April 14, 2004
COLUMN REFUSES TO CONFIRM BECKHAM RUMOURS
Mentioned in this week’s Continuing Crisis column for The Bulletin are Pauline Hanson, Mark Latham, Robert Bosler, Jesus, David Aaronovitch, Mo Mowlam, and Osama bin Laden.
Also in The Bulletin: John Lyons’ damning piece on Australia’s intelligence services, centred on claims by Lt Col Lance Collins that intelligence failed everywhere from Bali and East Timor to Washington and Western Australia. Reaction has been predictably explosive.
Posted by Tim Blair at April 14, 2004 01:56 PMI love the way that the media has already tied the DIO's politicization to influence from the Howard government.
Unless i'm mistaken the political orientation was with respect to a pro Jakata influence rather than than pressure from the government.
I've even included this quote from Capt Toohey which highlights this point.
"I find as a fact that a pro-Jakarta lobby exists within the Defence Intelligence Organisation which distorts intelligence estimates to the extent where those estimates are heavily driven by government policy,"
Can anyone show me how the Howard government is implicated by this report.
However be prepared for the Margit tomorrow. I see it now ......Margit writes "G'day, He's at it again. Howard controls the DIO!!!"
Posted by: Nemesis at April 14, 2004 at 02:29 PMHeyyyyy.... nothing on Dubya's performance tonite?
Tim, I'm discombobulated.
Posted by: geezer at April 14, 2004 at 02:31 PM'Reminder to the cuddly: there was no peace in Iraq before the invasion. There was tyranny'. Mmm... I seem to recall JH saying that if Saddam were to relinquish his 'WMD' then there would be no case for regime change. But my memory could be defective. I also await the case on the ground of 'tyranny' for regime change in eg Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Saudi Arabia...
Iraq, Tim, is a sideshow in the 'war on terror', a mistake of incalculable proportion. Osama bin Laden must have been elated when he heard that the USA had invaded Iraq. In the past year he has achieved his ends beyond his wildest ambitions, including inflicting long-term damage on the American economy and gaining countless converts to his cause.
Meanwhile the main game in terrorism goes on in Pakistan, ironically now a 'major ally' of the USA. Musharraf is playing the US for a sucker because they need his help to get bin Laden. Conservative commentators don't say much about Pakistan, Tim. I wonder why? Point me to your columns on Pakistan.
Pakistan, in summary:
* HAS WMD and has sold them to rogue states.
* Has a ruthless military government alien to civil rights which governs tenuously.
* Has elements of the government, military and intelligence sympathetic to al Qaeda.
* Has a dodgy inventory of nuclear weaponry.
* May have already supplied al Qaeda with nuclear technology.
* Could easily become a militant Islamic state in the near future.
* Harbours Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.
* Has thousands of privately-run schools teaching militant Islam to the next generation of terrorists.
* Is engaged in territorial conflict with India.
Need I go on?
Don't take my word for it. Read Jessica Stern's fine article at http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.jstern.CSIA.KSG/pakistan.htm
Her article on al Qaeda is also very persuasive reading: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701faessay15403/jessica-stern/the-protean-enemy.html
Colin Powell a fortnight or so ago shamefully dismissed the activities of Dr Khan, supersalesman for Pakistan, the Wal-Mart of illicit nuclear technology. One should compare Powell's rhetoric on alleged WMD in Iraq before the UN Security Council. Disgraceful hypocrisy at best.
We also need to know why those Saudis were allowed to depart the USA after 9/11, when US air space had been shut down. Who let them out? Why were they not interviewed?
Someone, somewhere issued the authority for them to depart, including members of the bin Laden family. Conservative commentators rarely comment on this matter.
The US military does not have a good record in guerilla warfare, Tim. 'Shock and awe' is WW2 stuff. Someone should rewrite their training manuals for urban guerilla warfare.
