Friday, December 14, 2012

Adam Lanza's massacre was an evil cry for attention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/adam-lanza-is-recalled-as-a-rambunctious-kid-with-family-problems/2012/12/14/795ad0fe-4641-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_print.html

The evil committed by this young man, whose life story we may learn more about in due course is now being blamed on his apparent condition: Asperger's aka Autism.

As someone quite familiar with this cruel and mysterious ailment, it seems a bit preemptive to blame a broad spectrum neurological condition for heinous actions that only he must answer for to his maker.

Having delved deep (research) into this condition to save two of my three sons, I realize there is a lot more to this tragic story. The familial dynamics. The parents' divorce. The fact that a mother would keep accessible weapons at home  when she lived there alone with this individual, who clearly had other emotional issues, speaks volumes on so many levels. So one can make the case that there is much more to this evil action than a "diagnosis."

What can also be said is that far too many children with identifiable symptoms of Autism and its variants never get the essential educational services such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), Speech therapy, Occupational therapy, Special Ed Pre-School (starting at age 2), Special Ed summer day camps and Special Ed Accomodations once they begin school.

My sons were diagnosed six months apart with Autism in 2003.  Vernie (May) was diagnosed with "severe autism." Josef was diagnosed in November with Austim-Not Otherwise Specified. The superb pediatric neurologist at Bethesda National Naval Medical Center was aggressive when it came to making his diagnoses. He preferred to err on the side of making a "worst case" diagnosis rather than a "wishful thinking" assessment which in the long run harmed the child. By his proactive approach, he helped save our sons from lives of dependency on family and society.

My husband (and their father) was in the USMC which meant we had access to military health care. The military medical system (TRICARE) notwithstanding all the frivolous complaints from recipients of fine medical care, came through by and large (although I had to be very proactive with them). In short, our sons got all the services they needed and it really took a platoon of healthcare professionals and fabulous teachers and a responsive school system to reverse the neurological damage.

Each boy had three years of daily ABA when trained therapists would come to our home to individually work with them in one or two 2 hour therapy sessions. A Pavlovian and painstaking process to get their neurons reconfigured, if you will.

Josef, who squealed sometimes and had few words despite speech therapy since 17 months of age, began to speak within two weeks of commencing ABA. By first grade he didn't qualify for an IEP. The neurologist was delighted that Josef had "recovered" (they never use the word "cure") and it was an amazing transformation through daily hard work and without the use of any medications for either boys (the neurologist wanted to also medicate but mom vetoed the "easy approach" versus the difficult but ultimately more successful route of  behavioral reconfiguration). Today, Josef is in a gifted program. He has a witty humor, is calm, social (but somewhat shy) and everyone likes him, especially his teachers. He has, in short, turned into a fine young man.

Vernie --the child we wondered would ever speak one day-- now won't shut up and has highly developed speech. It literally took a platoon of devoted professionals. He still struggles socially and is quirky given his obsession with animals and dinosaurs. But he is the most loving and happy child who was nicknamed "sunshine." And, most importantly, he is no longer in "his world."

For a private person, this is painful to share. But the fact that "Autism" has been thrown into the equation for what can only be described as a beastly and evil crime, makes moms such as myself very defensive/protective and at the same time desperate to let the world know that an Autism diagnosis isn't a life sentence IF you have parents who never lose faith and work to save their child; there are no serious underlying medical conditions; aggressive and early medical programs (ABA, speech etc) are commenced.

As a society we owe it to such children. Far too often it is a "penny wise, pound foolish" equation to the detriment of society when early services aren't offered across the board in all 50 states via the school system. A significant number of such children diagnosed in infancy or toddler years, if provided with the type of services my children were able to access, would "recover" and not be a long term burden to society. As functioning adults with perhaps a few quirks (but often brilliant minds), they too can contribute to society.

I sincerely hope that in the very human need to "explain" evil behavior, the current fixation of the killer's "Autism" at least propels folk to demand greater scrutiny of this mysterious ailment (as in research): to get to the source of this growing epidemic (1 in 88 children today).

What worries is that, in light of this man's identified medical diagnosis, other children (many now adults) may unfairly be stigmatized and/or isolated. This would be yet another victory for this now deceased man and at the expense of innocent citizens whose only "crime" is sharing a medical diagnosis.

Further, those who have "recovered" now must not be shamed or made anxious and thus pay an invisible and/or visible price for evil deeds of one individual. My hunch is there is a lot more to this man's story and it begins with his familial environment.

People have asked me to write about my sons "remarkable recovery." Others have opined that perhaps one or both really weren't "Autistic." The latter thesis offends. The amount of time, work and effort expended over the course of years, which disrupted our lives as a family (from 2002 to 2005, however, it was often a single parent endeavor as dad was deployed) cannot be allowed to be frivolously dismissed by such statements. These boys did the hard work with the right tools. Period.

