Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Debates around spent nuclear fuel
Exhibit shows details, scientific allure of nukes
China to help Pakistan build second nuclear power plant
Iran Stands by Nukes List; Said to Sign IAEA Deal
Iranian leader backs nuclear treaty
Religious Leader in Iran Praises Nuclear Pact
Khamenei Says Iran Nuke Co - Operation Has Limits
U.S. warning on Iran nuke stance
ElBaradei Wants U.N. Nuclear Experts Back in Iraq
U.S. Seeks Smuggled Missiles in Iraq
Arafat Says He Is Ready for Peace Talks
Children of Hiroshima survivors carry no extra cancer risk
Bill calls for alternative to N.K. reactors
International consortium meets on North Korea nuclear project
North Korea Says Sees Possible End to Atomic Crisis
Canadian Nuclear Plants Focus on Averting Sabotage, Agency Says
Calls for UN uranium control
U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Targets Rogue Arms
Sick nuke workers spark Hill interest
Poll: 65% of Nevadans Oppose Nuclear Waste Dump
Hanford contractor gets new president
A High Price For A Hollow Victory
INTELLIGENCE FAILURES -- AND MORE -- UNDER SCRUTINY
As Casualties in Iraq Mount, Will Resolve Falter?
Analysis New Attacks Intensify Pressure on Bush
Congress Approves $87.5 Billion Aid Package for War Effort
MILITARY
American R&R helicopter shot down in Iraq
Missile Hits U.S. Copter in Iraq;
Day's Death Toll For U.S. Troops Is Highest Since March
Israel Can't Sway Russia on 'Road Map'
Meeting of Iraq Neighbors
Arabs Celebrate Strikes on U.S. in Iraq
NATO commander says rapid reaction force is model for future
Seized Intelligence Files Spur U.S. Investigations
Corps Voters
Rumsfeld: No Need For More U.S. Troops
Investigators Check Helicopter's Defenses
WHITE HOUSE LETTER
Afghan Women Take Radio Liberties
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Justices Face Decision on Accepting 9/11 Cases
White House to Provide Papers, Roberts Says
Creation of Terrorists Must Be Stopped, Rumsfeld Says
OTHER
U.N. to Consider Whether to Ban Cloning of Human Embryos
ACTIVISTS
Israeli Court Limits National Strike
-------- NUCLEAR
Debates around spent nuclear fuel, atomic mini-bomb and "hot spots" on nuclear map
By Alexander Kolotov, special for NuclearNo.com,
3 November 2003
Translated by Victor Ouskin,
Krasnoyarsk Citizens` Center on Nuclear Non-Proliferation
http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?7093
While politicians of all countries discuss nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea, "peaceful" and "military" atom generate more and more questions all over the planet.
The key news of the past week was undoubtedly interview of Mokhamed El-Baradei - IAEA head to "Le Monde", in which he directly stated that currently up to 40 countries have opportunities to make nuclear weapon . Therefore, the Nuclear Arms Nonproliferation treaty passed in 1970 should be revised and made more strict. (Yet, in brackets we should note, Kazakhstan Minister for Foreign Affairs, for example, does not believe in the possibility of "black market" of nuclear technologies to exist and thinks that the main reason of nuclear proliferation are the secret intergovernmental agreements).
This interest of the French press to nuclear issues cannot be called incidental, since not long before the interview with El Baradey an other French paper, "Liberacion", said in its pages that it is quite probable that, France will take up a new nuclear doctrine that is to include an item about the possibility of preventive use of nuclear arms against "outcast states". According to journalists of this edition Jacque Chiracque is to declare the new doctrine early next year.
The statement had a wide response. French top officials had to give special explanations about this, emphasizing that it is not the doctrine as it is, but its context caused by the new political reality associated with proliferation of mass destruction weapons. But nuclear deterrent doctrine of France will remain.
In this hubbub the fact that, French "gosatomnadzor" found defects in the cooling sysyem used in all national reactors was not noticed. Theoretically this can result in a great nuclear accident, whose consequences will reverberate all over Europe. As in Germany is reverberating today the French nuclear program by which spent nuclear fuel from French nuclear power plants is to be taken to Germany for storage. German "Greenpeace" activists untiringly hold protest marches against it .
However France does not export, it also imports spent nuclear fuel. Last Sunday Sydney residents were awakened in the mid of the night. An armada of trucks, helicopters, ambulances and police cars with flash lights marked drive through the city of a convoy with Austrialian spent nuclear fuel heading towards France to a processing plant . However, Argentinian "Greenpeace" states that it is quite probable that the spent nuclear fuel shall be delivered not to France at all, but to ... Argentina , as the Australian reactor installed at Lucas Height (Sydnet suburb), was made in Argentina and Australia can demand that Argentina take the spent nuclear fuel, in compliance with bilateral nuclear agreement approved by the Argentinean parliament. Meanwhile the Australian law enforcement forces did not loiter away their time and ran an antiterrorist exercise in the reactor zone in Lucas Height .
Indisputably, spent nuclear fuel, its transportation and processing were among the hottest subjects during the previous week. Debates again rose around American plans to transport 600 tons of spent nuclear fuel by sea -- more than 15 thousand mile around South America, to deliver the cargo from California to the US Eastern Coast. Safety of such an "ocean cruise" gives rise to serious doubts. This is expecially crucial, taking into consideration hot debates under way in America on consutruction of a repository for spent nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain . According to a new poll, three fourths of Nevada population are against these plans of their government . Howard Dean - democratic candidate for US presidency said recently in Las-Vegas: "This time Nevada will vote for the democrats since George Bush will turn you into a nuclear waste state". However,Dean did not call to absolutely abandon plans to build a spent nuclear fuel repository in Yucca-Mountain, saying that "America, still needs a repository" -- and called only for a more thorough scientific assessment of the project . Therefore, it is unlikely that even if in 2004 the US will have a different President, the policy of American government with respect to spent nuclear fuel repository in Yucca-Mountain shall be revised.
Meanwhile the discord about storage of spent nuclear fuel signing the Agreement between Russia and Iran to complete construction of Bushehr nuclear power plant is postponed till next January . Minatom states that they will not supply any nuclear fuel to Bushehr until agreement to return all spent nuclear fuel to Russia is not achieved. The Citizen`s center for Nuclear Nonproliferation already expressed its opinion on this issue.
By the way, how safe is to deal with spent nuclear fuel was demonstrated last week in Great Britain. Advertizing experts accuse the plant processing spent nuclear fuel (owned by British concern "British Nuclear Fuels Ltd." -- BNFL), in Scotch Sellafield, that its new advertisement is misleading. The criticism was caused by the advertisement that literally reads as follows: "The future of ecology is in its safety". According to the advertisers the management of the nuclear facility" is unable to predict what can happen with radioactive wastes in the millennia to come". This is not the first time that Sellafield is accused of false advertising. Four years ago a similar scandal was caused by a phrase that the company possesses "ideal methods of handling all kinds of nuclear wastes". It is worth noting that another Sellafield scandal is looming: workers are ready to strike because they don`t like (working in hazardous production) to be paid less than company office clerks . Considering the fact, that the movement against ill devised plans of the government to utilize nuclear-powered submarines is growing, last week Great Britain was a "hot spot" in the nuclear map of the world.
This is also true for Pakistan. A week ago we wrote how easy it is to make a boom badly needed for western mass media. After coverage of the nuclear deal between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia by everyone but the most lazy ones, the issue was reversed on the sly: the US officially withdrew the charge against Pakistan about the alleged nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. The journalist that wrote the sensational news was called to account, too. However, he found an easy excuse, saying that he meant "fundamental", but no specific agreement between these two countries.
But they will hardly let Pakistan alone. There is already "secret" evidence that North Korean defector - former secretary of the Workers` Party of Korea - states that KPDR and Pakistan have been collaboratin the nuclear field as long ago as since 1996. The US Ministry of Defence is ready to "declassify" the data that India and Pakistan intensify their nuclear programs. Bu to make such a conclusion one does not need to have access to secret papers. Suffice is to read last week news: the Indian army announced beginning of work to organize a specialized Command Center to control nuclear weapons, China - that it is going to beuid another nuclear power plant in Pakistan. Even more so that the intelligence data, as is known from the recent scandal on mass destruction weapons not found in Iraq can be easily fabricated. It was not by accident that the previous week Alexander Downer - Australian minister for foreign affairs had to vindicate at the local parliament for a lie. In September 2002 he told the parliament members that to build an atomic bomb Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase the required equipment in Australia. All this was an excuse for Australia to support the US in political and military actions against Iraq - among other things - directly - to send troops. Now it turns out that the story with purchase of equipment to make the atomic bomb was extemporized.
Nevertheless, on the sly Pentagon quite earnestly speaks about the necessity to develop and apply nuclear minicharges. And nobody is concerned that, for example, the National Weomen`s Council of New Zealand calls for universal nuclear disarmament , The International Association "Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms " have developed a project against production and storage of nuclear weapons in the South-Asia region, at least.
Concern of public organizations is quite understandable. Every week there are more reports on the danger of even the "peaceful atom". American reactor in Waterford is found to have cracks in pipes throught which radioactive water circulated throught the reactor. Representatives of Energy Nuclear, that owns the reactor say that the cracks pose no danger for the people that live in the neighborhood of the nuclear power plant.
Neither can the government of Slovakia, that last week announced that the largest in the country power company will be sold in an auction to anyone whho will agreee to complete construction of the third and fourth blocks of the operating nuclear power plant. Te Japanese are not lagging behind. On the eve of elections to the lowe chamber of the Japanese parliament 13 per cent of the candidates have ideas to infringe the "nuclear taboo", and urge the government to consider a possibility to have their own nuclear weapons. And this - despite the well known evidence that a large-scale radiation leak from any large atomic reactor in Japan would kill more than 400 thousand people during 50 years and cost the government $4.3 trillion. This is a conclusion of a new study made by professor Pal Suhn Yunh from Kyoto University. The safety problems at Japanese nuclear power plant have practical proof. It turned out that during visits to five Japanese nuclear power plants inspectors have left or lost 610 various objects. This sets one thinking in earnest - how the situation stands at Japanese nuclear facilities if such negligence is possible ...
Therefore, maybe it is for the better, that the Nuclear Safety Commission of Canada declined the government plan to place "surface-air" missiles at Canadian nuclear facilities. In its stead the security forces shall be reinforced. Thus, it`ll be safe to fly passenger lines over Canadian nuclear power plants, without fear to be taken for a terrorist. We hope that this allows us to complete the weekly review optimistically...