Anti-terrorism is about galvanising international intelligence agencies into concerted action and information exchange; international data bases to allow tracking of individuals and denial of movement where possible; following international money trails and freezing bank accounts; leaning on governments known to be harbouring terrorist organisations; out-thinking terrorist groups so as to minimise their opportunities; ensuring that all shipping containers entering the USA are x-rayed; airport security; taking steps to safeguard US trains and bus lines (I travelled Greyhound Boston-NYC and return last Fall and I could have boarded those buses with anything); ensuring proper coordination between all intelligence elements within the USA; ensuring that the National Guard is available for homeland response instead of being stretched to the limit in Iraq; border and coastal security; security of computer systems; close monitoring of the Net and mobile phones; increasing the numbers of military and intelligence personnel with languages other than English; restricting the sale of ammonium nitrate; safeguarding water and power supplies; ensuring that the country is prepared against biological attack; and selective use of covert operations by the CIA to pick off personnel designated as 'most wanted'.
Iraq, as an exercise in the so-called 'war on terror', will be massively counterproductive. It is already bringing together hitherto disparate Islamist groups and providing them with a common purpose. It is providing work experience for terrorists, a place to hone their skills.
Iraq is about oil, Israel and global power plays, not about anti-terrorism. To play the main game against terrorism, one has to be on the main playing field, not on the wrong field.
Howard (or Latham, if he gets in) should immediately reinstate Wilkie and Collins and get them doing again what they are patently bloody good at: security analysis. These are old-style pros, the like of which we need. It takes years for them to acquire the skills and the judgment. We need them back, the way the USA needs Clarke back. The national interest comes way above political noses put out of joint.
Regards
John Boase
Hey Tim, where's the extended ridicule and outrage over Latham's latest shenanigans?
There's no longer any doubt about it, this bloke is the most dangerous and incompetent Labor leader ever.
Posted by: JR at April 14, 2004 at 05:01 PMIraq is about oil
John, with those four words, your analysis goes *pfft*.
Posted by: Quentin George at April 14, 2004 at 05:26 PMjohn boase
All your claims have been responded to hear and other sites, don't expect people jump to very demands especially when they contain red Herrings and myths.
Posted by: Gary at April 14, 2004 at 06:18 PM>I also await the case on the ground of 'tyranny'
>for regime change in eg Uzbekistan, Pakistan,
>Zimbabwe, North Korea, Saudi Arabia...
One at a time, dude. Though I'm heartened that an attack on Saudi Araba tomorrow would meet with your approval, and you wouldn't think that oil had anything to do with it. Welcome aboard.
>Osama bin Laden must have been elated when he
>heard that the USA had invaded Iraq.
In much the same way Mussolini must have been elated about D-Day.
>In the past year he has achieved his ends beyond
>his wildest ambitions
So Israel is free of Jews and the entire world is under Islamic rule. Damn, a lot happened while I was at work.
>including inflicting long-term damage on the
>American economy
5.6% unemployment, negligible inflation, comically-low interest rates. If only we had the robust economy of France and Germany! And their low, low gas prices!
>Meanwhile the main game in terrorism goes on in
>Pakistan, ironically now a 'major ally' of the
>USA.
That kind of irony went out with the US-Soviet alliance in WWII.
>'Shock and awe' is WW2 stuff.
In that case, WWII would have been over in three months. Fastest mechanized advance in history, guy. BTW, tanks and airplanes are WWII stuff, too. They still work.
>Someone should rewrite their training manuals for
>urban guerilla warfare.
What's the kill ratio stand at right now? How long has this particular fighting gone on and how does that compare to the length of time that your obvious military expertise tells you that this operation should be completed in? How would you compare the Marines' performance to other armies, past or present? For example, the Russians in Chechnya?
>Anti-terrorism is about galvanising international
>intelligence agencies into concerted action and
>information exchange
Specify mechanics of galvanization, i.e., what to do when the other guy doesn't want to share?
>international data bases to allow tracking of
>individuals and denial of movement where
>possible
No problems from the ACLU that I can see. And nobody will bitch about Muslims getting lots of attention, either.
>following international money trails and freezing
>bank accounts
Being done.
>leaning on governments known to be harbouring
>terrorist organisations
Ever hear of Afghanistan? Lots o' leaning, there.