Once my current writing project is completed, I will sit down and revisit what was "a period which will live in infamy" in order to contribute to the important narrative that "Autism isn't insurmountable" and "there is HOPE." Perhaps by recording their "victories" other parents in similar situations will be proactive and not lose hope in order to ensure their children have the best chance at leading a normal life in adulthood.

Friday, December 7, 2012

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy: December 7th, 1941

How far we have fallen as exemplified in our method(s) of response to our enemies who seek to destroy our way of life.

Hamidullah Khan Burki, Royal Indian Army Volunteer Reserve, 1941

Hamidullah Khan Burki, Royal Indian Navy Volunteer Reserve (RINVR), Feb 1943

The voluntary sacrifices of my father's generation during WWII are faded memories for most. Like many of his peers, my father, Hamidullah Khan Burki (November 10, 1920-September 27, 2003), cognizant of the global threat, signed up in the Indian sub-continent to join the Royal Indian Army Volunteer Reserve in '41 right out of Government College. He transferred to the Royal Indian Navy Volunteer Reserve in February of 1943 when it sought volunteers from the Army (officers and ratings) for their new landing craft flotillas.

Having never visited a coast before the war, he served in Burma, where he would later command a flotilla of Landing Craft Mechanized (LCMs) during the Arakan Campaign. He did not know when the war would end, but like his fellow officers had signed up for "the duration." He resigned his commission in 1946 once the war was over and took the uniform off for good. He did not care much for the khakis in peace time. And, it was time to get back to his three passions: hockey, photography and writing.

My father epitomized "the greatest generation" who quietly did their duty, shunned publicity, sought no accolades and certainly no freebies. Like fellow veterans, he just wanted a fair shake at working hard and being rewarded based solely on merit. The example of this fading generation offers us much wisdom from their own sacrifices and suffering. Will we/do we pay heed?

The Burma theater was the "forgotten war" of WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign_1944

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168185/Revealed-The-terrible-suffering-extraordinary-courage-British-WW2-soldiers-fighting-Japanese-Burmese-jungle.html

Below: Hamidullah Khan Burki (Abba) accepting the trophy for the Hockey World Cup in Barcelona in 1950 when he captained the Pakistan team for the first, and last, time before he moved to London to work as a journalist for the Civil and Military Gazette, played hockey, and finessed his photography skills. RIP.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

SYRIA THE NEXT DOMINO HANDED TO THE MB BY THE US?

It defies imagination that Washington's current "strategy" is being enacted by sober folk. Yet another train wreck in the making whose outcome is so predictable and frightening. Dominoes are falling; leading to greater instability and chaos as the indefinite template that characterizes state-society relations in MENA.

Will the Hashemites be next after the Alawites? Indications seem to suggest they are next on the list. The Saudis and Qataris must be nervous yet they continue to feed the crocodile hoping they won't be next nor last. Good luck on that one. If the Hashemites are overthrown, it won't be long before Muhammad VI of Morocco (who also shares direct lineage to the prophet with the Hashemites) will be targeted and so on.

Already the MB track record is worrisome to some who argue the MB is run by "moderates." MB's rule in Egypt and elsewhere will, comparatively speaking, make the mullahs' rule in Tehran seem downright benign.

Let's not forget, after all his promises to the Mujahidin-i-Khalq and the other "revolutionary" factions (inc the Marxists and women's groups) who supported him against the Shah, Khomeini's new Islamic Republic Party brutally went after all opposition (the first half of the 1980s) as it secured the theocratic throne for Khomeini and his ilk.

Willing to bet, the MB theocratic template will increasingly resemble the Taliban's rather than the Khomeinists but without the black turbans. No coincidence the Salafists et al are talking about blowing up the Sphinx; just like the Taliban made good on their promise to blow up the Buddhas in Bamiyan. A new phase in Muslim history/rule.

On the economic front, there are some key (and crucial) differences between the MB run Egypt and Khomeini's Iran circa 1979. These are critical leverages but are unlikely to be applied given the current climate of coddling these thugs rather than drawing some clear red lines in the sand.

Hard to believe so many are blind to what is blatantly obvious right in front of our noses. Or...?

Heil Ikhwan al Muslimin!

ARTICLE EXCERPTS:

November 28, 2012

U.S. Weighs Bolder Effort to Intervene in Syria’s Conflict

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, hoping that the conflict in Syria has reached a turning point, is considering deeper intervention to help push President Bashar al-Assad from power, according to government officials involved in the discussions.