----
Exhibit shows details, scientific allure of nukes
2003-11-03
(ABCNEWS.com)
published by China Daily
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/03/content_277926.htm
Step into the top-secret U.S. government laboratory where American scientists created the atomic bomb in 1945.
Sculptor Jim Sanborn spent five years collecting chunks of uranium, radiation detectors, spherical devices, and government photographs to help him depict the Critical Assembly Lab and the Chemicals and Metals Lab at Los Alamos, N.M., as they looked in the final months of the Manhattan Project.
His exhibit opens today at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, and it's called, "Atomic Time: Pure Science and Seduction."
Seduction?
"Very often scientists can be seduced by the power they are working with," Sanborn said. The exhibit "is about the seductive effect these materials have on scientists. Nuclear power is very seductive."
Sanborn depicts the experiments by which U.S. scientists learned to press the trigger that launched the nuclear arms race that continues today.
Too Much Detail?
Jim Sanborn, creator of the exhibit "Atomic Time: Pure Science and Seduction," stands in front of a radium dial clock frozen at 5:30 a.m. on July 16, 1945, in Ancho, N.M., the time of the nearby blast of the first atomic bomb. [ABCNEWS.com] Because it is so technically detailed, the exhibit may ignite a debate about whether it reveals too much about how to make the bomb (after all, Iran and North Korea are working on similar devices, far less primitive and far more potent).
"The information contained here is readily available from public sources, including hundreds of declassified documents posted on the Internet," Sanborn said, but "I don't think it's been represented three dimensionally so precisely before."
Corcoran curator Jonathan Binstock calls Sanborn's installation "a unique brew of historical accuracy and aesthetic license."
"This is a shrine to the best and the brightest," said Mills Davis, a computer consultant who viewed a preview and said the exhibit extols the genius of the bomb's scientists. "It's only smaller minds who would say: 'By God, if we start talking about this, people will start making bombs!'"
Sanborn said he had no idea whether the federal government might attempt to limit access to the exhibit materials.
If President Bush chose to view the exhibit, "I think he would probably be quite chilled by just how much information is available to everyone about this subject," Sanborn said. "You're all of a sudden surrounded by the lab. I'm not sure it's a position he's ever been in."
'Festive Menace'
If government investigators do show up, they will be confronted by these sights and sounds:
Black cables snaking across a dimly lit laboratory floor beneath eight tables displaying devices used to experiment with packaging the Trinity device.
Amplified clicking sounds from detection devices announcing the presence of low-level radiation from four radium wristwatches. (Nothing else in the exhibit is radioactive).
Racks of black, cabinet-sized detection equipment, their U.S. government property tags attesting to their original service at Los Alamos. "I like to think it has festive menace with the green and yellow lights," Sanborn said.
Artist Jim Sanborn's conception of the bottom half of a disassembled spherical device created by U.S. scientists in 1945 experiments in connection with America's first atomic bomb. Blue radium clock dials frozen at 5:30 a.m., July 16, 1945, the time of the Trinity blast in Alamagordo, N.M. (Sanborn bought the clocks at flea markets and antique shops in Alamagordo. "These are the original Doomsday Clocks," Sanborn said. "I found them by carrying a Geiger counter" into showrooms and storage areas.")
A series of uranium radiation photographs. Sanborn created them by placing chunks of the element on photographic paper and allowing the radiation to create an image. In effect, Sanborn said, "the uranium took its own picture."
Silvery metal spheres, the central components of the Trinity experimental package. Sanborn said he purchased blank spheres from former lab employees who bought them as surplus in the 1950s and 1960s. (One was serving as a bird bath).
Miniaturization
Sanborn used the blanks to machine replicas of the original weapons-grade spheres, which, in the 1940s, were packed with uranium and plutonium.
The original spheres, Sanborn said, were about 18 inches in diameter. By 1947, the size was already shrinking, he said, first to 13 inches, then to 8 inches.
"Now the entire nuclear device can be the size of a walnut," Sanborn said.
Citing weapons experts and declassified government publications, Sanborn said the bomb ignites when a hemisphere of munitions explodes, compressing the core of radioactive material, which triggers a nuclear blast. Today, he estimated, the total weapons package has been reduced to about eight inches in diameter.
"That's how they're able to build a suitcase bomb," Sanborn said.
"Discussion" - that's the value of the exhibit, according to John Coster-Mullen, an atomic research historian and photographer who attended a preview.
"The Clinton administration was buying up fissionable material around the world, which is really the only way to prevent terrorists from making the bomb. The Bush administration came into office and stopped the purchases. Maybe this [exhibit] will get people talking about this issue again."
By its presence near Pennsylvania Avenue, "Atomic Time" literally brings the issue of weapons of mass destruction to the door of the White House. A White House guard post and driveway sit 210 steps from the front door of the Corcoran Gallery.
Sanborn is no stranger to government science and secrecy. In 1991, commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency, he sculpted Kryptos, a curved copper plate which sits in a courtyard at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. Devised in consultation with a retired government cryptologist, the plate contains a coded message that has never been fully deciphered.
-------- asia
China to help Pakistan build second nuclear power plant
ISLAMABAD (AFP)
Nov 03, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031103135809.ex26zzhf.html
Pakistan and China are expected to ink a deal for the construction of a second nuclear power plant in Pakistan, an official said on Monday.
"China has agreed to build a 300 megawatt civilian power plant in Pakistan," foreign ministry spokesman Masood Khan told AFP.
"We expect a news from Beijing today about it," Khan said.
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf is already in China for a three-day official visit during which the deal is expected to be signed, Khan said.
China agreed to go ahead with the 700 million dollar Chashma plant, next to an existing nuclear power plant also built with Chinese assistance, during a visit by Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali in March.
"A memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between China and Pakistan on March 24, 2003 to build the nuclear power plant during the visit of prime minister Zafarullah Jamali," Khan said.
The nuclear neighbours already have close defence and economic cooperation and Musharraf's talks with President Hu Jintao were expected to build on the foundations.
"Both sides are working out financial and technical aspects of the deal," Khan said.
He said the nuclear power plant will be constructed with Chinese assistance at Chashma, in central Punjab province, where a 300-megawatt nuclear power station has already been built with Chinese assistance.
-------- iran
Iran Stands by Nukes List; Said to Sign IAEA Deal
REUTERS IRAN:
November 3, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22739/story.htm
TEHRAN - Iran's declaration of nuclear activities to a U.N. watchdog body should clarify the country's peaceful nuclear intentions, an Iranian official said last week as a key deadline for the Islamic Republic expired.
Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Ali Akbar Salehi, told an Iranian news agency the IAEA had all the information it needed to produce a report showing Iran was pursuing a purely civilian nuclear energy program.
Iran submitted the declaration to the IAEA on October 23, detailing its nuclear activities which Washington suspects are a smokescreen for building atomic weapons.
The IAEA had given Tehran an ultimatum to prove by October 31 that it has no secret arms program, or be reported to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
"Iran's will is to remove all the agency's ambiguities and to take all necessary steps to enable the agency to present a positive report to its governor's board," Salehi told the student news agency ISNA.
In Moscow, a source in the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry said Iran would announce during a visit next week exactly when it would sign a treaty allowing the IAEA to conduct surprise thorough checks of its nuclear facilities.
The announcement of when Iran will sign the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows the snap inspections, is expected when Iranian National Security Council Chief Hassan Rohani visits Moscow next week.
"He is widely expected to announce the date of the signing, and I think the expectations are correct. It is highly likely he will give a date," the Russian source said.
On Thursday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran's declaration of October 23 seemed to be comprehensive at first glance but the agency had to verify the report. "We submitted a comprehensive, transparent and faultless report to the agency," an Iranian government official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters last week.
Salehi told ISNA: "ElBaradei's positive remarks were a reaction to Iran's truthfulness and its cooperation with the agency. We have always said Iran is determined to cooperate with the agency...
"We are optimistic about the future and we hope that soon Iran's nuclear case will be closed for ever," Salehi added.
Salehi said the IAEA inspectors currently in Iran will stay until Sunday night.
NUCLEAR TENSION IN IRAN
A fierce debate blew up inside Iran after the IAEA set the deadline for Tehran to come clean about its nuclear program.
Reformists allied to President Mohammad Khatami argued in favor of tougher inspections but hard-liners opposed signing the Additional Protocol.
On October 21 Iran agreed to freeze uranium enrichment and allow the snap inspections, saying the decision had the blessing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. After that announcement, leading conservatives stopped railing against the decision.
"I suggest you do not express your views when you are not an expert and are not familiar with an sensitive issue like nuclear issues," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati told worshippers last week at Tehran University.
Last month, Jannati said the Additional Protocol was an extraordinary humiliation for Iran and should never be accepted.
Nevertheless, around 1,500 hard-liners protested last week at the country's leaders decision to sign the Additional Protocol.
(Additional reporting by Moscow bureau)
----
Iranian leader backs nuclear treaty
November 03, 2003
(UPI)
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20031103-120620-4911r.htm
TEHRAN, Iran, Nov. 3 -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday he backs Tehran's decision to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"What happened was an appropriate measure and it was a prudent step," Khamenei said, stressing Iran would fiercely stand against any attempt to challenge its peaceful nuclear program, the Iranian News Agency reported.
However, Khamenei warned Iran will not hesitate to end cooperation with Europeans "if they make us pay a price for it."
"Once we reach a point where we feel that Iran's national interests and the values of the system are threatened, we will definitely stop this process (of nuclear cooperation)," IRNA quoted Khamenei as saying.
The foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Britain visited Tehran last month to discuss Iran's signing of the additional protocol of the the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which envisions snap inspections of Iran's nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
----
Religious Leader in Iran Praises Nuclear Pact
November 3, 2003
New York Times
By NAZILA FATHI
TEHRAN, Nov. 2 - Iran's supreme religious leader on Sunday lauded the agreement on the country's nuclear program that was reached with the foreign ministers of Germany, Britain and France on Oct. 21 and said it was the right decision.
Iran agreed to allow more extensive inspections of its nuclear sites and to suspend its uranium-enrichment program.
Hard-liners have harshly criticized the decision. Militant students have held several demonstrations here in Tehran and in other big cities urging authorities to call off the agreement.