>out-thinking terrorist groups so as to minimise
>their opportunities
Damn, how come nobody ever thought of that! Brilliant! Better yet, out-think them OUTSIDE THE BOX!
>ensuring that all shipping containers entering
>the USA are x-rayed
Should do wonders for Fujifilms cargo. And what x-ray machine would give you more than a blurry mass when viewing a packed container?
>airport security
Have you flown lately?
>taking steps to safeguard US trains and bus lines
>(I travelled Greyhound Boston-NYC and return last
>Fall and I could have boarded those buses with
>anything)
How about subways? Shopping malls? Schools? Ferrys? Casinos? I could walk into any of those with a bomb. Shall we just hire one million cops and search everyone everywhere?
>ensuring proper coordination between all
>intelligence elements within the USA
Reasonable and obvious.
>ensuring that the National Guard is available for
>homeland response instead of being stretched to
>the limit in Iraq
And what would they do? Respond with what? How? Is shooting looters a big priority?
>border and coastal security
No shit. How much and at what cost?
>security of computer systems; close monitoring of
>the Net and mobile phones
Well, the terrorists have definitely beaten you.
{snip the rest. Too boring and/or obvious and/or Orwellian.}
>Iraq, as an exercise in the so-called 'war on
>terror'
Fought with so-called "bombs" and "planes" and "troops."
>is already bringing together hitherto disparate
>Islamist groups and providing them with a common
>purpose.
And a convenient place to die. And, jackass, Islamist groups already _have_ a common purpose. Hint - they're "Islamist."
>It is providing work experience for terrorists, a
>place to hone their skills.
At what? Dying in packs? Excellent. Let's up their training.
>Iraq is about oil
Groan.
>Israel
And now the truth about you comes slithering out like a snake from under a rock.
>and global power plays
Halliburton! Skull and Bones! The Illuminati! The Tri-Lateral Commission! The Freemasons! The Papists! And of course, the Joooooos.
>the USA needs Clarke back.
'Coz he used all of your cool strategies to take out Osama back in 1996. That kicked ass. If not for that genius/hero, the World Trade Center might be a crater today.
Posted by: Dave S. at April 14, 2004 at 06:50 PMI liked the part about safeguarding Greyhound buses.
Especially since it's not like 99% of buildings (in America, at least) have concrete barriers to prevent vehicles from driving inside.
Posted by: david at April 14, 2004 at 07:10 PMThroughout the period of urban conflict the kill ratio must be well over 10:1 in favour of the US (and very much greater during the war). Unfortunately the media only report coalition casualties or claim that the opposing bodycount is predominantly civilian women and children. It seems all the males are off hiding in the local mosque on the assumption that "holy places" are immune.
Posted by: Greg at April 14, 2004 at 07:34 PMDear Dave S
Read the 2 articles by Jessica Stern, mon ami. Do yourself a favour. What she says about Pakistan should worry you. Or maybe not.
My info on container x-ray came from an article by a man who was until recently head of that kind of ports authority in the US. He said it can be done. I'm happy to have his reassurance.
I flew overseas thrice in 2003. Narita airport is the king of airport security. 4 checks, 3 with passports, beginning at the airport entrance. Boston, mercifully, was much improved on my last visit as was Kennedy.
Iraq is spawning terrorism, not preventing it. And in Pakistan, thousands of schools are teaching anti-Muslim animosity. Again, read Stern. She knows what she is talking about.
The weapons inspectors should have been allowed to do their job. Intelligence knew that there were no WMD. By now there might have been another UN resolution involving troops from nations all over and experienced peacekeepers might have been running the show. Have a look at what is happening now. 'Quagmire' is a euphemism for the situation.
In boxing terms, bin Laden is well ahead on points. Now that Sunni and Shiite are forging a temporary, expedient alliance, he may well be anticipating a TKO... or worse.
Stay well, comrade.
JB
Whoops... I meant that the schools in Pakistan, privately owned and funded by eg Saudi money, are teaching dogma opposed to the West, especially the USA. Jessica Stern maintains that a significant step in the 'war against terror' could be taken by funding government schools in Pakistan, to teach a standard curriculum. She says they are under-funded and poorly equipped. There are thousands - thousands! - of schools based on militant Islam and no one has even got an inventory of them.
