US history class (at least at the university level), that has not been widely reported in the US media, or that is not a common topic in US political discussion. As much as people outside of the US like to think of Americans as lost in a world of false euphoria stemming from their very "Americanness," the harshest critics of the United States, much like this author, are to be found right within the US itself, teaching at its universities, publishing articles in its journals and newspapers, lecturing at events, and participating in public political discussion. Believe me, as a nation, we are quite sober and objective.

This is a full-length feature in the magazine's November/December issue, and it might be useful for international relations course syllabi. Or, well, perhaps as part of a debate on exceptionalism. Either that, or as a museum piece of elitist (egghead) political science, worth a read for its curiosity value (at the link)

Toronto Airport Security Employee of the Month!

Via Kathy Shaidle, "Toronto airport security employee hopes plane blows up! (video)"

WikiLeaks May Shut Down

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of cyber-terrorists.

At Forbes, "Wikileaks to Close Over Funding Blockade?"

Muammar Gaddafi Allegedly Sodomized After Capture

It's pretty awful, but seriously? Folks are going to get worked up about this? The dude promised to go "house to house" to cleanse the "greasy rats" from Libya.

There's commentary at CBS News, "GlobalPost: Qaddafi apparently sodomized after capture." (Via Memeorandum.)

Or go straight to the source, "Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame (GRAPHIC)."

Obama Doctrine: How Obama Blew It In Iraq

From Bruce Kesler, at Maggie's Farm:

After 9-years of US sacrifices, President Obama's rush for the exits in Iraq and the incompetence of his administration is seen again, with very probable bad consequences for Iraq's ability to withstand internal discord and external influence from Iran. The US is left with little but a likely buffer protecting Iranian interests and a sanctions evasion route that allows Iran greater freedom from Western pressure. Once again, each time over and over, Obama blows US interests into the crapper.

No doubt.

RTWT.

RELATED: From Pejman Yousefzadeh, "Leaving Iraq the Wrong Way."

How Many More People Does Obama Need to Kill to Get Reelected?

See James Taranto, "Lethal Weapon '08: Who'd have thought Obama would kill more Arab tyrants and terrorists than Bush?"

Gaddafi Killed by Shot to the Head

Well, you think?

It's not like it took a forensic medical examiner to figure it out.

See CBS News, "Autopsy: Qaddafi was killed by shot to head." (Via Memeorandum and Doug Powers at Michelle's.)

Hillary Clinton Warns Iran on U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. Here's she's seen with Christiane Amanpour, where she announces that "no one should miscalculate our commitment to Iraq, most particularly Iran":

See New York Times, "Clinton Defends Iraq Withdrawal Plan."

Gilad Shalit Release

Gilad Shalit was released last Tuesday. I posted a couple of times on the Israel/Hamas deal, but I didn't have the chance mid-week to comment on Shalit's homecoming. He looks ghastly. That's what five years of being held hostage does to you. Terrorists terrorize. Not enough to eat. No loved ones to care for and have care for you. It burns inside the think of what in God's name drives these people to such barbarism. But he's home, and that in itself is a blessing, even if there may be more just like him.

I'm reminded after checking over at Melanie Phillips' blog, and she links to a couple of her essays: "The infernal choice," and "Journalism? No, cruelty and propaganda."

Successes Overseas Are Unlikely to Help Obama at Home

Not only will there be little gain politically, but we could be witnessing a weakening strategic situation in the Middle East. Lots of instability across the region combined with a declining U.S. presence. This is a major transformation in international politics, but the concerns are at home, and Obama needs some successes on that front. See NYT:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s announcement that the last American soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of this year capped a momentous week in which he could also take credit for helping dispatch one of the world’s great villains, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Conventional wisdom holds that none of this will matter to Mr. Obama’s frayed political fortunes, which will be determined by the economy rather than the notches he is piling up on his statesman’s belt.

Yet Mr. Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq — a campaign pledge kept — and the successful NATO air campaign in Libya — with no American casualties, and at a tiny fraction of the cost of Iraq — allowed him to thread a political needle: reaffirming his credentials as a wartime leader while reassuring his Democratic base that he is making good on the promises that got him elected.