But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme religious leader, in his first comments since the agreement was reached, said Iran needed to prove to the world that it was not seeking nuclear weapons.
"We have agreed so far for them to come and see for themselves," he said in a meeting with government, judicial and parliamentary officials. "This is a peaceful way for us to keep our nuclear technology."
Ayatollah Khamenei has the final word on all state matters, and his approval on Sunday is expected to end objections to the agreement.
He added, though, that Iran would cancel the agreement if its European partners, its enemies or world powers "start, step by step, to ask for more."
"If we realize at any stage that a decision we have made is undermining the interests of the Islamic Republic or our Islamic values, we will stop it," he said.
Iran was faced with a deadline of Oct. 31 from the International Atomic Energy Agency to open its sites to inspectors and stop its enrichment program. Had it failed to agree, the agency could have sent the case to the United Nations Security Council for possible action.
----
Khamenei Says Iran Nuke Co - Operation Has Limits
November 3, 2003
REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iran-nuclear.html
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Tehran would end co-operation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if further demands undermined Iran's national interests, state television said on Monday.
It was the first time Khamenei, who has the last word on all state matters in the Islamic Republic, had aired his views on Iran's deal, struck with three European foreign ministers, to suspend uranium enrichment and sign up to snap nuclear checks.
``If we reach the point that Iran's national interests and values are threatened, we will not hesitate to stop our co-operation,'' he said. ``Anyone who ever tries to challenge Iran's peaceful nuclear program will be slapped in the face.''
Iran strongly denies U.S. charges its nuclear program is as a smokescreen for developing atomic weapons.
Washington said on Monday it wanted ``decisive action aimed at ensuring full Iranian compliance with its safeguards obligations'' when International Atomic Energy Agencychief Mohamed ElBaradei presents his report on Iran this month.
``Threats from Iran to end such cooperation... would be gravely troubling and would further deepen the international community's concerns that Iran continues to have something to hide from the IAEA,'' State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters in Washington.
But a Western diplomat told Reuters in Vienna it was almost inconceivable that Iran would end co-operation with the IAEA, as a number of hardline Iranian officials have threatened.
``They are not so stupid,'' said the diplomat.
If Iran were to end its co-operation with the agency, the diplomat said the IAEA board would not hesitate to report this to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
The diplomat said Iran would probably escape being reported to the Security Council at the IAEA's governing board meeting in November, despite repeated failures to inform the agency about its past nuclear activities and facilities.
NO SURRENDER
Khamenei said Iran had not bowed to pressure in striking a deal with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany who wanted proof that Tehran was not seeking nuclear weapons.
``Iran made a correct and wise decision and it does not mean surrender. It neutralized the American and Zionist plot,'' he said in a speech to senior officials.
Some Iranian hard-liners have criticized the deal to open up Iran's nuclear installations to snap checks, which they view as a concession to foreign pressure.
But Khamenei said Iran's interests had not yet been harmed.
``When I feel that a step has been taken against the interests of the system, I will end co-operation,'' he said.
Iran last month handed over what it called a ``comprehensive and transparent'' declaration of its nuclear program to the IAEA. ElBaradei said on Sunday the agency was in the process of verifying the declaration.
----
U.S. warning on Iran nuke stance
From CNN State Department Producer Elise Labott
Monday, November 3, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/03/iran.nuclear/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. State Department says any decision by Iran to end cooperation on its nuclear program would be "gravely troubling" .
The comment follows remarks made by Iran's religious leader threatening that excessive demands by the international community could prompt Tehran to end its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
As a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Iran "has an obligation to cooperate fully with the IAEA to ensure verification of compliance with Iran's safeguards agreement," State Department deputy spokesman J. Adam Ereli said Monday, adding that Iran must also meet additional requirements put forth by the IAEA in a September 12 resolution.
Iran's religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei earlier praised an agreement made by Tehran with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, but warned that Iran could end its cooperation if pushed too hard by the international community. ('Don't push us on nukes')
Last month, Iranian officials pledged in the agreement to fully cooperate with the IAEA, sign a protocol allowing for surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities, and immediately stop enriching uranium.
The nuclear inspections arm of the United Nations expects Iran to provide a letter of intent next week that would set a process in motion for signing a formal protocol on nuclear weapons, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Commission said Friday.
Ereli said, "threats from Iran to end such cooperation, rather than give the IAEA full access to and answers about its nuclear activities, would be gravely troubling and would further deepen the international community's concerns that Iran continues to have something to hide from the IAEA."
Iran had until Friday to provide a declaration and information on its nuclear programs, including answering all questions IAEA inspectors have turned up in their investigations over the past few months, said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.
The declaration and other data were provided on October 23, and Fleming said they were being studied to see if they meet IAEA standards.
She said IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei considers what was handed in, about 200 pages, "very comprehensive." But more actions were expected, Fleming added.
Tehran claims it has provided the United Nations with full disclosure on its nuclear weapons program. Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, told CNN that Iran was "extending full cooperation" with the IAEA.
"Whether it takes the IAEA one day or two days or two weeks to verify that, it's up to the IAEA," Zarif said Sunday in an interview on CNN's Late Edition. Civilian uses
"We have agreed to suspend our uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities and we will send a notification to the IAEA that we are ready to sign the additional protocol and start implementing it."
Iran has denied it is developing nuclear weapons and insists that its program is intended only for civilian uses, such as the production of electricity.
"Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in our defense doctrine," Zarif said. "And that is the policy that we have pursued and we continue to pursue today."
But he added that signatories to the NPT, who forswear pursuing nuclear weapons, "have a right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."
"That is an area that is extremely important to us," he said.
The United States has said Iran, which U.S. President George W. Bush has branded part of an "axis of evil" along with North Korea and pre-war Iraq, must demonstrate it does not have a nuclear weapons program.
-------- iraq / inspections
ElBaradei Wants U.N. Nuclear Experts Back in Iraq
November 3, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-elbaradei.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The top U.N. nuclear watchdog urged the United States on Monday to let arms inspectors return to Iraq to ensure Baghdad does not resume developing nuclear weapons at some point in the future.
Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said it was prudent to set up a long-term monitoring program in Iraq, which is now under U.S.-British administration, ``to provide assurance that activities related to weapons of mass destruction have not been resumed.''
ElBaradei made the plea during his annual report to the 191-nation U.N. General Assembly.
To help the IAEA better stem the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons, ElBaradei said the assembly might wish to empower it to limit the processing of nuclear material that could be used in weapons as well as the production of new nuclear material through reprocessing and enrichment.
That could be done, he said, by restricting those operations to facilities under international control.
He also suggested a multinational program to improve the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes. More than 50 countries store spent fuel in temporary locations, awaiting reprocessing and disposal, and not all of them have the necessary funds, skills and sites to handle the disposal problem safely, he said.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invited the IAEA and other U.N. inspectors back into Iraq in November 2002 after a four-year hiatus. They were pulled out five months later, before they could complete their work, on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam.
Washington has since given the job of ferreting out nuclear, biological and chemical arms to U.S. inspectors.
The U.N. Security Council, in a resolution adopted in May, stated its intention to review whether U.N. inspectors should again return to Iraq, and ElBaradei said he was still awaiting the results of that review.
ElBaradei said his inspectors, before they were withdrawn in mid-March, found no evidence Iraq had revived an illegal nuclear arms program.
Their return would enable them to ``bring the weapons file to a closure'' as well as set up long-term monitoring, he said.
--------
U.S. Seeks Smuggled Missiles in Iraq
By KATARINA KRATOVAC
Associated Press Writer
Nov 3,
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_HUNTING_MISSILES?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) -- Sgt. John Davies and his fellow soldiers from the 720th Military Police Battalion were searching Monday for contraband weapons that could be used by guerrillas, a routine operation that has taken on added urgency since insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter with a missile, killing 16 soldiers and wounding 20 others.
Davies' face was soaked with sweat as he climbed aboard a truck and poked the cargo of hay with a wooden stick. Iraqi women in full-length veils watched from atop the truck as he listened for the thunk of wood against a missile tube or the rattle of hidden assault rifles.
"We have had indication that more of stuff like this (missiles) is moving out there," Lt. Col. Dave Poirier, battalion commander of the 720th MPs, said at a checkpoint six miles north of Tikrit.
"People know they are taking a big chance in transporting weapons ... and for some of these large weapons systems, you'd have to have a truck to transport it," he said.
Poirier's troops, assisted by Iraqi police, set up the checkpoint Monday, stringing razor wire across the road and flagging down all trucks - from fuel tankers to pickups hauling furniture, as Apache attack helicopters flew overhead. The troops found no weapons during the day. But a week ago, a routine midnight search of a truck carrying hay on the road south to Samara uncovered about 700 rockets.
"We want to send the message out that nobody is getting a free pass on these roadways. If they want to run weapons down these roads, they are going to end up paying the price," Poirier said. "Somehow, someday, they are going to get caught."
Although no contraband was found, the Americans said the mission was useful as a training exercise for the Iraqi policemen who will someday assume full responsibility for security.
"It's going to be a big step to see them in their own country taking responsibility for the security," said Spc. Jason Phillips of Los Angeles.
Phillips' enthusiasm was apparently not shared by the Iraqi policemen, who seemed reluctant to jump on top of trucks and take closer looks at the cargo. They chatted eagerly with the truck drivers, and only a few seriously examined license cards.
"I don't understand why the Americans are here. I am positive we can be in control of this," said Maj. Majeed Ahmed, the Iraqi platoon leader.
The MPs said the Iraqis don't always seem to understand what they should be looking for and lack thoroughness when they search vehicles.
"This is not a social visit, this is serious," Davis shouted to an Arabic translator known as Eddie. "Tell them they must look closely into the trucks."
Spc. Andrew Fifield of San Antonio, Texas, jumped on top of a truck transporting pomegranates and picked through the fruit carefully.
As he dug through dried manure atop a second truck, he motioned to Iraqi policemen to join him. None did.
"A lot of them were not police as we'd know police back home to be," Poirier said. "Some of them were never policemen before this."
-------- israel
Arafat Says He Is Ready for Peace Talks
Monday November 3, 2003
By MARK LAVIE,
Associated Press Writer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3341666,00.html
JERUSALEM (AP) - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said he is ready for peace talks following an Israeli offer, the first tentative moves toward breaking a months-long stalemate.