Pakistan is the main game, comrades. Watch developments there, especially if al Qaeda knocks off Musharraf. Anything could happen.
What has the USA said publicly about the illicit sales of nuclear material by Dr Khan? SFA, it would seem. Ask yourself why.
JB
I hear ya John, I hear ya. I just don't know what the F(ronin)K you're trying to say...
Posted by: roscoe.p at April 14, 2004 at 08:17 PMHere's a hint John: To be taken seriously by non-moonbats, it helps to drop the Oil-Israel conspiracy theories about the Middle East. Unless you believe Bush requires oil in a similar way to a vampire needing blood, logically it makes no sense.
But if its what you really, truly believe...well, then...what more is there to say?
Posted by: Quentin George at April 14, 2004 at 09:47 PMSo, Bloghead, let's see your full-blown attack on John Lyon's embarrassing disclosures on the extent Howard has cowed the intelligence services into only providing what he wants to hear. (Just like he has throughout the entire public sevice.)
Let's hear you with both guns blazing... let's hear you attack the hand the feeds your waste-of-space column... The Bulletin, John Lyons, LtCol Collins - all just another chapter in the leftie media's Howard hating obsession? Collins? He's a cross dresser isn't he?
C'mon, take a stand. Go into bat for your masters... or stay true to your right-wing values... which is it to be?
This is one wedgie I wanna see!
Posted by: Miranda Divide at April 14, 2004 at 10:21 PMIntelligence knew that there were no WMD.
Yup, except the intelligence agencies in the US. And in the UK. And in France. And in Germany. And...
For efficiency reasons, you really should have included that silly claim in your first post, so Dave S. could have debunked you all at once and saved us all some time.
In boxing terms, bin Laden is well ahead on points.
Well, yes, he obviously won the rounds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan...his strengthened state support in all those countries is truly staggering. Not to mention the hearts and minds of leftists in Western countries. Oh wait, he did win those. Guess it's not all bad for ol' OBL!
Posted by: PW at April 14, 2004 at 10:29 PMI have a little bit of experience in the whole cargo container area. Its absolutely asinine to think that every CONEX Box comming into the US can be X-rayed, it would take millions of man-hours to do it, the amount of money would be staggering, and it would create a huge backlog of ships waiting to come into ports around the country. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of containers a day.
Posted by: monkeyboy at April 14, 2004 at 11:12 PMConsider how many of these complainers must have profited from Australia's booming housing market – driven by those same forces of supply and demand – over the past decade or so; then consider the rage that would result from government caps on housing prices to rein in these greedy, opportunistic house profiteers.
Some might take that seriously, Tim.
Posted by: Andjam at April 14, 2004 at 11:40 PMTim, the comments on petrol pricing in your column indicate that you've never picked up much economics. The laws of supply and demand only apply in perfectly competitive markets, and the retail market for petrol is not one. The market structure and pricing characteristics reflect a combination of oligopolistic and monopolistic features. Moreover, averaged across the regular weekly cycles (which, again, are not a function of supply and demand, but monopolistic pricing strategies and sometimes oligopolistic price competition amongst adjacent retailers), retail petrol prices are essentially nothing more than a function of the global price of crude oil, mediated by the domestic tax and distribution costs.
Seriously, you should do a course in economics. It's hard to be a persuasive advocate for free markets without a basic understanding of the subject.
Posted by: Adam Smith at April 14, 2004 at 11:51 PMThe weapons inspectors should have been allowed to do their job
No kidding!!!
Posted by: Saddam Hussein at April 15, 2004 at 12:05 AMstop the lies please baked cod in boston on fridays! i went there and they said they didnt have any! whats the world coming to!
Posted by: yea at April 15, 2004 at 12:13 AMOn a serious note, Gary, the Snopes page you linked is an out of date copy. Members of the bin Laden family and other Saudis were allowed to fly, although it's not like Osama's family has close ties with him. The updated page has better info.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
John: We also need to know why those Saudis were allowed to depart the USA after 9/11, when US air space had been shut down. Who let them out? Why were they not interviewed?