While no decisions have been made, the administration is considering several alternatives, including directly providing arms to some opposition fighters.

The most urgent decision, likely to come next week, is whether NATO should deploy surface-to-air missiles in Turkey, ostensibly to protect that country from Syrian missiles that could carry chemical weapons. The State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said Wednesday that the Patriot missile system would not be “for use beyond the Turkish border.”

But some strategists and administration officials believe that Syrian Air Force pilots might fear how else the missile batteries could be used. If so, they could be intimidated from bombing the northern Syrian border towns where the rebels control considerable territory. A NATO survey team is in Turkey, examining possible sites for the batteries.

Other, more distant options include directly providing arms to opposition fighters rather than only continuing to use other countries, especially Qatar, to do so. A riskier course would be to insert C.I.A. officers or allied intelligence services on the ground in Syria, to work more closely with opposition fighters in areas that they now largely control.

Administration officials discussed all of these steps before the presidential election. But the combination of President Obama’s re-election, which has made the White House more willing to take risks, and a series of recent tactical successes by rebel forces, one senior administration official said, “has given this debate a new urgency, and a new focus.”

The outcome of the broader debate about how heavily America should intervene in another Middle Eastern conflict remains uncertain. Mr. Obama’s record in intervening in the Arab Spring has been cautious: While he joined in what began as a humanitarian effort in Libya, he refused to put American military forces on the ground and, with the exception of a C.I.A. and diplomatic presence, ended the American role as soon as Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled.

In the case of Syria, a far more complex conflict than Libya’s, some officials continue to worry that the risks of intervention — both in American lives and in setting off a broader conflict, potentially involving Turkey — are too great to justify action.

In recent months, these officials and diplomats said that the administration had kept them updated about its Syria policy.

Until now, the United States has offered only limited support to the military campaign against the Syrian government, instead providing nearly $200 million in humanitarian and other nonlethal aid.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and ammunition are funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries overseen mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, American officials said. Even that limited effort is being revamped in the wake of evidence that most arms sent to Syrian opposition fighters are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, not to the more secular opposition groups supported by the West.

American officials say the administration is now weighing whether the United States should play a more direct role in supplying the opposition fighters with weapons to help ensure that the arms reach the intended groups.

“The problem right now is that we don’t have much visibility into where these weapons are going,” one senior administration official said recently. “That’s the problem with outsourcing the issue.”

On the more immediate concern about defending Turkey, NATO is expected to act on the Patriot missile request next week.

On Wednesday night, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, told an audience at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard that “we’d be very much in favor of” the Turkish request for Patriot missiles “in terms of protecting the security of our ally.” The Patriot PAC-3 is the most modern air defense system in the American and NATO arsenals.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Egypt Circa 1979?

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/sns-201211271600--tms--jgoldbrgctnjg-a20121128-20121128,0,5410703.column

chicagotribune.com

Egypt's 'moderate' despot

Jonah Goldberg
Tribune Media Services
4:30 AM CST, November 28, 2012

What do you call a leader of a theocratic and cultish movement with a deep and clear disdain for democracy who suddenly assumes dictatorial powers?

A "moderate," of course.

Ever since the Muslim Brotherhood broke its promise to stay out of Egypt's presidential election in the aftermath of the revolution, many Western observers have been in denial about what has been going on. In less than half a year, Mohamed Morsi has deftly built the foundation for despotism.

Much as the Nazis brilliantly cast themselves as reformers sweeping away the corruption of the Weimar Republic, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have been using the effort to clean up the detritus of Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship as an excuse to consolidate power.
In August, when Islamists attacked Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai (in an apparent effort to force Egypt into a confrontation with Israel), Morsi used the incident as an excuse to replace Mohamed Hussein Tantawi -- a Mubarak-era holdover who headed the military and guarded its independence -- with officers more pliable to the Brotherhood.

"Are we looking at a president determined to dismantle the machine of tyranny," Alaa Al Aswany, a popular novelist and democratic activist, asked at the time, "or one who is retooling the machine of tyranny to serve his interests?" That question quickly became, at best, rhetorical.
Morsi proceeded to purge scores of newspaper editors and publishers, declare himself in charge of the drafting of the new constitution and all but wore a sandwich board with the words "I'm becoming a dictator!" on it.

