Fresh from the WSJ this morning.It seems Iraqi insurgents are beginning to steal signals from US drones. Evidence backing John Robb’s Global Guerillas theory seems to mount daily. Here’s the article

Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes’ systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber—available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet—to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

U.S. officials say there is no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the intercepts could give America’s enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.

Read the rest.

Comment: This is the other side of technology that we haven’t heard much about. While certainly it is not a surprise to many experts, it is an area that seems largely undiscussed in public. I would hope the military is already planning for contingencies that include the enemy taking control of unmanned land, sea and air vehicles. But the article continuously stating that things are ok, and no damage was done makes this author rather suspicious. One has to wonder whether this is also occuring in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The ‘honeymoon phase’ of unmanned vehicles is slowlycoming to an end.

Several commentators such as John Robb have noted that the war in Iraq is in many ways similar to the Spanish Civil War, foretelling future developments in warfare. So far, we’ve seen new tactics and strategies there being exported around the world. However, perhaps more interesting than the insurgents is concentrating on the normal residents and how they and the US military are coping with security problems and what types of solutions they are coming up with. Thus it was of great interest for me to read this:

Even as the Iraqis are removing some of the concrete blast walls that divide Baghdad, authorities have quietly installed about 100 metal gates near a major Shiite shrine—a clear sign of ongoing security concerns as bombings continue. Perforated gates have been put up in the past three weeks in the heavily policed Kazimiyah district along streets and alleyways leading to the shrine of Imam Mousa al-Kazim, a much revered eighth-century Shiite saint. Security cameras are also being installed at the gates of the double-domed complex.

While it is easy to dismiss Iraq as an exception, it is important to note that such gates exist in Israel too (as this author has seen and passed through) and when Hurricane Katrina hit, residents of New Orleans quickly erected makeshift ‘gates’ of furniture and trash to protect their blocks. In fact, such gates are nothing new and are simple, basic security measures that have been taken in the past. The question is when they will come to the United States. Walls and gates are nothing new in South Africa. Will cities with bad neighborhoods opt for such measures one day in the near future? Lord knows, the US doesn’t typically deal with the root of such social problems making the use of barriers a far more likely.

As the financial crisis continues and people worry more about crime, unrest and general social order while buying record numbers of guns, we may one day be manning gates outside small towns or within cities.

On Monday reports emerged regarding some alleged, spectacular claims made by Seymour Hersh during an interview with an Arab television network. The reports claimed during the interview Hersh described vice president Dick Cheney as the kingpin of an “assassination squad” which was responsible for the deaths of Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto and Lebanese prime minister, Rafique Al Hariri. Bhutto had to go because she’d let the cat out of the bag regarding the death of OBL and all excuses for a war on terror would be in jeopardy. Al Hariri had to go because he wouldn’t allow the US the imperialist advantage of placing their bases on his turf.

On Wednesday, Hersh vehemently denied the reports, calling them “complete madness :

“Vice president Cheney does not have a death squad. I have no idea who killed Mr Hariri or Mrs Bhutto,” Hersh said. “I have never said that I did have such information. I most certainly did not say anything remotely to that effect during an interview with an Arab media outlet.” He said Gen McChrystal had run a special forces unit that engaged in “high value target activity”, but “while I have been critical of some of that unit’s activities in the pages of the New Yorker and in interviews, I have never suggested that he was involved in political assassinations or death squads on behalf of Mr Cheney, as the published stories state.”

I suppose I’ll take him at his word. Perhaps this misrepresentation is a bit of “false flag reporting .” Perhaps it’s the result of the interviewers overactive imagination.

I’m not much a fan of Seymour Hersh. Here’s why. In 2004, shortly after breaking the now infamous Abu Graib abuses, Hersh accused the American military and government of abuse well beyond what Lynndie England et al were eventually tried and jailed for:

This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

Hersh later “qualified ” those statements with this:

I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly…it wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful.

He apparently deferred to a witness statement he’d read describing a foreign interpreter raping an Iraqi boy.

In 2006, Hersh delivered an address at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in which he described an alleged video (which he’d viewed but not yet reported on) of US soldiers reacting to a remotely detonated IED. In a frenzy of murder they fell victim to their training and targeted “anything that ran,” mowing down a group of Iraqi’s playing soccer. They then reported the innocent victims as so many dead “insurgents.” He offered this comparative statement with a rather offensive conclusion:

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

Three years on and I’ve yet to find neither his promised report on, nor any publication of the apparent video. The insinuation that the Vietnam generation of returning soldiers and the pop cultural spurn they returned to was somehow fitting is simply disgusting. Beyond that, taking the actions of a few miscreants, a single witness account of an alleged crime committed by a foreign interpretor, an alleged, unsubstantiated video and coming to such a damning conclusion regarding the entire US Army stinks of personal activism over any semblance of journalism. Hersh may well go down as the most accomplished investigative journalist in American history but his efforts since uncovering Abu Ghraib, including the apparent “imminent ” regime change Bush invasion of Iran, have been, by my measure, more exploitation and exacerbation of ignorant, leftist popular opinion than any semblance of investigative journalism.