Also Sunday, Arafat chose Ahmed Qureia to form a new Palestinian government, a step that could enable the sides to resume peace talks.
Reflecting a relative downturn in violence in recent weeks, the Israelis announced Sunday that they would permit about 15,000 Palestinians to enter the country for work.
In an abrupt turnabout last week, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said contacts were already under way with Palestinian officials, adding, ``We are ready to enter negotiations at any time.'' Until then, Sharon had conditioned talks on a crackdown on violent Palestinian groups responsible for attacks on Israelis.
Arafat told reporters he would accept an offer for talks. ``There is no official communication, but we are ready,'' he said Sunday after meeting a delegation of Greek parliamentarians at his headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah.
Talks on a U.S.-backed peace plan, the ``road map,'' have been stalled for weeks because of Palestinian bombing attacks, Israeli military operations and Palestinian inability to form a stable government.
The plan calls for an end to three years of Palestinian-Israeli violence and a Palestinian state by 2005.
Arafat has often said he is ready to talk peace, but Israel and the United States are boycotting him, charging that he is tainted by terrorism. They insist on dealing with an empowered prime minister.
On Sunday, Arafat formally asked Qureia to form a government, and Qureia said he accepted. Palestinian officials said they hoped the work could be completed in a few days.
Arafat's first choice for premier, Mahmoud Abbas, lasted only four months before resigning Sept. 6 after constant clashes with Arafat over who would run Palestinian security forces. Abbas also blamed Israel for its failure to stop military operations and ease restrictions.
Qureia has been serving as the head of an emergency 30-day Cabinet appointed by Arafat after Qureia, too, was unable to agree with the veteran Palestinian leader over who should be the new interior minister in charge of the armed forces.
The one-month decree runs out Tuesday. Qureia said Sunday he hopes to put together a government that is ``acceptable to everyone,'' but Palestinian officials said the dispute over an interior minister has not been resolved.
Qureia has also been working on a new cease-fire to replace one that collapsed over the summer, conducting talks with militant groups and hoping to bring Israel in later, aiming to stop three years of violence.
Early Monday, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said his group was prepared for a partial truce. ``The only thing which can be offered is to continue resistance but to avoid civilians from both sides, if the enemy accepts that,'' he said.
Before sunup Sunday, about 6,200 workers over the age of 35, in accordance with Israeli regulations, crowded the Erez crossing point from Gaza, submitted themselves to strict security checks and went to jobs in Israel for the first time since the latest closure was clamped on last month.
Before fighting erupted three years ago, more than 50,000 Palestinians from Gaza and 100,000 from the West Bank worked in Israel, providing a main source of income for the Palestinian economy. That number has been greatly reduced since then. The restrictions have further damaged the already crippled Palestinian economy, pushing thousands of Palestinian families into poverty.
A survey taken in July and August by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics showed that the median monthly income for Palestinian families has dropped about one-third during the three years of violence, to $400 in the West Bank and $300 in the Gaza Strip.
The survey found that 62 percent of Palestinian families are living below the poverty line - 52 percent in the West Bank and 83 percent in Gaza.
The survey, reported in the current Jerusalem Times Internet edition, covered 3,996 households. No margin of error was quoted.
-------- japan
Children of Hiroshima survivors carry no extra cancer risk
British Journal of Cancer 89, 1709 - 1713
03 Nov 2003
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/bjc/journal/v89/n9/full/6601322a.html
Study finds that cancer in offspring of parents exposed to the atomic bomb is no higher than for children whose parents were not exposed, so far.
"We have examined whether parental exposure to atomic bomb radiation has led to increased cancer risks among the offspring. We studied 40 487 subjects born from May 1946 through December 1984 who were cancer-free in January 1958. One or both parents were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the bombing and for childbirth," scientists in Japan report.
"Using population-based tumor registry data, we analyzed cancer incidence data from 1958 to 1997 by Cox regression models, and we examined the effects of both paternal and maternal irradiation with adjustment for city, sex, birth year, and migration," wrote S. Izumi and colleagues, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Department of Statistics.
"During follow-up, 575 solid tumor cases and 68 hematopoietic tumor cases were diagnosed. Median age at diagnosis was 39.7 years. Median doses were 143 millisierverts for 15 992 exposed (5+ millisierverts or unknown dose) fathers and 133 millisierverts for 10 066 exposed mothers. Cancer incidence was no higher for subjects with exposed parents than for the reference subjects (0-4 millisierverts), nor did the incidence rates increase with increasing dose," the researchers wrote.
"For 3568 subjects with two exposed parents, the adjusted risk ratio for all cancer was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.70-1.36). Because of the small number of cases, however, we cannot exclude an increase in cancer incidence at this time," the researchers concluded."
Izumi and colleagues published their study in British Journal of Cancer (Cancer incidence in children and young adults did not increase relative to parental exposure to atomic bombs. Br J Cancer, 2003;89(9):1709-1713).
For more information, contact S. Izumi, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Department of Statistics, Minami Ku, 5-2 Hijiyama Pk, Hiroshima 7320815, Japan.
Publisher contact information for the British Journal of Cancer is: Nature Publishing Group, MacMillan Building, 4 Crinan St., London N1 9XW, UK.
The information in this article comes under the major subject areas of Epidemiology and Oncology.
This article was prepared by Biotech Week editors from staff and other reports.
-------- korea
Bill calls for alternative to N.K. reactors
By Kim So-young (soyoung@heraldm.com)
2003.11.03
Korea Herald
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/11/03/200311030007.asp
A group of 11 lawmakers yesterday submitted to the National Assembly a resolution named KEDO-Two, calling on the South Korean government to halt an international project to build nuclear reactors in North Korea and instead develop alternative energy sources such as thermal power.
The move came a day before an international consortium comprising South Korea, the United States, Japan and the European Union holds an unofficial meeting in New York to discuss whether to continue building the light-water reactors in the North amid tension over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.
"As North Korea breached its agreement with the United States by withdrawing from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency, we should convert the nuclear project to KEDO-Two," the resolution said.
The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization promised to furnish the North with the reactors in return for a freeze on its old nuclear facilities - many capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.
However, since North Korea was found a year ago to have violated the 1994 energy-for-peace deal by pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the construction has been all but suspended.
The United States, a key provider of construction elements for the reactors, has since insisted the KEDO project be permanently scrapped, while South Korea and Japan oppose Washington's demand, reluctant to write off the huge sums of money they have already invested in the installation and fearful of generating more tension on the divided peninsula.
But the Japanese government, edging toward Washington's stance in the face of Pyongyang's continued nuclear threats, is expected to suggest at this week's meeting the project should be put on hold for a year, Tokyo's state-run NHK broadcasting station reported.
Critics have accused the South Korean government of clinging to the project despite the communist country's unabated rhetoric concerning its nuclear weapons program.
But officials said closing the project permanently would negatively affect the ongoing diplomatic process to end the nuclear crisis peacefully.
Concerned countries are expected to adopt a unified policy during this week's unofficial talks, which analysts expect to mean the project's indefinite suspension.
----
International consortium meets on North Korea nuclear project
NEW YORK (AFP)
Nov 03, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031103222055.o4mavwcb.html
An international consortium met here Monday for talks widely expected to formally suspend a project to build a nuclear power station in North Korea, mandated by a now-ruptured 1994 anti-nuclear pact with the Stalinist state.
Officials from the United States, Japan, South Korea and the European Union convened an executive board meeting of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) expected to last into Tuesday, a KEDO official said.
The timing of the consultations is sensitive as intense behind the scenes diplomacy continues to convene a new round of six-nation talks aimed at defusing the North Korea nuclear crisis.
Asian media reports have said that KEDO will use the meeting to formally halt the project for a year.
Such an outcome would be seen as a compromise, as the United States is believed to want a complete halt to the project to build the five-billion-dollar plant with two 1,000 megawatt light-water reactors.
But there are fears that an angry North Korean reaction to a decision to suspend the project, which is already years behind schedule, could complicate the bid to launch new nuclear crisis talks.
China compered the last round of inconclusive talks in August also involving North Korea, Russia, South Korea, the United States and Japan.
The United States has yet to officially announce its position on the project, but has been haggling with allies Japan and South Korea over the KEDO project for months.
A KEDO official said the talks here opened with bilateral consultations between executive board members on Monday, and were followed by a full plenary session.
Further talks were expected on Tuesday, though it was not clear if a decision on the North Korean nuclear project would be made public.
The reactors would produce significantly less weapons-grade nuclear material than an older nuclear plant built during the Soviet era, and were to be provided under a so-called Agreed Framework, under which Pyongyang undertook to freeze its nuclear weapons program.
The United States considers that agreement violated by North Korea, after accusing the Stalinist state last year of embarking on a prohibited bid to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, a move which ignited a 10-month nuclear crisis with its Cold War foe.
----
North Korea Says Sees Possible End to Atomic Crisis
November 3, 2003
REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-germany.html
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea believes the crisis over its nuclear weapons program could be quickly resolved if the United States agreed to leave the communist state in peace, a German parliamentarian said on Monday.
Hartmut Koschyk, a member of the Bundestag lower house of parliament, visited North Korea last week to meet officials, including Kim Yong-nam -- the nominal head of state and head of the country's parliament, the Supreme People's Assembly.
Koschyk told reporters North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon had outlined Pyongyang's position on the nuclear crisis, which began in October last year when the United States said the North had admitted to a covert atomic weapons program.
``The main demand toward the United States is a mutual promise not to want to fight each other and to normalize relations,'' he quoted Choe as saying.
``If the United States, and I'm quoting word for word here, were prepared to exist peacefully with North Korea, then the nuclear question could be solved quickly,'' Koschyk said, quoting the vice minister.
He said a senior Foreign Ministry official had told him the main problem was the fundamental lack of trust between the United States and North Korea.
North Korea told China last week it was prepared in principle to join it at a second round of nuclear talks with Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.
Koschyk, who also visited Pyongyang in May last year, said officials did not elaborate on when they expected the talks to take place. He also said he had been the first Western politician to meet a vice defense minister.
He did not discuss nuclear weapons with Colonel-General Ryo Chun-sok, but the vice minister did confirm that the powerful armed forces had agreed Pyongyang should seek more details about President Bush's offer last month of security guarantees in return for an end to the North's nuclear ambitions.
Koschyk said there were more vehicles on the roads compared with his visit last year and German aid groups had told him farmers' markets were spreading. He said he saw trucks packed with people and other North Koreans with handcarts heading to such a market in a regional town he visited.