Someone, somewhere issued the authority for them to depart, including members of the bin Laden family. Conservative commentators rarely comment on this matter.
Who let them fly? A fellow by the name of Richard Clarke. I think you've heard of him.
Posted by: Sortelli at April 15, 2004 at 12:18 AMThe laws of supply and demand only apply in perfectly competitive markets,
Who needs to take Econ 101? That's total crap.
Posted by: spongeworthy at April 15, 2004 at 01:03 AMA supply curve and demand curve will intersect at an equilibrium price only under conditions of perfect competition.
That's the first class of Econ 101.
Or did you mean some other laws of supply and demand?
Posted by: Adam Smith at April 15, 2004 at 01:22 AMI wonder about Jessica Stern's judgement if she truly believes (as she asserts here) that A.Q. Khan acted without the knowledge of the Pakistani state, in spreading nuclear-weapons know-how to all those other countries.
Posted by: mitch at April 15, 2004 at 01:32 AMJohn Boase:
>>Read the 2 articles by Jessica Stern, mon ami. Do yourself a favour. What she says about Pakistan should worry you. Or maybe not.
Ah yes, the pseudo intellectual approach to issues that invariably paralyzes the victim into inaction. "Why are we tackling a problem when there are OTHER problems too??"
Iraq was and is the preeminent problem in the middle east now that Afghanistan's Taliban has been properly dealt with. Pakistan is helping our cause currently and while there is still many issues in that country to be dealt with, that doesn't preclude the world handling Iraq.
>>Iraq is spawning terrorism, not preventing it. And in Pakistan, thousands of schools are teaching anti-Muslim animosity. Again, read Stern. She knows what she is talking about.
The weapons inspectors should have been allowed to do their job. Intelligence knew that there were no WMD. By now there might have been another UN resolution involving troops from nations all over and experienced peacekeepers might have been running the show. Have a look at what is happening now. 'Quagmire' is a euphemism for the situation.
In boxing terms, bin Laden is well ahead on points. Now that Sunni and Shiite are forging a temporary, expedient alliance, he may well be anticipating a TKO... or worse.
Iraq is drawing the terrorists out to die to Coalition forces, and much better that then skulking in the darkness and attacking at a time of their choosing. You seem to think terrorists are being spawned, as if they didn't exist in large numbers in the first place?
Weapons inspectors jobs, my friend, was to oversee the destruction of WMDs. Not to search for them, please remember that. Also remember Blix determined there were not only no WMD's but no programs to develop them, something David Kay completely disproved with his proof of dozens of programs and hundreds of resolution "no-no's". Blix also readily admitted that first, Saddam showed proof SOME WMD's were destroyed, but no indication of what quantity, second he did not put forth the effort needed to assure the UN these WMD's were in fact destroyed.
Forgive me for not placing much faith in inspectors.
>>Stay well, comrade.
JB
Indeed.
Thanks Sortelli that updated page still puts a damper on John Boase`s claim.
Posted by: Gary at April 15, 2004 at 02:04 AMA supply curve and demand curve will intersect at an equilibrium price only under conditions of perfect competition.
Yes, but how many markets are perfectly competitive? Supply and demand still applies, and you admit as much: "sometimes oligopolistic price competition amongst adjacent retailers".
Here in the US the spring price hike is caused mostly by the switch to summer blend fuels, I don't know if you have that in Oz.
Posted by: Matt Moore at April 15, 2004 at 02:26 AMLaws of supply and demand apply even to monopolies. Your statement is crap.
Even your refined statement runs into trouble.
i - general equilibrium: can exist under perfect competition and monopoly or monopolistic competition.
http://members.shaw.ca/elementaleconomics/mic_4_2.htm
Posted by: spongeworthy at April 15, 2004 at 05:35 AMAdam Smith, where did you study economics? Based on your 'analysis', I'm guessing Sydney Uni....
Posted by: Art Vandelay at April 15, 2004 at 11:26 AM