As if to hammer it home, last week Morsi announced that his rule was immune to judicial oversight of any kind. He used the failure of the courts to adequately punish Mubarak-era holdovers as an excuse. It was just that -- an excuse, not an explanation.
Morsi softened his language Monday, but aides insisted his edict stood. And the Brotherhood's position remains clear. "If democracy means that people decide who leads them, then (we) accept it; if it means that people can change the laws of Allah and follow what they wish to follow, then it is not acceptable," the Brotherhood explained on its website in 2005.
Before Morsi was announced the winner of June's election, the Brotherhood massed in Tahrir Square to make its expectations clear. As one Brotherhood member explained to Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "We win or we die." Not a particularly democratic motto.
Morsi did have another excuse for seizing power last week: The timing was good. Because he helped broker a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, the White House lavished praise on him. Before the limelight dimmed, Morsi seized the moment to announce that his will is the supreme law of the land.
On the New Republic's website, Trager posted a devastating condemnation of Morsi's apologists under the headline "Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate." Trager's one error is he assumes that, after Morsi's latest power grab, no one could possibly still think Morsi's a moderate after Thursday's decree.
But that's exactly what many still believe. For instance, on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Time magazine's Joe Klein spoke for many inside the Beltway when he celebrated Morsi's role in the cease-fire as a "wonderful sign for the future" because it showed he and the Muslim Brotherhood are "moderates."
Bear in mind that even as Morsi was pocketing praise from the West for yanking Hamas' collar, Mohammed Badie, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, made it clear that war to liberate Palestine remained its goal, once Muslim unity is achieved. "Jihad is obligatory."
Apparently, "moderation" in the Middle East has been defined down to not wanting to wage war on Israel right now.

On Monday, in response to protests, Morsi met with members of the judiciary. Some reports say he walked-back his declaration of supremacy, but that is far from clear. He reaffirmed that the courts cannot veto the constitution being written by Morsi's Islamist pets. Is there any doubt that the constitution will ratify Morsi's dictatorship?Morsi went to prison to defend the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamist ideology. He rose through its ranks not because he was a moderate, but because he was committed to the cause and knew how to play the game. The stakes of the game have changed, but anyone who thinks he's not still committed to the cause is getting played.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI Bin-Ghazi...TIP OF THE ICEBERG

Troubling questions in the Benghazi-Petraeus Mess

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/12/troubling-questions-in-benghazi-petraeus-mess/

By Victoria Toensing

Published November 12, 2012

| FoxNews.com

Something is rotten in Benghazi-Petraeus. But we cannot find the rot in these two tragedies because the information is classified and the administration remains silent at the pleasure of the press.

Benghazi first: The CIA Libyan Chief of Station within 24 hours of the Tuesday September 11 attack on our consulate cabled CIA headquarters that it was carried out by militants and not in reaction to an obscure American-made internet video that criticized Islam’s Prophet Muhammed.

Yet on Friday, September 14, Director of Central Intelligence, General David Petraeus, ignored his chief boot-on-the-ground and briefed the House Intelligence Committee, as described by Vice-Chairman Ruppensberger (D-Md), that the attack was “spontaneous.”

What happened in those two days that the causal theory turned 180 degrees? Did the now discarded theory belong only to Director of Central Intelligence Petraeus and the CIA?

Because on that same day, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman Admiral James Whinnefeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that they believed the attack was premeditated.

The administration had time to co-ordinate the two inconsistent assessments. It did not. On Sunday, September 16, UN Ambassador Susan Rice fulfilled the quinfecta of all Sunday shows during which she vigorously backed the CIA/ Petraeus position: “What happened…in Benghazi…was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, which the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.” (ABC Jake Tapper) The press reported the CIA provided her “talking points,” a job usually reserved for a press secretary.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was nowhere to be seen or heard that day. Her spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, has steadfastly deferred to others when asked whether the video was the cause.

The White House had 9 more days to gather facts to decide which theory was supported by the evidence. It did not. Or it chose not to tell us.

Nine days later in his speech to the United Nations, President Obama was still accusing the video of being the proximate cause where he referred to it six times, declaring “a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” This discredited claim was made notwithstanding Libyan President Mohammad Magarief’s telling NBC on that very day that the attacks “had nothing to do with” the video. Did these two presidents not communicate during this time? Or did President Obama ignore the president-on-the-ground’s assessment?

For some reason DCI Petraeus backed the Obama unsupported theory that the video made the attackers do it rather than his own Chief of Station’s assessment that it was a planned military attack.

Why do the shifting stories and misplaced theory of cause matter?

Because if an administration pushes a political agenda that applauds the killing of Bin Laden as the ultimate act for eradicating the radical Islamic threat, then that same administration ignores its Ambassador’s urgent pleas for more security for fear it will appear Bin Laden’s demise was not the answer to that threat. Our country’s chief spy is supposed to know which theory is held up by the evidence.

Having pointed out the context of Petraeus’ strange support of that now refuted theory, we must turn to the bizarre circumstances of his resignation as DCI after the FBI discovered he had an affair with his biographer.

Something is terribly amiss for those of us steeped in federal criminal law, national security, and Congressional protocol. We have been told that the president knew nothing of the investigation until post-election Wednesday.

