More Troubling Emails In Hasan Case

Sen. Carl Levin notes that there appear to be still more troubling emails written by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who massacred 13 soldiers at Fort Hood.

The U.S. government intercepted at least 18 e-mails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric. They were passed along to two Joint Terrorism Task Force cells led by the FBI, but a senior defense official said no one at the Defense Department knew about the messages until after the shootings. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence procedures.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said after a briefing from Pentagon and Army officials that his committee will investigate how those and other e-mails involving the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, were handled and why the U.S. military was not made aware of them before the Nov. 5 shooting.

Levin said his committee is focused on determining whether the Defense Department's representative on the terrorism task force acted appropriately and effectively.

Levin also said he considers Hasan's shooting spree, which killed 13 and wounded more than 30, an act of terrorism.

"There are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism but there is significant evidence that is. I'm not at all uneasy saying it sure looks like that," he said.

It isn't just emails, but that the contact between Hasan and extremist imam Anwar al-Awlaki intensified. Hasan began inquiring about engaging in financial transfers to further his extremist ideology:

Hasan's contacts with extremist imam Anwar al-Aulaqi began as religious queries but took on a more specific and concrete tone before he moved to Texas, where he allegedly unleashed the Nov. 5 attack that killed 13 people and wounded nearly three dozen, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case is sensitive and unfolding. One source said the two discussed in "cryptic and coded exchanges" the transfer of money overseas in ways that would not attract law enforcement attention.

"He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalized toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances . . .," the source said in describing the 18 or 19 intercepted e-mails. "It became very clear toward the end of those e-mails he was interested in taking action."

Yet, despite these emails, no action was taken by the Army against Hasan. The recriminations between the Army and FBI are only going to intensify because the FBI apparently didn't pass along these messages to the Army all while the Army knew that they had someone in Hasan whose job performance was deficient and whose colleagues were concerned about his work product. Yet, the Army gave him a promotion.

Hasan remains hospitalized, and a pre-trial hearing is scheduled to occur at his bedside. His lawyer complains that the hearing is taking place without regard for his client's physical condition.

Curiously, the CNN article reporting on the pre-trial hearing notes the following:

Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, is accused of killing 13 people and injuring several others in the November 5 shooting at the Fort Hood Army Post near Killeen. He has not pleaded to the charges.

Hasan didn't merely injure several others. He wounded more than 30 other people during his shooting rampage. Some consider that Hasan actually killed 14 people, as one of the women murdered by Hasan was pregnant and the fetus died as well. Why is CNN downplaying the severity of the attack?

If You Can't Beat Them, Pay Them?

A new defense appropriations bill includes a most curious clause that would provide payments to Taliban thugs who renounce their fight against the Afghan government. It's basically a bribe.

The defense bill President Barack Obama will sign into law on Wednesday contains a new provision that would pay Taliban fighters who renounce the insurgency, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Tuesday.

The provision establishes a program in Afghanistan similar to one used in Iraq where former fighters were re-integrated into Iraqi society, Levin told Reuters.

Obama plans to sign the bill authorizing Pentagon operations for fiscal 2010 on Wednesday, the White House said.

Reaching out to moderate Taliban members is part of the Obama administration's plan to turn around the eight-year war in Afghanistan. Levin also has advocated trying to convince Taliban fighters to change sides by luring them with jobs and amnesty for past attacks.

Under the legislation, Afghan fighters who renounce the insurgency would be paid for "mainly protection of their towns and villages," Levin said.

I think it shows a serious misunderstanding about the Taliban's character and motivations. Bribery will not buy off the Taliban; it will merely fund the Taliban's ongoing efforts against the Afghan, Pakistani, and US efforts to quell the Taliban threat in the region. The Taliban will not be satisfied until they regain control over Afghanistan, and their reach extends deep into Pakistan as well.

Sen. Carl Levin thinks this is similar to efforts in Iraq to pay off the insurgents who were attacking US and Iraqi forces. The key difference is that the al Qaeda and insurgency was paying those individuals to operate on their behalf; a lack of economic opportunity was a key reason that the insurgency took hold, and once the Iraqi economy began showing improvement, the insurgency leaders lost a key selling point and efforts to reintegrate the former insurgency members gained ground.

The situation on the ground in Afghanistan is far different. The Taliban have an independent source of revenue, primarily from the sale of heroin and opium. Tribal and familial loyalties are working against similar efforts, and the Taliban will more than likely rebuff efforts to buy the silence of their weapons.

The Taliban already dominate parts of Afghanistan and buying protection for their towns and villages isn't changing the fact on the ground; they already control that territory so paying them for that task is redundant. In fact, it opens up the possibility that the money the US is providing will find its way to al Qaeda and the Taliban fighting in Pakistan. Moreover, it will be seen as a sign of weakness by the Taliban, and encourage more fighting.

Confused on the Strategery

Wasn't it only days ago that Democrat Sen. Carl Levin was sounding the call to retreat and cut and run from Iraq? So what is up with the fact that he's now sounding like he wants to expand military operations into Syria and Iran based on the evidence presented thus far by the military, intel community, and observations about the Syrian and Iranian government backing of the insurgency and terrorist groups. Video here.