That’s my take.

Robert Kaplan has taken (as of late) some beatings in the commentary here at CA. The locus of those less than favorable comments are his alleged want to devise analysis around a “pet” pre-existing concept. I’d be curious to see what readers think of Hersh.

As someone who follows the American debate on second ammendment rights, I came across a fantastic Onion piece that readers will enjoy. So here’s a little something light for the weekend.

In The Know: New Iraqi Law Requires Waiting Period For Suicide Vest Purchases

“I get my best travel ideas from the State Department’s travel warning list.”

- DAVID CHUNG of Manhattan, on visiting Iraq with a tour group.

With a rather large exception¹, that has some of his political base less than pleased, President Obama has nailed down his campaign promise for US withdrawal from Iraq. As of August, 2010 Iraq will “officially” enter it’s post America form and uncertainties both internally and regionally abound.

For me one of the more intriguing issues regarding the future of post America Iraq is the measure of influence it’s neighbor and former enemy will have in the coming years. More than a few pundits here in the States have suggested a premature US withdrawal from Iraq might result in the state becoming a proxy of Iran’s want for regional hegemony. I’ve found this assertion both a tad simplistic and indicative of a rather monolithic and naive vision of the two countries and their history.

The presumption seems to be based purely on the two countries most blatant commonality; that the majority of both their populations adhere to the Shia sect of Islam. This presumption is reinforced by the likes of Muqtada al Sadr, his Mahdi following and obvious ties to Iran. Evidence and allegations of Iran arming Iraqi resistance against US forces is touted as proof of the impending Persian envelopment of Iraq.

What’s largely ignored in the Iran will take over Iraq scenario is the ethnic and cultural differences that exist between the two countries, the concept of Iraqi nationalism, the “small” matter of a bloody, eight year war the two countries fought back in the 1980’s and a myriad of other details. As for the complicity of Iran in arming the resistance, well that doesn’t necessarily parlay into subservience for the receiving parties much less indicate Iraq is soon to be a vassal of it’s larger neighbor. See Pakistan’s involvement in first the Afghan/Soviet war, secondly in the Afghan civil war, lastly the current troubles in Pakistan, specifically the Swat valley.

I have little doubt that Iran has been and will continue to assert itself in the internal machinations of the very uncertain state that is the “new” Iraq. What I wonder is, to what depths will this influence reach? I’m curious for some feedback on this and suggest reading this article, which I’ll quote from below, as a mental springboard, if you will. It contains nascent aspects of not only Iran’s potential post American influence but a look at the Iraqi reaction to that influence.

“This is Baghdad,” laments one of the hotel staff, pointing despairingly at the women. “Do you see this? They all look like they are from Iran! What is our country coming to?” he wails.

Reluctant at first, one of the women agrees to talk, but insists it be done away from the crowd.

“Why is everyone dressed like this,” asks this reporter.

“Please don’t misunderstand. We don’t dress like this normally. It is too hot and this is not our style, but if we do not, they threaten us,” she explains. A friend standing by her side nods in agreement.

Another woman, a member of the election committee explained that they were told to dress that way and wear a coat, even in summer if they wanted to be on the committee.

“Iran is taking over everything,” she laments.

Another woman, an Iraqi Assyrian Christian, refuses to partake in a business meeting organized for women, because she is afraid she will be seen.

By whom? Asks this reporter, insisting that this is inside the so-called Green Zone, protected by the U.S military.

“I’m so sorry, but they will see me and it will be a problem for me” says the woman, a hint of trepidation clearly audible in her voice.

Does this mean “they” are watching inside the Green Zone?

The woman becomes very nervous: “They are from Iran,” she says. “They are everywhere. If I am seen they will cause trouble for me. They have hurt many.”

Refusing to accept the notion that Iranians are operating right under the eyes of U.S. forces, this reporter decides to have a look for himself.

Meeting with the Iraqi-American who is coordinating the event I relate the conversation just exchanged across the street.

“I am afraid she may be right,” he says, almost in a whisper.”There are Iranians all over the place,” he adds.

He goes on: “What is happening is that Iranians are coming, but they have Iraqi IDs. We keep telling the Americans that even though they may show up with Iraqi IDs they are in fact from Iran. They don’t want to hear about it. They are everywhere.”

¹ Leaving behind nearly a third of your forces isn’t quite a withdrawal. Indeed it suggests things yet undone. Obama appears to be setting aside the rhetoric of his campaign, to a degree and favoring a more pragmatic course. But that’s a possible post for another time.