He said North Korean officials had specifically called for intensified bilateral trade relations and told him German companies would receive the same conditions as South Korean firms if they set up in a special industrial zone being established in the city of Kaesong, just north of the Demilitarised Zone border.
Koschyk said a German parliamentary delegation would visit North Korea in the middle of next year and the Bundestag was still prepared to host a meeting of North and South Korean parliamentarians in Berlin.
Koschyk is a member of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of the larger opposition Christian Democrats.
-------- terrorism
Canadian Nuclear Plants Focus on Averting Sabotage, Agency Says
November 3, 2003
(Bloomberg)
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a6T9aHXi_fYk
Nov. 3 -- Canada's nuclear reactors face greater risks from sabotage or theft than external threats such as hijacked planes, said the head of the government's nuclear regulator.
``We've done risk (assessments) from marine to the air to people walking up to the gates,'' Linda Keen, president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, said in an interview in the agency's boardroom in Ottawa. ``The largest risks are the so- called `insider' types of risks.''
The commission is introducing armed guards at nuclear plants following the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. It won't install antiaircraft defenses because a crashed plane will trigger an automatic shutdown rather than an explosion, and it's easier to stop hijackings at the airport.
Nuclear power generates 36 percent of the electricity produced in Ontario, Canada's most-populous province. The commission licenses companies such as Bruce Power LP, operator of the country's biggest nuclear complex, northwest of Toronto. Companies ``have incurred considerable costs to implement the various physical protection measures required,'' according to a statement issued by the commission. The exact cost is kept secret for security reasons.
Bruce is owned by Cameco Corp., TransCanada Corp. and Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.
Nuclear plants have already stepped up screening of workers and deliveries. Keen said the nuclear industry has been cooperative in boosting security, as well as in investigating the blackout in August.
``There will be areas where we as a regulator will be looking at some what I would call relatively minor areas'' after the blackout, she said. She didn't elaborate on specific changes.
-------- un
Calls for UN uranium control
From correspondents in the United Nations
04nov03
Queensland Courier-Mail (Australia)
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7764552%255E1702,00.html
THE UN nuclear chief called today for the United Nations to consider putting all production of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium around the world under international control to limit "the increasing threat" posed by countries and by terrorists.
Mohamed ElBaradei cited the "serious and immediate challenge" posed by North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the urgent need to determine the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, lingering questions about Iraq's nuclear efforts and illegal trafficking in radioactive material.
In his annual report to the 191-nation General Assembly, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said recent events have put the existing international regime to control the spread of nuclear weapons "under growing stress".
The time has come, he said, "to resolve to pursue whatever actions are required, including new ways of thinking and unconventional approaches, to ensure that nuclear energy remains a source of hope and prosperity, and not a tool for self-destruction".
With information and expertise on how to produce nuclear weapons "much more accessible" than when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was being negotiated in the 1960s, ElBaradei said it has become far more important to control access to highly enriched uranium and plutonium, which are the key ingredients.
Due to "the increasing threat of proliferation, both by states and by terrorists", it would be worth considering limiting the processing of weapons-usable material in civilian nuclear programs and the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment "by agreeing to restrict these operations exclusively to facilities under multinational control", he said.
Outlining the major nuclear challenges, ElBaradei said the IAEA has not been able to perform any inspections in North Korea since December "and cannot therefore provide any level of assurance about the non-diversion of nuclear material".
"We have continued to emphasise the need for a comprehensive settlement of the Korean crisis through dialogue, and it is my hope that the six-party talks would lead to such a settlement," he said.
North Korea said last week it will consider a US offer of multilateral security assurances for ending its nuclear program, sparking hopes of further negotiations. The North has been insisting on a formal nonaggression treaty with the United States, a demand which Washington rejects.
Under pressure from the IAEA board, Iran recently handed over what it said was a complete declaration of its nuclear activities and ElBaradei said inspectors are in the process of verifying the dossier.
He noted that Iran has also expressed its intention to sign an additional protocol to the nonproliferation treaty giving IAEA inspectors unfettered access to its nuclear facilities "which is a key to our ability to provide comprehensive assurance" that its nuclear program is peaceful.
ElBaradei said he would report to the board later this month "on the status of our implementation of safeguards in Iran".
He urged all countries to sign the protocol allowing unannounced nuclear inspections.
ElBaradei also called for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.
The United States barred UN inspectors from Iraq after the US-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein, instead deploying its own teams to search for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The UN Security Council said in May that it would take up the future mandate of the IAEA and the UN agency that was responsible for biological and chemical inspections in Iraq, but gave no date.
"I believe it would be prudent for the UN and IAEA inspectors to return to Iraq, to bring the weapons file to a closure - and, through implementation of a Security Council-approved plan for long-term monitoring, to provide ongoing assurance that activities related to weapons of mass destruction have not been resumed," ElBaradei said.
He said the IAEA will continue efforts to improve the safety and security of radioactive material used in medical and other equipment.
Information of illegal trafficking and reports of plans for "dirty bombs" - radiological dispersal bombs - "makes it clear that a market continues to exist for obtaining and using radioactive sources for malevolent purposes", ElBaradei said.
--------
U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Targets Rogue Arms
November 3, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-Nuclear-Threats.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear chief called Monday for the United Nations to consider putting all production of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium around the world under international control to limit ``the increasing threat'' posed by countries and terrorists.
Mohamed ElBaradei cited the ``serious and immediate challenge'' posed by North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the urgent need to determine the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, lingering questions about Iraq's nuclear efforts, and illegal trafficking in radioactive material.
In his annual report to the 191-nation General Assembly, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said recent events have put the existing international regime to control the spread of nuclear weapons ``under growing stress.''
The time has come, he said, ``to resolve to pursue whatever actions are required, including new ways of thinking and unconventional approaches, to ensure that nuclear energy remains a source of hope and prosperity, and not a tool for self-destruction.''
With information and expertise on how to produce nuclear weapons ``much more accessible'' than when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was being negotiated in the 1960s, ElBaradei said it has become far more important to control access to highly enriched uranium and plutonium, which are the key ingredients.
He suggested countries consider an agreement to restrict the processing of weapons-usable material from civilian nuclear power programs and the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium ``exclusively to facilities under multinational control.''
ElBaradei believes that nuclear enrichment facilities in all countries -- including the nuclear powers like the United States -- should be put under multinational control, said IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky.
The IAEA chief has also said these restrictions should be coupled with a treaty that would cut off the production of nuclear material.
``Weapon-usable'' can be lower grade uranium that is enriched to make weapons-grade uranium.
Outlining the major nuclear challenges, ElBaradei said the IAEA has not been able to perform any inspections in North Korea since December ``and cannot therefore provide any level of assurance about the non-diversion of nuclear material.''
``We have continued to emphasize the need for a comprehensive settlement of the Korean crisis through dialogue, and it is my hope that the six-party talks would lead to such a settlement,'' he said.
North Korea said last week that it will consider a U.S. offer of multilateral security assurances for ending its nuclear program, sparking hopes of further negotiations. The North has been insisting on a formal nonaggression treaty with the United States, which Washington rejects.
Under pressure from the IAEA board, Iran recently handed over what it said was a complete declaration of its nuclear activities, and ElBaradei said inspectors are in the process of verifying that dossier.
Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif later told the General Assembly that his government's report would enable the IAEA to verify that its activities had been peaceful, and ``necessary corrective measures'' had been taken to meet all requirements under the agency's safeguards system.
``Nuclear and other weapons have no place in Iran's defense doctrine,'' he said. Still, he said the country considers the peaceful pursuit of nuclear power ``to be its inalienable right.''
Zarif argued that Israel -- which is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- should be subject ``to more severe restrictions'' and not be allowed to continue ``with impunity'' to build a nuclear arsenal.
ElBaradei noted that Iran has also expressed its intention to sign an additional protocol to the nonproliferation treaty giving IAEA inspectors unfettered access to its nuclear facilities.
ElBaradei said he would report to the board this month ``on the status of our implementation of safeguards in Iran.'' He urged all countries to sign the protocol allowing unannounced nuclear inspections and called for the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
Sick nuke workers spark Hill interest
November 03, 2003
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031103-123314-3248r.htm
Some lawmakers are trying to force the Energy Department to hand over a program that processes claims of sick nuclear workers to the Labor Department because of poor handling.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and others say the Energy Department's program is not adequately processing claims from workers suspected of becoming ill by exposure to radiation or other harmful substances while employed by Energy Department contractors. The program is supposed to determine whether they are eligible for state workers' compensation.
A Louisiana contractor that helps administer the Energy Department's program is fighting the move with help from Louisiana lawmakers, according to the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog group.
Louisiana-based Science and Engineering Associates (SEA) will lose business if the program is moved, says the Project on Government Oversight.
Mr. Grassley added a provision to the energy and water spending bill that would transfer key parts of the program to the Labor Department. It's not in the House bill, and House and Senate negotiators must decide whether to keep it in the final bill.
Calls to SEA were not immediately returned.
According to the watchdog group, SEA has hired lobbyists to fight the provision. And Louisiana Democratic Sens. John B. Breaux and Mary L. Landrieu tried to help by opposing the provision in a Sept. 26 letter to Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican and chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that handles the energy and water spending bill.
The senators said the transfer of the program to the Labor Department would lead to even more delay, and "directly impacts a key employer in our state."
Mr. Breaux said last week: "Energy is committed to fixing it and should be given the opportunity to do that."
Mr. Grassley and others disagree. "The need for changing agencies is immediate and urgent," read an Oct. 17 letter sent by Mr. Grassley and seven others to Mr. Domenici and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat on Mr. Domenici's subcommittee.
According to Energy Department statistics, of the 20,725 claims filed as of Oct. 24, 2003, a total of 14,693 are awaiting development, 3,932 are being developed, and 100 have final decisions sent to applicants. The Government Accounting Office has estimated the Energy Department will need seven years to work off its backlog.
The Department of Labor already runs a related program that determines whether sick Energy Department workers are eligible for federal compensation. It has processed more than 94 percent of the 35,832 claims it has received.
An aide to Mr. Domenici said it was "up in the air" whether the Grassley proposal would end up in the final bill, but added that the House "vehemently opposes" it.