SEN CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “Now, in terms of the weapons coming in from Syria, those weapons that you’ve described as coming in from Syria and perhaps other Sunni neighbors are killing our troops. Do we have a plan to address the Syrian weapon source -- of killings of our troops?”

JOHN MCCONNELL, Director of National Intelligence: “Sir, I know the military is working that border area to close it down from not only weapons but also jihadists coming in --”

LEVIN: “It’s more than just -- we’re trying to close down the Iranian border area too. The problem is that these weapons are coming from a state which is -- doesn't recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn't. We’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source that are killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran, I think we have to try stop them that are going to the Sunni insurgents as well as to the Shia. I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria? That are going to Sunni insurgents? That are killing our troops? … I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus – but it shouldn’t be the sole focus.” (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/27/07)

In other words, Sen. Levin is proposing to take the fight to those who are backing enemies of the US. It's a position that I happen to support and which the Administration cannot pursue because Democrats like Levin have been sniping at his Iraq strategy for years without offering up a cogent policy to deal with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other terror supporting regimes.

Mark Levin first commented on this earlier tonight. His segment left me wondering where exactly everyone is standing on the subject. After all, he points out that the US is considering sitting down with Syria and Iran to discuss Iraq. It would seem that brain transplants have occurred throughout D.C. What exactly does Sec. State Rice think that accomplishes? Those two rogue nations have absolutely no interest in peace in Iraq. They'd like to see Iraq in pieces, where they can benefit most from the anarchy. If it reduces US capabilities in the region, even better since their long range goal is to dominate the rest of the region - especially the Sunni populations.

Others confused about Levin's stance include Outside the Beltway and Wizbang.

Senate Democrat Fecklessness Continues

The Democrats continue their efforts to undermine the war effort in Iraq by micromanaging every aspect. They think that this is the path to victory? Can any of these luminaries point to a single military victory that was possible by the politicians in the rear dictating strategies or limiting manpower?

Senate officials said Thursday that the proposal now being drafted would be a new turn in their attempts to force the White House to halt its troop buildup in Baghdad. They described it as more substantive than the nonbinding resolution of opposition to the increase that stalled in the Senate last Saturday.

The officials would speak only if not identified because the central proposal was still being drafted and needs to be presented to all Senate Democrats when they return from a weeklong recess next Tuesday.

They said the proposal was intended to essentially overturn the 2002 resolution granting Mr. Bush the authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and limit the military to combating Al Qaeda in Iraq, keeping Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorists and training Iraqi forces. The proposal’s goal, officials said, would be to allow combat forces not engaged in those duties to be removed from Iraq next year.

The chief authors are Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The plan is to try to attach the proposal to an antiterrorism bill the Senate expects to begin considering Tuesday.

Biden is running for President so this has to be seen in the context of trying to outfox his competition. Problem is, all the Democrats are pushing even further to the left to gain a domestic political advantage, leaving the troops and national security out to dry.

The Democrats in Congress are proposing a losing strategy - both in terms of what it will do to US interests around the world, and to the long term national security.

Not a single Senator who supports this nonsense can defend it on grounds of national security. Not a single one. How does limiting the President's capabilities as commander in chief improve national security? How does limiting the military's capabilities to send reinforcements as it deems necessary to complete its mission improve chances for victory? It does not.

Yet, Democrat after leftist Democrat will claim that bringing the troops home is their top priority and so is restoring America's image abroad. Sorry, neither of those actually improves national security. Cutting and running undermines our image abroad and gives a cheap victory to the likes of al Qaeda who have stated all along that they will prevail simply by outlasting the short attention span theater that is the US polity. Allies will be more hesitant to engage in long range military operations, even when their national security is at stake because they will fear having the rug pulled out from under them.

Bringing the troops home before the job is done will only pave the way to even greater human rights atrocities.

It is always curious how the left will claim that the US should do more to stop the carnage in Darfur or other hellholes around the world, and yet ignore the hellish nightmare that Saddam Hussein inflicted on the region and was put to an end with the US invasion. Are not the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam during his murderous reign the same as the hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur or Rwanda or Congo? The human rights abuses were there - well documented and available for all the world to note. Iraq used chemical weapons in its ethnic cleansing and genocidal Anfal campaign, yet that doesn't require military intervention?

Yes, there is still carnage going on in Iraq - some of it by the Ba'athist remnants, some by al Qaeda, and some by Shi'a insurgents and with the support of Iran and Syria. Leaving now will only create the fertile grounds for yet another killing field that will make Cambodia seem like a walk in the park. Denying al Qaeda the ability to maintain safe harbor in Iraq should be a priority, and yet withdrawing US troops would undermine that capability.

That is the future that the Democrats have in store should their efforts come to fruition.

UPDATE:
Others posting on the Democrats and their careless and relentless disregard for the Constitution and undermining the war effort for purely partisan political gain: Macranger, Decision 08, Sister Toldjah, Rick Moran, and Wizbang.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.