I’ve long wondered why President Bush has failed to repeat the reasoning for invading Iraq. The logic is simple and beliefs were shared by many, including those who became critics after the fact. September 11th made clear that terrorists were no longer intent on using small scale violence or tactics such as hostage taking andh hijacking to draw attention to their political goals. A new breed of terrorists known as al-Qaeda is intent on destroying the West and killing as many people as possible in its attacks. The deaths of over 3,000 people was unmistakable. Terrorist bent on mass-casualties were naturally drawn to weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, counterproliferation quickly moved to the top of America’s national security priorities. A short list of countriesinvolved in WMD and support for terrorism was easily made: Iraq, Iran, North Korea. The undisputable fact is that Saddam had a proven history of producing and using WMD as well as supporting terrorism. Leaving him in power was a risk the President could not take anymore, which he reiterated in a recent speech.

Bush defended his decision to go to war against Iraq in March 2003 and topple Saddam Hussein, saying that after the September 11, 2001, attacks the United States could not risk the threat Baghdad posed at that time. “It is true, as I have said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks,” Bush said.

But after nearly 3,000 people died in the September 11 attacks, the United States had to decide whether it could tolerate an enemy that supported terrorism and was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, and found “this was a risk we could not afford to take.”

Sadly, I doubt anyone is listening now.

Along with secret authorization to step up US attacks in Pakistan, the President has now authorized attacks in Syria. According to the AP,

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) – U.S. military helicopters attacked territory inside Syria close to its border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people in a strike the Syrian government condemned as “serious aggression.” A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq in an area where the Americans have been unable to shut it down because it was out of the military’s reach.”We are taking matters into our own hands,” the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an “uncontrolled” gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

What does this mean?

(1) The U.S. simply got actionable intelligence about a target that was too important not to strike
(2) This is part of a previously decided upon US policy
(3) The US has had similar information in the past but decided to strike now to send a message to Syria or possibly Iran

As the story develops, more information will hopefully appear which will support one of those theories.

Five years and going, the Iraq War has been subject to more spin, hyperbole and misinformation that anything else in our time. According to Douglas Feith, in his new book War and Decision, the two biggest errors of the Bush administration were: (1) Not communicating clearly the multifaceted reasons for going to Iraq and (2) allowing an occupation government (i.e. the CPA) to be set up, something which we had intentionally avoided in Afghanistan.

He notes that although the issue of physical stockpiles of WMD have been the main point of criticism, it was one of many reasons for neutralizing Saddam’s Iraq. Until 9/11 the aim of terrorism was primarily political and thus attacks were generally small in scale and in body count. However, 9/11 changed marked the beginning of a new phase, namely, that terrorists sought mass-casualties for their own sake. With that in mind, WMD and state support became central issues as WMD were the most attractive means of a massive attack. Hence, the Axis of Evil speech, in which the President outlined the three states of most concern in both areas. Iraq came to the forefront because diplomacy may still have a chance with Iran and North Korea, two states with which the United States has had little diplomatic contact whereas Iraq had defied over a decade of UN sanctions and had clearly demonstrated that no amount of reason, bargaining or diplomacy could disarm Saddam.

On the issue of a massive failure of public relations and strategic communication, contrast the following quote, which according to Feith, were the reasons for eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, with conventional wisdom (page 460):

“We aimed to bring into being an Iraq that would seek peace, remain unified, develop its economy, abandon Saddam’s WMD and long-range missile programs, and oppose terrorism. We did not promise to put in place a stable democracy for the Iraqis; rather, we stated the more realistic aim of ‘a representative government that builds democratic institutions and is respectful of its diverse population.’”

He notes that the reasons for liberating Iraq were that he maintained WMD capability (different from stockpiles) including numerous dual use facilities, teams of scientists researching biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, actively intended to produce WMD, was actively working to undermine sanctions after which he could continue his programs, was actively attacking British and American planes patrolling the no-fly-zone and actively supporting (including direct training and allowing them to use Iraqi territory) terrorist groups (Mujahedin-e Khalq, PKK, Abu Nidal organization, PLF, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Arab Liberation Front) and much more[1]. All these, however, have been obscured by the failure to find physical stockpiles of WMD.

Readers, with 5 years of hindsight, an Iraq which is beginning to make progress and new memoirs by figures such as Feith, Paul Bremer, George Tenet and Tommy Franks, how do you feel about Iraq, the decision to remove Saddam, our progress and the future of the war on terror.?

• To download a 3 hour interview with Douglas Feith about his book, click here.

[1] To view a detailed but not exhaustive list of Saddams many illegal activities click here for “A Decade of Deception and Defiance.”