National Interest USA

JONATHAN PEARLMAN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT

THE Defence Force says Australian soldiers have been using gunsights engraved with biblical citations and it will move quickly to address any ‘’sensitivities”.

A spokesman said the military had been unaware that the sights – made in the United States by Trijicon, which was founded by a devout Christian and says its ”morals” are based on ”biblical standards” – carried references to Bible verses. The citations appear in raised lettering at the end of the sight stock number.

”The Department of Defence was unaware of the significance of the manufacturer’s serial number … [and] is very conscious of the sensitivities associated with this issue,” the spokesman said.

Last night a spokeswoman said Australia had 1051 of the sights, though it was not known how many were in Afghanistan.

”The sights were procured because they provide mature technology which is highly reliable, in wide use by our allies, and best meet Defence requirements,” the spokesman said.

”Soldiers are confident in the utility of the sight and the positive and proven effect which it is having on operations.”

This week US media revealed that Trijicon had sold up to 800,000 of the sights to the US military. The defence forces of the US, New Zealand, Australia and Britain have all said they had not known about the citations.

Yesterday the NZ Defence Force said citations in Afghanistan would be removed and Trijicon would be asked to stop including them. Markings included ”JN8:12” – a reference to John 8:12 – and ”2COR4:6”, a reference to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

In a statement on its website, Trijicon said it had put citations on sights for more than 30 years.

”As long as we have men and women in danger, we will … do everything we can to provide … state-of-the-art technology and the never-ending support and prayers of a grateful nation.”

with Associated Press

HOWARD SCHNEIDER AND SAMUEL SOCKOL

JERUSALEM: An American journalist working as an editor for a Palestinian news agency has been deported from Israel after being questioned by authorities about his “anti-Israeli” views.

Jared Malsin, the chief English editor of the Ma’an News Agency, based in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, was detained a week ago at Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv and denied entry.

Malsin has worked for the news agency, a non-profit organisation supported by grants from the US and European governments and the United Nations, for 2 years, relying on a series of three-month tourist visas to extend his stay without a work permit.

The method is used by some foreign employees and volunteers of organisations based in Palestinian areas, who say they face difficulty acquiring work visas from Israel.

When he was detained, Malsin, who is Jewish, was returning from a holiday in the Czech Republic. On Tuesday he dropped his request for a court hearing after a week in custody and was put on a flight for New York on Wednesday morning.

“They judged me to have anti-Israeli politics,” Malsin, 24, said by phone as he boarded the plane. “It’s outrageous that would even appear in a legal argument, that a person’s politics would be a relevant issue.”

An Interior Ministry spokeswoman, Sabine Haddad, said that when Malsin was asked about whom he planned to stay with and other questions, “he refused to co-operate”.

“It’s the minimal right of the country to ask questions,” Ms Haddad said. “We don’t mind who he is. If he does not want to answer he should know he could be sent back.”

Ms Haddad said the ministry did not know Malsin was a journalist until it was contacted by the media about his detention.

But George Hale, a staff writer at Ma’an, said Malsin was interrogated repeatedly and asked about stories he had written from the occupied West Bank that were critical of Israeli policies.

Court documents seen by Ma’an showed Malsin’s interrogators said he was denied entry because he refused to co-operate, lied to border officials, gave unclear reasons for arriving and violated his visa terms.

Malsin’s girlfriend, Faith Rowold, a US volunteer for a Lutheran Church group in Jerusalem, was also denied entry.

Ma’an, founded to focus on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, publishes in Arabic, English and Hebrew, and is considered among the more balanced Palestinian news organisations. “There is no incitement. There is no hate in our work,” said Raed Othman, Ma’an’s general director. “This is punishment for internationals who come to help the Palestinians.”

The Washington Post, Guardian News & Media

DYLAN WELCH

THE push for full body scanners at Australian airports gained momentum yesterday during a visit by the deputy head of the US Department of Homeland Security, Jane Holl Lute.

She discussed the scanners with the federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, during a one-hour briefing at Sydney Airport.

The meeting was part of a two-week, 10-country trip by Ms Lute to discuss stronger security measures after the attempted bombing of a US airline bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.