Similarly, the relevant Congressional committees said they either heard about it on television (Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein) or just a few hours before the announcement. Yet policy and the law—depending on the gravity of the facts--call for the FBI to inform the Intelligence Committees and the White House whenever there is a concern about any person involved in national security.

When there is merely a minor security concern, for example if a bad actor happens to be at the same dinner party in a foreign country as a travelling Member of the Intelligence Committee, long standing policy establishes that the Intelligence Committees should be informed. But the Petraeus matter was “significant.” Thus the law requires notice to the relevant Congressional Members. What did FBI Director Robert Mueller know and when did he know it? And whom did he tell?

If notice were the only breach of law or protocol it might not mean much, except bad judgment. But the entire scenario of Petraeus’ nomination and confirmation does not compute, and implicates an additional level of incompetence or willful blindness.

Consider: When Petraeus was nominated for DCI, there were “rumors” in Afghanistan about the duo and the extent of her access to him, according to well-respected foreign policy expert and Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland, who was on the ground there at the time.

Who headed Petraeus’ background investigation? The first time I had a background check, the FBI asked my neighbors whether I was a good mother. They also asked whether I was a lesbian.

These people are not shy about asking sensitive sex-related questions.

Consider: In the questionnaire a nominee must submit for the confirmation process, there is that final catch-all question. “Is there anything in your past that could embarrass the president?” That’s when the delicate affair should have been discussed by the Army General War Hero. Having an embarrassing issue does not disqualify the nominee. It means more investigation needs to be done to determine whether the conduct really is a problem. Did Petraeus reveal the relationship at that time?

Consider: All candidates for CIA employment must take a polygraph. Doesn’t the nominee for DCI have to do so also? And that nasty little catch-all embarrassment question is always asked by the polygrapher. Usually, the polygraphee is thinking back to college and confessing to smoking pot. In 2011, it would not take a sterling memory for Petraeus to remember a 2011 affair.

Why is the administration’s handling of the affair significant? Because sloppy vetting of the country’s top spy and not giving timely notice to the oversight committees was either gross incompetence or a deliberate evasion of law. Or the sticky situation was used to pressure the DCI into backing the White House theory. Or there was a much bigger secret at Benghazi that all involved were (and still are ) trying to cover up.

The two seemingly unrelated incidents are now merged. Just days before Petraeus is scheduled to testify about the first, he resigns because of the second, and cancels his Congressional appearances. The House and Senate have the authority to subpoena him. It is up to them and the media to find the rot.

Friday, November 9, 2012

BENGHAZI RIDDLE

Diplomats still in Benghazi say they had long questioned U.S. reliance on local militia

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/11/09/4401423/diplomats-still-in-benghazi-say.html

Posted Friday, Nov. 09, 2012

By Nancy A. Youssef

McClatchy Newspapers

BENGHAZI, Libya — Even before the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, diplomats from other nations and Libyan security officials had questioned the wisdom of a U.S. decision to rely primarily on members of a local militia to protect its compound here.
Diplomats here told McClatchy that while it’s customary to depend on local forces to protect diplomatic missions, only the United States of the 10 or so foreign missions here allowed the local militia to be the first line of defense.
The others said they instead depended on military forces from their own country to provide security.“A few months ago, there was a small attack here and the Libyans fled,” said a diplomat from a European nation who asked that he not be further identified so that he could speak candidly about his assessment of security here. “After that, I decided to only use special forces” from his own country.
“We never considered using the brigades,” he said, referring to the 17th of February Brigade, the local militia that was considered the primary security force for the U.S. mission. “We assumed the United States had a special relationship with the brigades.”Said another diplomat who requested anonymity for the same reasons: “I would never depend on the brigades.”The diplomat said he believed U.S. officials were unaware of the extremist links of those who were guarding them.
"The mistake of the Americans was not following the trail of Islamic radicals," he said.
For some, the cost of supplying security made operating in Benghazi prohibitive. The British, for example, brought in their own troops and also hired Libyans to provide security, according to Khalid al Hadar, who owns the compound that the British used as their offices here.
But after a June attack on the British ambassador’s convoy, the British withdrew from Benghazi. A British official told McClatchy that the realization that security would require a larger – and more expensive – British force in Benghazi helped fuel that decision. Hadar said the British still check in periodically on their compound, where a shot-up bulletproof windshield from the June ambush still sits in what was the consulate’s carport.
Who was responsible for determining how the United States protected its consulate here remains unclear two months after Stevens’ death.
According to the State Department, the ambassador, in consultation with deputies and security advisers, makes all security decisions, though they can be overruled from Washington. At a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last month, Eric Allan Nordstrom, who served as the chief security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from September 2011 until July, testified that he had requested additional security.Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security, defended the security procedures that had been taken in Benghazi, telling the hearing that there were five American security guards – the number recommended by Nordstrom – along with Libyans in Benghazi when the attack took place.“We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11,” she said.
It is unknown what Stevens’ own position on security in Benghazi was.
A Western diplomat here said the trip was Stevens’ first extensive visit to Benghazi since he’d assumed the ambassador’s post in May. The diplomat said that when he heard the attack begin about 9:30 p.m., he assumed “that Chris was long gone.” The diplomat expressed surprise that Stevens hadn’t been evacuated at the first sign of trouble. “We used to take training from the Americans” on diplomatic security, he said.
How the U.S. vetted its local security force in Benghazi may be among the questions to come up Thursday when the Senate Intelligence Committee holds a closed hearing on the attack. Witnesses expected to appear include Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. It was unclear Friday whether David Petraeus, who resigned Friday as director of the CIA after acknowledging an extramarital affair, would attend.
On Wednesday, during a ceremony honoring Stevens, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the administration has, in the wake of the 9/11 attack, dispatched a joint State and Defense Department task force “to review high-threat posts to determine whether there are other improvements we need in light of the evolving security challenges we now face.”
Diplomats here, however, say they believe one such improvement had become obvious in the months after a NATO air campaign helped topple the government of longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: Don’t expect local forces to protect you when they can’t even protect themselves against local extremists and terrorists groups in a city now defined by reprisal attacks.