This one-two punch may also strengthen the president’s hand against his eventual Republican opponent, according to Mr. Obama’s supporters, by depriving Republicans of a cudgel typically used on Democratic presidents, that they are weak on national security. The swift and fierce criticism of his Iraq decision by the Republican candidates shows how reluctant they are to cede this advantage to him.

“There is an aggregate effect to all the president’s foreign policy successes,” said Bill Burton, a former White House aide who is a senior strategist at Priorities USA Action, a political action committee backing the Obama campaign. “The notion of who is a stronger leader will be deeply influenced by the promises the president kept.”

Walid Phares: The Strategic Situation in the Middle East

An interesting discussion, with Lou Dobbs interviewing Walid Phares. The U.S. could have worked to slow the pace of change in the states of the Arab Spring, especially Egypt. And the U.S. could have countered Iran's influence by negotiating a long-term basing deal deal in Iraq, but we're pulling out now.

The New York Times has some related reports: "Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay," and "U.S. Scales Back Diplomacy in Iraq Amid Fiscal and Security Concerns."

Iraq War Draws to a Close

At National Journal, "Iraq War Ends with Whimper, Not Bang":

The Iraq War began with Pentagon officials boasting about an initial offensive that would “shock and awe” the enemy, then-President George W. Bush flying a military plane to an aircraft carrier for a high-profile address to thousands of cheering troops, and round-the-clock coverage on the nation’s TV networks. Eight and a half grueling years later, the deeply unpopular conflict is set to end with a whimper, not a bang.

Washington and Baghdad’s failure to agree on a troop-extension deal means that virtually all of the 43,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq will stream out of the country over the next six weeks, bringing a quiet end to a conflict that began with so much bombast.

More at that top link.

Israelis Divided on Prisoner Swap

At Wall Street Journal, "Most Back the Exchange With Hamas, But Others Petition Court to Halt Move":

TEL AVIV — The initial phase of an Israel-Hamas prisoner swap began on Sunday, as mediators finalized the details of a controversial exchange to free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, held prisoner for five years by Gaza-based militants.

Israel's prison service gathered 477 Palestinian prisoners at two jails for exit interviews and medical examinations before their release, scheduled for Tuesday, as several private citizens and a group representing victims of terror attacks in Israel submitted petitions against the releases to Israel's Supreme Court. The court has refrained from intervening in similar cases in the past.

Late Saturday, Israel's prison service published the names of the 477 prisoners—many of whom were involved in deadly terror attacks against Israelis over the past decade—starting the clock on a 48-hour period for legal challenges to the release. A total of 1,000 Palestinians are to be exchanged under the deal, which doesn't include Marwan Barghouti, a West Bank militant leader serving five consecutive life sentences after being convicted in Israeli court for masterminding the murder of civilians. The remainder of the 1,000 will be released at a later, unspecified date.

Continue reading.

It's heartrending. People want Gilad to come home. But the deal is going to weaken Israeli security. What a price to pay.

RELATED: At New York Times, "In Israel, Swap Touches Old Wounds." (Via A Soldier's Mother, "A Child's Murderer.")

Israel and Hamas Agree to Gilad Shalit Release

At NYT, "Israel and Hamas Agree to Swap Prisoners for Soldier."

And at Israel Matzav and Yid With Lid.

The Iranians 'Tricked and Misled Us'

At Der Spiegel, "Interview with Former Nuclear Watchdog Olli Heinonen":

SPIEGEL: Mr. Heinonen, if you consider your time as the United Nations' atomic "watchdog," do you look back in anger? Or did you succeed in making the world safer from nuclear bombs?

Heinonen: There are quite a few things I'm proud of. While I was at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we played a significant role in putting Abdul Qadir Khan -- the most dangerous nuclear smuggler of all times -- out of action. But when I think about the nuclear activities of certain states, for instance Iran's nuclear program, I have to say that we allowed ourselves to be placated too often. We should have done more than carrying out our inspections. Yes, with hindsight you could perhaps even say we failed.

SPIEGEL: You sound worried. Is Tehran really on a direct path to becoming a nuclear state?

Heinonen: It's undeniable that Iran's nuclear program is far more advanced than it was in 2003, when the discovery of the Natanz facility brought it to the IAEA's attention. At the time, uranium enrichment tests were being carried out in secret on a small scale. But at the end of 2003, the Iranians admitted they were also planning to set up a heavy-water reactor in Arak to generate plutonium.