Ms Lute and Mr Albanese spent an hour discussing a combined response, including the prospect of using full body scanners at Australian airports.

The Federal Government conducted a six-week trial of the scanners at three airports in late 2008 to assess their effectiveness, but a report on that trial has yet to be handed to Mr Albanese. Like X-ray machines, the full body scanners can see through fabric to detect items hidden next to the skin. They can also see inside the body.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who is accused of trying to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day, had boarded the flight in Amsterdam. The Dutch Government has since announced it will install the scanners for passengers boarding US-bound flights.

Mr Albanese said he had briefed Ms Lute about the Federal Government’s white paper on aviation security, which was made public last month.

”The challenge of dealing with the global terrorist threat requires an international response when it comes to aviation security and safety,” Mr Albanese said.

”What’s clear is Australia and our friends in the United States will continue to work closely to ensure that the threat of terrorism is met.”

The brief visit by Ms Lute was her seventh stop in the two-week trip, which aims at shoring up support for tighter security measures for US-bound flights.

Singapore and the United Arab Emirates were listed on her itinerary, and she had already visited England.

Source: The Age

Ian McPhedran – From: The Daily Telegraph

TROOPS in Afghanistan face a new scourge after an American soldier died from a dreadful Ebola-like virus called Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever.

The tick-borne illness causes an agonising death as it transforms internal organs into soup and triggers uncontrollable bleeding.

Sgt Robert Gordon, 22, died in September after he was bitten on the foot by a tick at a base west of Kandahar.

The virus is transmitted by infected blood.

Australian soldiers work at forward operating bases across Oruzgan Province, northwest of Kandahar. Australian chopper crews service US bases throughout southern Afghanistan.

The disease was first reported in the Crimea in 1944, then in the Congo in 1956, according to the World Health Organisation. An outbreak was reported eight years ago in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, which borders Afghanistan.

The Australian Defence Force says it is aware of the risk from the deadly disease and is monitoring the spread of the tick.

Troops deploying to Afghanistan were warned about tick-borne diseases, uniforms were chemically treated, the use of insect repellant was mandatory and soldiers were taught how to examine their body for ticks, a spokesman said.

US forces have flown in 150,000 doses of swine flu vaccine following an outbreak of the deadly disease in the capital, Kabul. More than 10 people have died from the flu.

From correspondents in Beijing, China - AFP

A TOP China air force commander has called the militarisation of space an “historical inevitability”, state media said today, marking an apparent shift in Beijing’s opposition to weaponising outer space.

In a wide-ranging interview in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Daily, air force commander Xu Qiliang said it was imperative for the PLA air force to develop offensive and defensive operations in outer space.

“As far as the revolution in military affairs is concerned, the competition between military forces is moving towards outer space… this is a historical inevitability and a development that cannot be turned back,” Commander Xu told the paper.

“The PLA air force must establish in a timely manner the concepts of space security, space interests and space development.

“We must build an outer space force that conforms with the needs of our nation’s development (and) the demands of the development of the space age.”

Superiority in outer space can give a nation control over war zones both on land and at sea, while also offering a strategic advantage, Commander Xu said, noting that such dominance was necessary to safeguard the nation.

“Only power can protect peace,” the 59-year-old commander said in the interview given to coincide with this month’s 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA air force.

China has long stated that it supported the peaceful uses of outer space and opposed the introduction of weapons there. Beijing has also sought to establish an international treaty to control the deployment of weapons in space.

In January 2007, China surprised the world by shooting down one of its own weather satellites in a test seen by many, including the United States, as a possible trigger of an arms race in space.

The US has adopted a tough new policy aimed at protecting its interests in space and denying “adversaries” access there for hostile purposes.

The document – signed by President Bush – also says “freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power”.

The document rejects any proposals to ban space weapons.

But the White House has said the policy does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space.

However, some military experts warn that by refusing to enter into negotiations on space weaponry, the US is likely to fuel international suspicions that it will develop such weapons.

The 10-page strategic document states that the US national security “is critically dependent upon space capabilities, and this dependence will grow”.

“The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space… and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests,” it says.