Since the 1998 election cycle, SEA executives or their spouses contributed $7,000 to Mr. Domenici and $7,750 to Mrs. Landrieu, according to statistics compiled by the Project on Government Oversight, which came from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Lead House negotiator Rep. David L. Hobson, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations energy and water panel, said the House is "not going to accept" the Grassley proposal.
-------- nevada
Poll: 65% of Nevadans Oppose Nuclear Waste Dump
November 3, 2003
Associated Press
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1505901&nav=15MUCBSd
Three-fourths of Nevadans think the state should not be home to a high-level nuclear waste repository. That's according to a new poll commissioned by the state, which is opposed to the plan to bury 77-thousand tons of nuclear waste in tunnels below Yucca Mountain.
The survey found about 75 percent of those surveyed would vote against the project if given the opportunity. The Bush administration and Congress have already approved the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The final OK will come from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The poll, conducted earlier this month by Northwest Survey and Data Services, randomly surveyed 401 Nevadans by telephone. It had an error margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Energy Department officials stress Yucca Mountain is an issue of national security, saying officials have spent 25 years studying the project and have determined Yucca Mountain is a suitable site.
-------- washington
Hanford contractor gets new president
November 3, 2003
(AP)
http://www.djc.com/news/en/11150540.html
YAKIMA -- Fluor Hanford, the contractor that manages the Hanford nuclear reservation for the U.S. Department of Energy, has named a new president and chief executive officer to oversee operations at the site.
Ron Gallagher, 56, one of Fluor Corp.'s top executives, had been senior vice president responsible for the company's oil and gas operations in the United States and Canada. He succeeds Dave Van Leuven, who will remain with Fluor Hanford through an undetermined transition period.
In addition to managing cleanup at the site, Fluor Hanford is responsible for groundwater protection, preparing for disposal of nearly 18 tons of plutonium materials, and deactivating, dismantling and demolishing nuclear facilities that were used for plutonium processing, among other things.
-------- us politics
A High Price For A Hollow Victory
Sen. Robert C. Byrd,
November 3, 2003
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc3322.html
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) delivered the following remarks on November 3, 2003, as the Senate debated whether to grant final Congressional approval to the president's $87 billion funding request for the military and Iraqi reconstruction:
The Iraq supplemental conference report before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for President Bush. If hardball politics and lock-step partisanship are the stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity and accountability are the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the mark.
In the end, the president wrung virtually every important concession he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions that the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its version of the bill-such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of loans instead of grants-were thrown overboard in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to the power of the presidency.
Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations package that commits this nation to a long and costly occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, and yet the collective wisdom of the House and Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubber stamp the president's request.
Perhaps this take-no-prisoners approach is how the president and his advisers define victory, but I fear they are fixated on the muscle of the politics instead of the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure.
Consider, for example, that before the war, the president's policy advisers assured the American people that Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity. The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
The international community, on which the administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq, has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges, $9 billion, is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still, the president claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the president is beyond me.
But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the president stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln-strategically postured beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished"-and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been killed to date in Iraq, and nearly two-thirds of those deaths-238-have occurred since May 1. When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, "Bring 'em on" on July 2, the enemy did indeed "bring them on", and with a vengeance! Since the president made that comment, more than 165 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. And as the death toll mounts, it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on "bringing 'em on."
The $66 billion in this supplemental, required to continue the U.S. military occupation of Iraq over the next year, and the steadily rising death toll, are testament to the utter hollowness of the president's declaration aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to "bring 'em on."
It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a "support the troops" measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd. I support our troops, I pray for their safety, and I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help-not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering-to American forces in Iraq. The supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not-I say not-a vote "for our troops" in Iraq. We had a chance, in the beginning, to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the administration squandered that opportunity when the president gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this administration's Iraq policy-endorsed in the president's so-called victory on this supplemental-it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad and American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.
The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday-the deaths of 16 soldiers in the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another soldier in a bomb attack, and the deaths of two American civilian contractors in a mine explosion-is only the latest evidence that the administration's lack of post-war planning for Iraq is producing an erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to the next while making little if any headway in stabilizing or improving security in the country.
The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional weapons in Iraq-including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such as the one that may have brought down the U.S. helicopter on Sunday-is one of many mistakes that the administration made that is coming back to haunt us today. But perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake-following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq-is the administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq.
The president continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq, that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time-past time-for the president to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for American troops in Iraq. It is the American people who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq.
It is not enough for the president to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before us does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay the course in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The president owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq, and it is time for him to deliver. I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. But I have even greater respect and affection for the institution of the Senate and the Constitution by which it was established.
Every Senator, upon taking office, swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is the Constitution-not the president, not a political party, but the Constitution-to which Senators swear an oath of loyalty. And I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the president at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the president's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.
This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was one that I offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the Senate a second vote on whether to release it. Apparently, the president and his supporters did not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress-or lack of progress-in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction effort.
Time after time, the conference committee was given opportunities to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental. And time after time, the conference majority beat back those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated, on a party line vote, an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the public. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the president, not to Congress or the American people.
The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. And I am dismayed that the president can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the president's supporters in Congress are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the president's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the president instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?
The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor, my amendment requiring such audits was adopted 97 to 0. In the House-Senate conference, it was defeated by the Senate conferees on a 15 to 14 straight-line party vote.
Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as "flexibilities" give the president broad authority to take the money appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities-and in a few cases succeeded-but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the president or the Secretary of Defense. Although the money is appropriated by Congress, these so-called "flexibilities" effectively transfer the power of the purse from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.
The dictionary definition of victory is simple and straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package to be a victory for the president.
But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe that most Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of conduct. I do not include arm-twisting and intimidation in my definition of exemplary standards of conduct.
Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created equal. In 280 BC, Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in Northern Greece, took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 BC, but suffered unbearably heavy losses. "One more such victory and I am lost," he said.
It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term "pyrrhic victory," to describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental, and the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Bush administration.
The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not good policy for the United States.
Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes, victory is simply about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right policy for Iraq or the right policy for America. I oppose it and I will vote "no" on final passage.
Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia.
----
INTELLIGENCE FAILURES -- AND MORE -- UNDER SCRUTINY
UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
November 3, 2003
http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/?uc_full_date=20031028
WASHINGTON -- On the surface, the intelligence scandal sweeping through Washington seems to be a rather simple case of failure at the top.
The CIA told the White House that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, we went to war on that basis, and now it turns out that the poor tyrant had only floor plans and evil intentions.
That kind of assessment makes it easy to place the blame. It was still another failure of what are supposed to be our best analysts. We didn't have human spies on the ground. The well-meaning administration was thus misled into involving us in a nasty faraway conflict whose outcome remains dangerously uncertain.
Well, I don't give credence to that scenario for a moment. If you look more closely, what you find is that this was not so much an intelligence failure as it was an intelligence coup, a conspiracy by a small group to push through its own agenda at any cost, and a hijacking of time-worn methods.
The moderate Republican Sen. Jay Rockefeller said it all this week: We will see "whether intelligence was used or abused, but also whether it was used, shaded or manipulated by people who wanted to prove what they believed before."
In other words, whether the intelligence was faulty, or simply rigged.
Two as yet unreleased reports from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Committee are being described by insiders as "scathing." The reports are shifting attention away from White House and Pentagon officials, who have been widely accused of exaggerating the Iraq WMD threat in order to lead the country into war, and toward the professional intelligence community of the CIA, thus placing the onus of the war there.
The problems with this strategy, for anybody who knows the irregular ways of this administration, are: 1) The CIA may have been wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, but so was every other Western intelligence agency; 2) one avid spokesman for the war, the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz, was quoted recently in Vanity Fair saying that the administration used WMD only as an excuse to hold various groups together in support of the war, and 3) the real danger in providing serious intelligence to an administration that had already made up its mind came from Pentagon and vice president's office officials, who set out from the beginning to dismantle traditional filtering devices to vet intelligence. Indeed, the "war party" created what are called "stovepipes," or ways to get their special-interest information directly to the top.
This story -- which I believe to be true -- is told in another brilliant chapter of the saga, "The Stovepipe," by long-time investigator Seymour M. Hersh in the most recent New Yorker magazine.
Hersh outlines carefully how, in office after office of the radical neo-conservatives who surround and isolate this incurious president, legitimate intelligence flows were cut off.
In the State Department, neo-con John Bolton essentially froze out intelligence that didn't agree with his thinking; in the Pentagon, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Luti, Richard Perle and their group started their own little intelligence council, eerily named the "Office of Special Plans," designed to circumvent regular intelligence agencies and to "stovepipe" intelligence of their own liking to the White House, especially to and through Dick Cheney.
Almost all of their information came from Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, the man those Pentagon civilians planned to put in power on the wings of an Iraqi invasion. Nearly all of it has been proven egregiously false, and Chalabi, while still in Iraq, shows precious few leadership skills.
"Chalabi's defector reports were now flowing from the Pentagon directly to the vice president's office," Hersh relates, "and then on to the president, with little prior evaluation by intelligence professionals."
One of the many ironies in this tale, as Hersh and others maintain, is that the International Atomic Energy Agency, one of the groups hated by the unilateralist neo-cons, has turned out to be right. Its members have been saying since 1997 that Iraq no longer had the capacity to produce nuclear materials.
Yet today, despite all of their failures in intelligence, in "day-after" reconstruction of Iraq and indeed in all of their judgments, this group of Pentagon civilians continues to press ahead with its obsession: the reconfiguration of the entire Middle East, the creation of a mighty America that listens to no one, and the expansion of the state of Israel.
If the Senate and House investigations focus only on the CIA and its probable mistakes, and do not investigate and illuminate these more dangerous misuses of power, the act will continue.
Meanwhile, according to leading congressional sources, Douglas Feith, in many ways the wily author of the Iraq war, has written a letter to the Senate Select Committee denying that his special intelligence group in the Pentagon even exists. The games goes on.
----
NEWS ANALYSIS
As Casualties in Iraq Mount, Will Resolve Falter?
November 3, 2003
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/international/middleeast/03ASSE.html?hp
CRAWFORD, Tex., Nov. 2 - The political challenge posed to President Bush by the deadly helicopter attack in Iraq on Sunday is this: how to keep public opinion from swinging against him over Iraq while not abandoning his quest to bring a stable democracy to that country.
Americans have been dying for months in Iraq, attacked by an enemy whose nature remains murky. But the downing of the Chinook helicopter, which killed 16 soldiers, brought the insurgency to a new level and suggested its growing effectiveness.