In the past week alone, two police stations here were bombed and a police colonel’s patrol car was destroyed in front of his house; extremist groups seeking to wrest control of the city are the suspected culprits. According to two guards who were at the compound that night, a four-member team from the 17th of February Brigade’s VIP protection unit was assigned to provide security inside the compound and serve as a quick-reaction force. The 17th of February guards lived in a house closest to the front gate. According to the guards, they tried to fend off the attack of as many 100 men that night, shooting repeatedly at them. But 17th of February brigade leaders say they never considered themselves responsible for consulate security, and Najib Muftah, 25, a co-founder of the brigade’s VIP unit, denied that his group was in charge. “How could four people secure a consulate?” he said.Consulate security that night was a hodge-podge of local groups, in addition to a handful of Americans, including Stevens’ bodyguard. Outside, members of Libya’s newly formed police force stood guard, sitting in their parked vehicles. In addition, as many as five unarmed Libyans who worked for the Blue Mountain Group, a Wales-based contractor, were stationed around the perimeter to watch for suspicious activity and search visitors to the compound.But as a rowdy caravan of attackers came barreling down the road leading to the consulate, the police officers parked on the other side of the street from the consulate fled, according to a 31-year-old private security guard who was there that night. The security guard asked not to be named for fearing he would be targeted for working with Americans.Earlier in the day, somewhere between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., a member of the Blue Mountain Group reported that he had seen saw one of the police officers photographing the inside of the compound from the upper floor of a villa under construction across the street, according to the security guard, whose story confirms previous accounts.
But while reporters going through the consulate location in recent days discovered memos that suggested the consulate had complained to Libyan authorities about the incident, Interior Ministry officials in Benghazi said they were never contacted by U.S. officials.Salah Daghman, the newly named deputy minister of interior for Benghazi, said that in any case it would be unlikely that members of his police force would have challenged the Islamist group suspected of leading the Sept. 11 attack. He described his men as “afraid of Ansar al Shariah.”
“Everyone has a gun, he said. “Benghazi is not secure.”Members of the 17th of February Brigade first formed a “VIP protection” unit shortly after the anti-Gadhafi uprising began in Febraury 2011. A group of about 50, they were trained by Qataris to protect the cavalcade of politicians and diplomats who came to Benghazi, which was then the capital of rebel-controlled eastern Libya. “If anything happened to the envoys that came to support the Libyan people, people would have believed Gadhafi claims that we are all al Qaida,” Muftah said. Among the foreign visitors the brigade’s VIP unit protected was French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who made a stunning visit here after Gadhafi’s government collapsed.
Stevens, who had been a special representative to the rebel government during the civil war, used the protection unit as well, but not so much for security but as guides in the city, Muftah said.