Satellite fears

The document also sets out US commercial ambitions, saying it is committed to encouraging and facilitating a growing entrepreneurial space sector.

It is the first revision in US space policy for 10 years, and it is a forthright one, the BBC’s Nick Miles in Washington says.

It addresses concerns voiced in a 2001 Pentagon report that said technological advances would enable potential enemies to disrupt orbiting US satellites, our correspondent says.

Unclassified details of the policy published on the internet say space capabilities, including spy and other communication satellites, are essential for national security.

But the White House said the policy was not a prelude to putting weapons in orbit and that there was no shift in US policy.

“The notion that you would do defence from space is different from that of weaponisation of space. We’re comfortable with the policy”, White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

President Bush authorised the policy in August but it was not released until October.

During the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan proposed a defence shield using laser or particle beam technology to “intercept and destroy” incoming nuclear missiles.

The Strategic Defence Initiative, or “Star Wars” programme as it came to be known, was abandoned in 1993.

A National Interest Waiver, or NIW, is an employment based second preference petition. 

A person qualifies for this benefit if he/she falls within the second preference employment based category, namely a person in the professions who either holds an advanced degree or is considered possessing exceptional ability in the sciences, business or arts. 

Normally, these applicants are subject to the labor certification requirement.  However, an exception exists if their employment is in the “national interest”. 

Thus, a beneficiary of a successful NIW is exempt from the requirement that his or her employer first obtain an individual labor certification from the Department of Labor.

EAST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Mayor Anthony Williams withdrew his application to join the Order of Malta after members of the Catholic service society complained he shouldn’t be allowed to join because he supports abortion rights and protections for gay unions. Williams’s critics used Internet blogs to voice their concerns, but order president Noreen Falcone said anonymous postings with incomplete information were unfair to Williams and his sponsors.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The Judicial Nominating Commission is expected to send the names of three to five finalists for state Supreme Court chief justice to Gov. Don Carcieri on Tuesday. The commission interviewed six candidates last week. The court’s current four justices are vying for the top spot, along with U.S. Attorney Robert Clark Corrente and Superior Court Judge Francis Darigan. Carcieri’s selection must be confirmed by the General Assembly.

SOUTH

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — Alabama farmers can continue selling homemade jams, jellies and cakes at farmers’ markets. State health officials stopped sales of homemade goods last summer, but new rules will allow such food with a label or sign saying it was prepared at a location that isn’t inspected. Home-canned foods still won’t be permitted because of the botulism risk.

ATLANTA (AP) — Tax assessors in metro Atlanta are expecting an onslaught of requests to lower property values due to the economic downturn, setting up a possible domino effect of decreased values for entire communities. That could mean lower tax collections for local governments that are already strapped for cash. DeKalb County appraiser Hank Ruffin his office has received more than four times the normal amount of requests for adjustments.

MIDWEST

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A tombstone furnished by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was placed at the grave of Civil War-era soldier Peter New. A handful of people watched its placement at his previously unmarked grave in Haven of Rest Cemetery. New was part of the U.S. Colored Troops and joined the Army a month after the war ended, most likely replacing white soldiers.

Obama called the war one of necessity, so why is he so reluctant to increase troop levels? Brian Katulis and Gabriel Schoenfeld debate.

The United States absolutely has a vital interest in making sure that Afghanistan doesn’t slip into further chaos. The Bush administration took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and as a result, the situation there deteriorated. The fundamental question isn’t the end goal; the real policy debate is about the most appropriate and effective means toward the end of stabilizing Afghanistan and achieving the goal outlined by President Obama: “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

At this stage, Obama’s reluctance to increase troop levels is not only appropriate but necessary. Asking tough questions about additional troop requests is appropriate given the serious questions about our partners in Afghanistan. Any possible new counterinsurgency strategy in dealing with Afghanistan is dependent on having a government there that not only has legitimacy in the eyes of its people but shares the same goals that we have.

After what I witnessed on the ground in Afghanistan last month as an election observer — the elections were fraught with widespread fraud — I have a strong skepticism that there is a partner that shares our goals. Many of the leaders in Afghanistan’s government have ties to drug traffickers, and the drug trade funds the Taliban insurgents who are fighting the United States and its allies. Afghanistan is also ranked among the most corrupt countries in the world, according to several independent groups, and millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been lost due to this corruption.