SPIEGEL: In other words, the other ingredient you need to create either nuclear power or an atom bomb.

Heinonen: Iran always told us it was only interested in the civilian uses of atomic energy. I've always had my doubts about that, more so now than ever.

SPIEGEL: Why don't you say what your former boss, Mohamed ElBaradei, said: That you haven't found the so-called "smoking gun" -- i.e. clear proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

Heinonen: Before opponents of the Iranian regime exposed the existence of Natanz, those in power in Tehran had kept parts of their nuclear program secret for two decades. Today the facts are as follows: The conversion plant in Isfahan has produced 371 tons of uranium hexafluoride. Some 8,000 centrifuges in Natanz are being used to enrich this raw material. In February 2010, Iran began increasing enrichment to 20 percent. That's a significant step closer to making an atomic bomb because it takes only a few months to turn that into weapons-grade material. And at the beginning of this year, Fereydoun Abbasi was appointed the head of the atomic energy organization in Tehran ...

Continue reading.

I'm reminded of a few years back, toward the end of the George W. Bush administration, when the global left was pushing back hard against a tough inspections regime and there was talk of preemptive war. It didn't happen. But Iran sure seems more powerful today.

Antiwar Protests Close Air and Space Museum

Someone's gonna get hurt one of these times. It's a museum, for crying out load.

At WaPo, "Air & Space Museum in DC closed after demonstrators try to enter with signs; 1 pepper-sprayed."

Awlaki More Important Than Bin Laden?

Could be.

See Ed Morrissey: "Video: Was Awlaki mission more operationally important than bin Laden?"

AQAP had become the most virulent arm of al-Qaeda in the past few years, and it was Awlaki who provided the inspiration for the most difficult of terrorists to find and stop — the home-grown jihadis, like the Times Square bomber and Nidal Hasan, among others. Getting both Awlaki and Samir Khan interrupts a network that not only recruited terrorists but repeatedly demonstrated its ability to launch operations against the US, including inside the US, something that bin Laden’s group failed to accomplish after 9/11. AQAP isn’t destroyed by this strike, but their best assets against the US have been and are not likely to be replaced. Getting bin Laden was a much bigger psychological coup, but Awlaki’s removal does more to make the US safer.

Awlaki's Operational Role in al Qaeda

Well, folks got Gleen Greenwald's side, so how about the pro-targeted killing argument?

Check Kenneth Anderson, at Volokh, "Anwar al-Aulaqi Apparently Killed by Drone in Yemen":

My view of this targeted killing is straightforwardly, congratulations, Mr. President. What has been visible publicly leaves little or no doubt in my mind that Al-Aulaqi was deeply involved in AQAP in operations, and indeed at the highest levels.

And at the update:

Who? As an international law matter, is Al-Aulaqi a lawful target? The US government sees him as taking part in hostilities, part of the operational leadership of an associated force with Al Qaeda, the AQAP. So, yes, he can be targeted with lethal force — and targeted without warning, without an attempt to arrest or apprehend as a law enforcement matter.

Where? Does it matter that he was in Yemen, and not an “active battlefield” in a conventional hostilities sense? The US government does not accept the idea that the armed conflict with Al Qaeda — or armed conflict generally — is confined as a legal matter to some notion of “theatres of conflict” or “active battlefields” or related terms that have been used in recent years by academics and activist groups. As I understand the US government position, it sticks by the traditional concept of “hostilities,” and that where the hostiles go, the possibility of armed conflict goes too (I try to explain this evolution of these views in this short essay). So the fact that he was present in Yemen does not make him beyond targeting, because he is not present in some “active” battlezone such as Afghanistan.

This claim — the conflict follows the participants — frequently leads to a complaint that this means the US might target him in Paris or London. The US position is that the standard for addressing non-state actor terrorists taking safe haven somewhere depends on whether the sovereign where the terrorist is hiding is “unwilling or unable” to address the threat. No, there won’t be Predators Over Paris; Yemen or Somalia is another matter, as President Obama has repeatedly and without cavil said in speeches over the last few years.

Still more at the link.