After the war, the brigade continued to provide escorts as the U.S. formalized its presence here; most likely, Muftah said, because it was the strongest force in Benghazi. In addition, the brigade had a base less than a mile from the consulate that could provide additional forces if needed, as it did Sept. 11. “And we had good relations with the United States,” Muftah said. Once the rebel government moved to Tripoli and nations began to reopen embassies there, the United States kept working with the brigade, as many of its troops were incorporated into the newly formed Libyan army.
Once Benghazi had a trained and running police force, the Americans asked for police forces to be stationed outside the consulate, said Fawzi Waniss, the head of the Benghazi Supreme Security Committee, the group with responsibility for melding Libya’s many armed organizations into a unified force.As the security situation deteriorated, several Libyan officials and the Blue Mountain guards said they urged the United States to buttress security at the consulate, even as Stevens was wildly popular among residents here.
The Libyans, they said, could not secure themselves from a mounting extremist threat. “I told them, you should have your own security,” Waniss said. “Don’t depend on the Libyans.”But others have suggested the that the U.S. officials may have felt such a step was unnecessary because the CIA had established offices about a mile away and had promised to send security officers to the consulate, if needed.That in fact happened on the night of Sept. 11, according to a CIA timeline, which said security officers from the CIA station, which U.S. officials refer to as an annex, were dispatched 25 minutes after the first reports of trouble. It took another 25 minutes for the force to reach the consulate, however, because of resistance from militants.
One diplomat here said that while he appreciated the effort of the CIA guards to render assistance, 25 minutes in such a situation “is too late.”

Friday, November 2, 2012

PAKISTAN'S IMRAN KHAN'S STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

Khan, Taliban and the Crackpot Science

November 2, 2012 by DAWN.COM/ Anas Abbas

....Lately Pakistani urban youth has obsessed with another “Last Hope” who is an ideological lapdog of Hamid Gul and Jamaat-e-Islami whose looks and past athletic achievements are inversely proportional to his current ideology.

As readers might have guessed correctly, yes, its Imran Khan, the ‘playboy cricketer’-turned-politician who once threatened to abduct the greatest Pakistani humanitarian, Abdul Sattar Edhi and whose supporters are anxiously awaiting his triumph in upcoming polls. The demoralised and despondent youth that forms the major chunk of Pakistani population explosion feels abandoned by their government and seeks Khan as the solution to their insurmountable issues. Thanks to the gullibility of these overseas and domestic followers, Khan has earned the status of a Messiah who is expected to transform Pakistan to the ‘Norway of Europe’ in a short span of time by rooting out corruption in 19 days, containing and eradicating terrorism in 90 days and becoming the Saudi Arabia of coal in, again 9-something days.

These ludicrous claims of Khan and his party PTI have mammoth selling price at home but in reality they seem idealistic, incredulous and mostly fallacious in nature.

Take for instance, his stance on the issue of terrorism: he holds the ongoing War on Terror (started on 7th October 2001) responsible for not only the mounting polarization, extremism and terrorism in Pakistani society but also for the inception of Pakistani Taliban (TTP).
Recently his comments of Taliban fighting a jihad in Afghanistan faced severe criticism from not only the Afghan government but also from the Afghan public who protested against his comments.
Of course Khan and his brigade of trolls branded all criticism as ‘International Conspiracy’ and Khan further defended his comments by proposing myths that Bin Laden and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar were trained and indoctrinated by the CIA in 1980s.
However there are some pertinent questions which must be answered in order to ascertain whether or not there is any substance to Khan’s claims. The questions are:
Is the Taliban fighting a ‘Holy War’ in Afghanistan for the freedom and rights of afghan people as claimed by khan?
Is War on Terror the root-cause for the menace Pakistan has faced in the last decade?

In the above screenshot (Video courtesy Youtube, banned in Pakistan) Imran Khan addresses a gathering at Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqania which was the breeding ground for the Taliban leadership and was well known for its support of Bin Laden. See also Haroon Rashid BBC Report: “The University Of Holy War”.

Even a cursory examination of history can tell us that the Taliban had nothing to do with Afghanistan and were the product of Pakistani JUI-run religious schools for Afghan refugees. Ahmed Rashid, a world renowned expert on Taliban provides a great insight on their emergence in his book “Taliban” (published in 2000). He describes the significant role of Maulana Samiul Haq and Colonel Imam in the emergence of Taliban. Haq is a Pakistani religious and political leader whose madrassa Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqania became a major training ground for the Taliban leadership.

Protesters led by Maulana Samiul Haq chanting slogans in support of Bin Laden. Picture courtesy: Khyber Gateway

In February 1999 Haq gave an interview to Rashid in which it was revealed that he was directly managing Taliban leader Mullah Omar in forcefully implementing puritanical brand of Sharia. He was also the chief organizer for recruiting Pakistani students to fight for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance and whenever the Taliban required reinforcements, Haq, along with the ISI provided them with the essential manpower.