Up to now the American people, in their majority, have backed the Iraq campaign, and the Bush administration has vowed repeatedly to stay the course, even through an election year.
But administration officials and military commanders have also been dismissive of the insurgency in a way that may now be questioned. On Saturday, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, said the attacks were "strategically and operationally insignificant."
Whatever the merits of that claim - and the downing of a helicopter would not seem insignificant - it might be beside the point. The well-armed and apparently coordinated guerrilla attacks on American forces, on Iraqis who are cooperating with them, on international institutions and on ordinary civilians seem to have a common purpose: undermining American resolve and sowing doubt in Iraq and elsewhere.
Mr. Bush was informed of the attack on the helicopters while at his ranch here. A White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, later told reporters, "The terrorists seek to kill coalition forces and innocent Iraqis because they want us to run, but our will and our resolve are unshakable."
However, Kenneth Allard, a former Army colonel who teaches international security at Georgetown University, suggested that the Iraqi attacks would test American determination.
"Every single one of these attacks challenges American will, and American will is the center of gravity in this campaign," he said. Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq is under intense partisan attack that is likely to intensify as the presidential campaign heats up.
Democrats have been particularly critical of Mr. Bush's inability to win substantial commitments from allies other than Britain for troop deployments to Iraq, a failure they trace to the administration's unwillingness to forge a true coalition before the war.
Mr. Bush is clearly sensitive to the pressure on him to bring home more American troops as soon as possible; when he was asked at his news conference last week if he could promise to have reduced the number of troops in Iraq a year from now, he dismissed it as a "trick question" and declined to answer.
One Democrat, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, said after the helicopter was downed, "The administration has no answers to the increasingly violent situation in Iraq." He added, "We need a plan."
Another candidate, Dennis J. Kucinich, said bluntly, "It is urgent for the United States to go to the U.N. with a new resolution which contains the basis of an exit strategy."
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, has repeatedly hammered at the war strategy, influencing other candidates.
But Democrats are themselves divided over how to proceed.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, told the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the United States should consider temporarily increasing the number of troops it has in Iraq.
Although his opinion poll numbers are down sharply from their highs of the spring, Mr. Bush remains in a relatively strong political position, and there is no sign of a rupture in public opinion on Iraq. Public opinion within Iraq is harder to measure.
With each fresh attack, though, the pressure increases on Mr. Bush to show that he has not just a program but the determination to carry it out.
Mr. Allard argued that public opinion in the United States was vulnerable to each episode of bad news.
Similarly, he said, Mr. Bush and his team have yet to convince the Iraqi people that the United States will prevail. "If you're an Iraqi, the biggest fear in your mind is that Saddam or his cohorts might be back," Mr. Allard said. "Everything they see now could convince them that the Americans may be faint-hearted. So at the least, they hedge their bets."
Appearing on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was insistent that the attacks would have no effect on the administration's determination to see through the job in Iraq. "We can win this war," he said. "We will win this war. And the president has every intention of staying after the terrorists and the countries that harbor terrorists until we have won this war."
But if nothing else, the persistent attacks and casualties have forced the administration to acknowledge the difficulties ahead. At the news conference last week, Mr. Bush repeatedly referred to Iraq as a "dangerous" place, and he all but disowned the "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung behind him on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln when he proclaimed the end of major combat operations in May.
Administration officials have begun to emphasize that they are pressing hard for Iraqis to take more responsibility for confronting the guerrilla warfare, and that they are speeding plans to train Iraqis to handle security.
"Foreign troops in a country are unnatural," Mr. Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday," referring to the presence in Iraq of American and allied troops. "The goal is to keep them there only as long as they're needed and not one day longer."
But it is not clear how capable the Iraqis will be of stabilizing the country and settling political and religious divisions, especially if the shooting and bombing goes on.
--------
Analysis New Attacks Intensify Pressure on Bush
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55031-2003Nov2.html
Twice in the past two weeks, the Iraqi opposition has hit high-profile U.S. targets that had been largely beyond its reach, an escalation that may prove more significant strategically than tactically because of the increased political pressure it puts on the Bush administration.
Yesterday's hand-held missile attack on an Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter, which killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20, was the first lethal downing of a U.S. aircraft in Iraq since last spring's war. That attack followed by just a week a sophisticated rocket assault on the Baghdad hotel inside U.S. lines where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was staying. That came on top of lethal bombings of the U.N. headquarters in the capital and then that of the Red Cross.
"They are pretty good at surprise and finding the weak spots -- the U.N., then the Red Cross, now this," noted Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In tactical terms, yesterday's action was troubling but unlikely to result in major changes in how the U.S. military operates on the ground and in the skies over Iraq. Helicopter pilots will be more wary of urban areas, and U.S. commanders probably will order up more counter-ambush operations, using aerial surveillance and ground patrols.
But the latest round of attacks in Iraq, and especially yesterday's deaths -- which amounted to the biggest single day of losses since last spring's conventional war -- may prove more significant in strategic terms.
"It is damaging not only because of the tragic human toll, but also because it looks like a dramatic escalation in lethality and therefore begs obvious questions: Are all helicopters at risk now? Are we losing the initiative? Who is winning?" said Peter D. Feaver, a former National Security Council staff member who teaches political science at Duke University.
"If the attacks get interpreted as evidence that the Baathist holdouts are winning, then attacks like this can be as lethal for public support as they are for the soldiers involved," he said.
Indeed, the helicopter downing came as two worrisome trends face the Bush administration. In Iraq, there are signs that the anti-U.S. opposition is escalating its attacks both in numbers and sophistication. Even while the U.S. intelligence haul in Iraq is improving, commanders there said, the fighters attacking them also are becoming more effective.
Meanwhile, the American public's support for President Bush's handling of the war is declining, which makes the situation even more volatile. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last week, a slight majority -- 51 percent of those interviewed -- said they disapprove of his handling of it.
It was the first time that the number of those approving had dropped below 50 percent, and it was more than double the number of those who said they disapproved on May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat operations. Since then, at least 240 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.
The problem for the Bush administration is that the American people have proven tolerant of casualties in military operations they understand and support, but not of those incurred in operations they do not understand or they oppose, according to several studies in recent years by political scientists.
"I think you can see the public is concerned by the continuing slow stream of casualties," said James Burk, a sociology professor at Texas A&M University and one of the academics who has studied public reaction to combat deaths. When there is division about the policy and uncertainty about its costs and duration, he said, relatively small numbers of casualties "can have an important impact."
It also is a lesson that some in Washington have drawn. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, after the October 1993 "Black Hawk Down" battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, in which 18 U.S. soldiers died, is said by an aide to have remarked that those losses would result in a change in U.S. policy because the American people did not understand why the battle had occurred.
But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed confidence yesterday that the latest attacks would not undercut public support for the U.S. presence in Iraq.
"I think the American people have a good center of gravity," he said on ABC's "This Week." "I think they get it. They see that terrorism is a threat in this world. They would rather have us fighting terrorists outside of the United States of America than inside the United States of America. They know that what's taking place is tragic when you have a day like yesterday. But they also know it's necessary."
An additional problem is that the American public was not prepared for a long, difficult struggle in Iraq. Even the Pentagon's internal calculation before last spring's war was that the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be trimmed fairly swiftly after the fighting, and would be down to about 60,000 by now. There currently are more than twice that many U.S. troops in the country.
Some predicted that the latest fighting, combined with the beginning of the presidential primary season three months from now, will intensify the administration's desire to find a way to get out of Iraq.
"While resolutely denying that it is doing so, the Bush administration is looking for an exit," said Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who teaches international relations at Boston University. "With the political season approaching, this terrible loss will only increase the urgency felt within the White House to find a way out."
But retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, a consultant to the Pentagon on Iraqi security issues, said it is clear that the only "exit strategy" available is to develop Iraqi security forces to fight the remnants of Saddam Hussein's government. And he predicted that that approach will succeed.
"My cut on this is that time is not on the insurgents' side," Anderson said. "As internal Iraqi security forces come on line, they will be more adept at spotting foreigners and begin to root out Baathist holdouts better than our guys can, with their limited language capability and local cultural knowledge."
--------
Congress Approves $87.5 Billion Aid Package for War Effort
November 3, 2003
By DAVID STOUT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/politics/03CND-COSTS.html
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - The Senate today approved an $87.5 billion package for the military and reconstruction campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, one day after an attack on an Army helicopter in Iraq left 16 American soldiers dead.
The voice vote took place late this afternoon, with only a few senators in the chamber. Although the voice vote allowed for passage without any negative votes being officially recorded, the approval took place over the conspicuously shouted "no" of Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, one of the few lawmakers in the chamber.
Mr. Byrd, the senior lawmaker on Capitol Hill, is known as a jealous advocate of the rights and prerogatives of Congress, and he has been outspoken in his criticism of Bush administration policy on Iraq.
Mr. Byrd, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, uttered some of the day's strongest words, telling The Associated Press that he saw the bill as a "monument to failure." He also spoke of persistent American casualties and the lack of help from United States allies.
The vote today was cast against the backdrop of the single greatest loss of American life in Iraq since the United States invaded in March - 16 soldiers killed, along with 20 wounded, in the downing of a helicopter near Falluja on Sunday. Mr. Bush made no mention of that event at campaign appearances today in Alabama, although he did praise the sacrifice and bravery of American troops in general, as he has many times before.
Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who heads the Appropriations Committee and who was a leading author of the bill, declared: "As the president said time and time again, we will not walk away from Iraq. We will not leave the Iraqi people in chaos, and we will not create a vacuum for terrorist groups to fill."
The House approved the aid package, 298 to 121, on Friday. The bulk of the funds, some $65 billion, will go for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another $18.5 billion will go toward rebuilding Iraq. The money will be entirely in the form of grants, after President Bush and his Republican allies defeated efforts to demand that Iraq pay back some of the money. Mr. Bush had argued that it would be unwise to saddle the new Baghdad government with heavy debts.
Several other items were tacked onto the aid package in negotiations between the House and Senate and between Republicans and Democrats. They include $500 million for victims of natural disasters in the United States and $245 million for peacekeeping in Liberia.
-------- MILITARY
-------- iraq
American R&R helicopter shot down in Iraq
15 soldiers killed, 21 wounded
Nov 03, 2003
(AP)
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/031102/w110230.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq - Insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter with dozens of American troops on board Sunday, killing 15 and wounding 21 in the deadliest strike against U.S. forces since the war began - a sign of the increasing sophistication of Iraq's elusive anti-U.S. fighters.