Given these realities, it would be unwise for the United States to send more troops before getting a stronger commitment from Afghanistan’s leaders to reduce their country’s drug trade and to fight corruption. And absent a strong commitment from Afghanistan’s leaders, the United States should consider all of its options for keeping Americans safe and develop a Plan B. Full-blown armed nation-building in a country awash in corruption is not the only way to keep Americans safe. We owe it to our troops and taxpayers to look at all options.

Troop levels are one important variable, but those levels are not the only variable to consider when debating how to achieve the goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States has tripled the number of its troops in Afghanistan since early 2007; simply sending more is not a magic cure.

Finally, any strategy must also deal with what is an even bigger challenge, the country to Afghanistan’s east. Pakistan is where key Al Qaeda leaders migrated over the last eight years. Its territory is used by terrorist networks for training and plotting attacks; two recent alleged terror plots in the United States involved people traveling to Pakistan for training.

Obama is doing the right thing in carefully weighing his options in Afghanistan, and as he does so, he should keep in mind the challenges next door in Pakistan. The threats are real, the interests are strong and the real debate is over the means to achieve our goals in both countries.

Brian Katulis is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where his work focuses on U.S. national security policy in the Middle East and South Asia.

As Obama hesitates, victory becomes less likely
Counterpoint: Gabriel Schoenfeld

Thanks, Brian; I completely agree with you about the vital interests at stake in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I am not nearly as sanguine as you are that the Obama administration shares our assessment. Indeed, to judge by some of Obama’s recent pronouncements, a deep fog of war seems to have settled over the White House.

To my mind, our two overriding military objectives should remain as they were: to keep the Taliban out of power and on the run, and to destroy any and all remnants of Al Qaeda. The Bush administration must certainly bear historical responsibility for its shortcomings and mistakes. It did not succeed at either objective over an eight-year slog. But neither did it completely fail.

Yet now we are approaching that dangerous point. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commands U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has just offered a grim assessment: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term [the next 12 months] … risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” Obama now occupies the Oval Office. If we do fail in Afghanistan over the next year, the responsibility will be his.

As a presidential candidate, Obama called Afghanistan “the central front in the war on terror,” and he pledged to supply the resources needed to turn things around and “defeat” Al Qaeda in a “war of necessity.” Now, as president, the rhetoric has remained the same; but the policy, as it appears to be shaping up, does not match his utterances.

Indeed, it was clear to all concerned when he put McChrystal in command that the president thought a counterinsurgency strategy involving more troops offered the best chance to reverse the deteriorating war effort. Yet by calling at this juncture for a review of his own fundamental strategy and declaring that no decisions have been made, he appears to be getting cold feet.

If Obama reverses course because of the tainted reelection of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the corruption of his government, then he is breathtakingly naive about the nature of governance in that portion of world. To agonize, as you do, Brian, about whether we have a worthy partner in the government of Afghanistan, is to be blithely indifferent to the real choices before us. Abandoning Afghanistan to its fate under the Taliban because its present government is less than pure would be a foreign policy blunder of the first magnitude, with catastrophic effects on Pakistan and the entire region.

Unfortunately, leading Democrats in Congress are suggesting that the United States should cut its losses. Polls show that Obama’s base in the Democratic Party is ready and eager to say farewell to a distant war in a faraway land. I fear that these opinion trends explain what Leslie Gelb, in an important Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article, has called Obama’s shift from “confident policy proclamations” to “temporizing statements.”

The harsh reality is that temporizing statements can themselves do immense harm. One of McChrystal’s observations about Afghanistan is quite pertinent: The “perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.” Hesitation in the White House is thus a critical element in the strategic equation, one that could lead to a rout.

“On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to wait … and waiting died,” poet George Cecil said in 1923. As Obama ponders away precious time, he should contemplate the poet’s words.

Gabriel Schoenfeld is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a resident scholar at the Witherspoon Institute. His latest book, “Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law,” will be published by W.W. Norton in 2010.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times.