The chart below shows the contribution of Pakistani and Al Qaeda militants in Afghan Taliban military force:

Graph below gives an estimation of Pakistan’s (Central Board of Revenue): The Economic loss suffered by Pakistan due to Taliban’s illegal transit trade & nexus with Pakistani transport, trade and drug mafia:

In his book Fundamentalism Reborn? Professor William Maley writes “Many Taliban carry Pakistani identity cards, as they spent years in refugee camps in Pakistan, and thousands voted in the 1997 elections in Balochistan for their favorite Pakistani party – the Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI)”.

Afghans under the Taliban rule suffered some of the worst oppression in human history. It was a period of the Afghan Holocaust that witnessed ethnic cleansing campaigns, massacres, human trafficking, mass starvation and other forms of humanitarian crisis. According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban conducted 15 colossal massacres between 1996 and 2001 in order to consolidate their brutal rule in Afghanistan. Shias were branded as “apostates” and there were organised ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Hazara community where women were raped, and thousands of people were either killed or locked in containers and left to suffocate.

Women experienced a terrible form of repression where they were banned from education and employment, and were relegated to perpetually living behind the veil.

The savage Taliban, also termed as the “Holy Warriors” by Imran Khan, even closed down hospitals, and not only thwarted the efforts of aid agencies in providing relief to the Afghan people but also refused to cooperate with the UN led polio immunization campaigns for children.

Taliban phenomenon was not only confined to Afghanistan, even before 9/11 its tentacles had begun gradually spreading over and taking hold of Pakistan.

...Ahmed Rashid, who documented in his book (Taliban) that by 1998, Pakistani Taliban groups were forcibly imposing their Sharia laws and consequent punishments in FATA as were implemented in Afghanistan.

As we have seen above that Imran Khan’s “Holy Warriors” are actually savages and beasts who have not only caused mass devastation in Afghanistan but have also become the ideological foothold of Pakistani Taliban (TTP) that has been killing thousands of Pakistanis in recent years. These Taliban were never accepted as legitimate rulers by the Afghan people and from their beginning were considered Pakistan’s proxies.

Exploring Khan’s claim that Pakistan has been wrong in fighting the American “War on Terror” since it has only brought destruction and disgrace to the nation, this seems another bogus assertion of his, based on highly erroneous information.

Between the years 2001 to 2006, Pakistan’s annual GDP growth was at an average of a whopping 7 per cent as compare to the 3 per cent annual growth in 1999 to 2001. This was made possible, not because Musharraf was some Stalwart, a Warren Buffet, or an economic gold medalist like Manmohan Singh, instead the boom was predominantly facilitated by incentives such as removal of all sanctions, debt rescheduling, waiving of export quota restrictions and greater market share that were offered to Pakistan for its participation in the “War on Terror”.

...Indeed after 9/11, Pakistan faced an enormous increase in violence which resulted in 40,000 civilian casualties and an economic cost of around $70 billion but an ample proportion of this staggering cost was also attributable to the Balochistan Conflict and ethnic violence in Karachi which had nothing to do with the War on Terror. In any case, the destruction wrecked by TTP was inevitable, even if Pakistan had not participated in the war on terror, as Pakistanis who were assisting the Afghan Taliban had started various movements even before 9/11 within FATA to implement the same rule which later evolved into the ruthless Pakistani Taliban (TTP). The chickens came home to roost for the country when it fought against terrorism and it paid a regrettable price for nurturing Islamic militants and sustaining them.

The latest example of his propagandist attitude is the drama he orchestrated about his flight from Toronto to New York during which he was questioned. He made an issue that he was harassed and grilled due to his stance on drones only to be later confirmed by officials that the reason was that the donations he collected were illegal on the visa he was travelling.

In the end, Imran is a ‘Taliban Khan’ not because he wants his people to be slaughtered in soccer stadiums, but because he strategically supports Taliban for two main reasons:
a) To remain in the good books of a faction of Military establishment that has always viewed Taliban as a proxy and is leading Pakistan into disaster.
b) To exploit and fuel Anti-Americanism, the best-selling product in Pakistan and which directly results in keeping a deafening silence on Taliban’s terrorism and instead blaming the ‘War on Terror’ for all the ills befalling Pakistan.

This strategy of Imran Khan can be further evidenced in the absurd claim he made of blaming the War on Terror for the murder of Salman Taseer while conveniently ignoring the murders of those such as Justice Arif Iqbal Bhatti, who have been killed like Salman long before 9/11, only because they defended blasphemy victims.

If Imran Khan really is as daring as he purports to be, he should openly confront and condemn the Taliban leadership by name, which he does not have the courage to do. He should learn a lesson from Malala who defied the Taliban’s ban on education of women.

The writer is an investigative Counter Terrorism Analyst. He blogs at aacounterterror.wordpress.com and tweets at @Anas_Abbas1.

Shireen Burki's One Cent