The giant helicopter was ferrying the soldiers on their way for rest and recreation outside Iraq when, witnesses told The Associated Press, two missiles streaked into the sky, fired from a date palm grove, and slammed into the rear of the aircraft. It crashed in flames in farmers' fields west of Baghdad.
It was the deadliest day for U.S. troops since March 23 - the first week of the invasion that ousted president Saddam Hussein - and a major escalation in the campaign to drive the U.S.-led coalition out of the country.
Three other Americans were killed in separate attacks Sunday, including one 1st Armored Division soldier in Baghdad and two U.S. civilians working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Fallujah. All three were victims of roadside bombs, the military said.
"It's clearly a tragic day for America," Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in Washington. "In a long, hard war, we're going to have tragic days. But they're necessary. They're part of a war that's difficult and complicated."
Like past attacks on U.S. forces and a string of suicide bombings that killed dozens in Baghdad the past week, U.S. coalition officials blamed either Saddam loyalists or foreign fighters for the strike outside Fallujah, a centre of Sunni Muslim resistance to the U.S. occupation.
Paul Bremer, the head of the occupation in Iraq, repeated demands that Syria and Iran prevent fighters from crossing their borders into Iraq. "They could do a much better job of helping us seal that border and keeping terrorist out of Iraq," he told CNN.
The "enemies of freedom" in Iraq "are using more sophisticated techniques to attack our forces," he said.
U.S. officials have been warning of the danger of shoulder-fired missiles, thousands of which are now scattered from Saddam's arsenals, and such missiles are believed to have downed two U.S. copters since May 1. Those two crashes - of smaller helicopters - left only one American wounded.
The loaded-down Chinook was a dramatic new target. The insurgents have been steadily advancing in their weaponry, first using homemade roadside bombs, then rocket-fired grenades in ambushes on American patrols, and vehicles stuffed with explosives and detonated by suicide attackers.
In the fields south of Fallujah, some villagers proudly showed off blackened pieces of the Chinook's wreckage to arriving reporters.
Though a few villagers tried to help, many celebrated word of the helicopter downing, as well as a fresh attack on U.S. soldiers in Fallujah itself.
"This was a new lesson from the resistance, a lesson to the greedy aggressors," one Fallujah resident, who wouldn't give his name, said of the helicopter downing. "They'll never be safe until they get out of our country," he said of the Americans.
The downed copter was one of two Chinooks flying out in formation from an airbase in Habbaniyah, 16 kilometres from the crash site, carrying troops to Baghdad on route for rest and recreation - R&R.
The missiles semed to have been fired from a palm grove about 500 metres away, Thaer Ali, 21, said. At least one hit the Chinook, which came down in a field in the farming village of Hasai, a few kilometres south of Fallujah, witnesses said.
The missiles flashed toward the helicopter from the rear, as usual with heat-seeking ground-fired missiles. The most common model in the former Iraqi army inventory was the Russian-made SA-7, also known as Strelas.
Hours later, thick smoke rose from the blackened, smouldering hulk as U.S. soldiers swarmed over the crash site, evacuating the injured, retrieving evidence and cordoning off the area.
Yassin Mohamed said he heard the explosion and ran out of his house, less than a kilometre away. "I saw the helicopter burning. I ran toward it because I wanted to help put out the fire, but couldn't get near because of American soldiers."
The U.S. military would not confirm that the aircraft was struck by a missile, but a spokesman, Col. William Darley, said witnesses reported seeing "missile trails."
In Baghdad, Darley said the CH-47 helicopter belonged to the 12th Aviation Brigade, a Germany-based unit that supports the 82nd Airborne Division Task Force operating west of Baghdad.
The two Chinooks were carrying a total of more than 50 passengers to the U.S. base at Baghdad International Airport, from which they were to fly out on leave, U.S. officials said. Darley said some of the casualties were from medical units, but officials did not provide a breakdown of their units.
The Pentagon had announced Friday it was expanding the R&R for troops in Iraq. As of Sunday, it said, the number of soldiers departing daily to the U.S. via a transit facility in neighbouring Kuwait would be increased to 480, from 280.
Fallujah lies in the so-called Sunni Triangle, a region north and west of Baghdad where most attacks on American forces have taken place. The downing and the soldier's death in Baghdad brought to at least 138 the number of American soldiers killed by hostile fire since President George W. Bush declared an end to combat May 1.
A total of 376 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq.
The death toll Sunday surpasses one of the deadliest single attacks during the Iraq war: the March 23 ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company, in which 11 soldiers were killed, nine were wounded and seven captured, including Pte. Jessica Lynch. A total of 28 Americans around Iraq - including the casualties from the ambush - died on that day, the deadliest for U.S. troops during the Iraq war.
Meanwhile, in Abu Ghraib on Baghdad's western edge, U.S. troops clashed with townspeople Sunday. Local Iraqis said U.S. troops arrived Sunday morning and ordered people to disperse from the marketplace. Someone then tossed a grenade at the Americans, who opened fire, witnesses said, and the soldiers opened fire.
The newest deaths capped a week of extraordinary carnage in and around Baghdad. Last Sunday came a rocket attack against a hotel housing hundreds of coalition staffers that killed one and injured 15.
A day later, four co-ordinated suicide bombings in Baghdad killed three dozen people and wounded more than 200. Attacks against U.S. forces have increased in the last three weeks to an average of 33 a day from the mid-20s.
--------
Missile Hits U.S. Copter in Iraq;
16 Dead 20 Soldiers Hurt in Crash Near Fallujah
By Theola Labbé and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51540-2003Nov2?language=printer
FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 2 -- A U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter packed with soldiers headed for a short-term break was hit with a missile and crashed in a field west of Baghdad on Sunday morning, killing 16 soldiers and wounding 20 others in the deadliest single attack on American forces since they invaded Iraq, military officials and witnesses said.
The shoulder-fired missile streaked through a clear blue sky and struck the dual-rotor helicopter in its rear around 9 a.m. as it was ferrying soldiers from bases in western Iraq to Baghdad's international airport. The impact sparked an explosion and a fire in midair. Moments later, the witnesses said, the helicopter pitched upward, spun out of control and plummeted to the ground just southwest of Fallujah, a city 40 miles west of Baghdad where resistance to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq has been particularly intense.
The force of the impact destroyed the 10-ton Chinook, scattering twisted and charred bits of fuselage over a wide area. Everyone on board was killed or injured, many of them severely, military officials said. Several of the wounded suffered serious internal injuries and extensive burns, the officials added. One witness said he saw a soldier whose legs were on fire crawling away from the crash site with his hands.
"It was a tremendous explosion," said Arif Jassim Hadi, a 30-year-old farmer standing along a dirt road near the crash site, which smoldered for hours.
The missile strike provided an example of the increasing sophistication and lethality of attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Resistance fighters who began their effort to evict American troops by indiscriminately firing guns and rocket-propelled grenades at supply convoys now are targeting well-fortified bases with mortars, firing volleys of rockets inside the seat of the U.S. occupation authority, concealing roadside bombs and launching antiaircraft missiles.
It was not immediately clear who fired the missile. U.S. officials have blamed three groups for the violence that is plaguing Iraq: loyalists of former president Saddam Hussein, homegrown Islamic extremists and terrorists who have infiltrated from neighboring countries. Some American military and intelligence officials say they believe the groups may be collaborating.
Although more than two dozen missiles have been fired at aircraft in Iraq since June, according to military reports, the Chinook was the first to have been hit. Two other helicopters have been shot down since President Bush declared major combat in Iraq over on May 1 -- a UH-60 Black Hawk and an AH-64 Apache -- but neither involved antiaircraft missiles, officials said. Only one soldier was injured in those two incidents.
The successful attack could force the military to reevaluate its flight patterns and missile-defense measures. U.S. commanders have been increasing the use of helicopters in hostile areas, assuming they were safer than ground convoys. "This underscores that regardless of how you travel in this country, it's a dangerous place," said Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons, a spokesman for the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.
Less than a half-hour before the crash, two American civilians working as private contractors for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were killed in Fallujah when their convoy hit a roadside bomb, a military spokesman said. The contractors were working on a project to destroy Iraqi munitions, which have been used in the manufacture of the roadside bombs.
Hours earlier, a soldier from the 1st Armored Division was killed in Baghdad when a roadside bomb exploded as he was responding to another incident.
The Pentagon has so far identified only one of the soldiers killed in the missile attack. Staff Sgt. Paul A. Velazquez, 29, of California, was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment, based at Fort Sill, Okla.
"It's clearly a tragic day for America," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Washington on ABC's "This Week." "In a long, hard war, we're going to have tragic days. But they're necessary. They're part of a war that's difficult and complicated."
The helicopter crash is the second major setback for the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq in the past week. Last Monday, car bombs exploded outside three police stations and the local headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad, killing about three dozen people and wounding more than 200.
Sunday's fatalities brought to 138 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in hostilities in Iraq in the past six months. Over the past seven days, resistance fighters have killed 27 soldiers, the highest one-week total since major combat ended.
The Chinook that was struck, packed with 33 passengers and three crew members, was flying next to another Chinook after picking up passengers at various base camps west of Baghdad. Both helicopters, piloted by the Army's 12th Aviation Brigade, were carrying soldiers from the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, based at Fort Carson, Colo., and the 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The soldiers were supposed to fly out of Iraq later Sunday for different destinations: four-day breaks in Qatar, two-week holidays in the United States or emergency family leave.
Military officials and witnesses said the missile that brought down the Chinook was a Russian-made SA-7, a shoulder-fired, heat-seeking device known as a Strela that appeared from witness accounts to have locked onto the helicopter's engines, which are below the rear rotor.
A U.S. military spokesman said the missile, which either failed to explode or did not detonate fully, did not shoot the plane out of the air but severely damaged the engine system. The crippled engine severely limited the pilot's ability to control the craft, and when the pilot tried to make an emergency crash landing, "the aircraft disintegrated on impact," the spokesman said.
U.S. officials have said thousands of antiaircraft missiles, most of them SA-7s, were looted from Iraqi army stockpiles and remain unaccounted for. "Nobody knows with certainty how many there are," the spokesman said.
The military initiated a buyback program for surface-to-air missiles in August, paying up to $500 apiece. Although hundreds of them have been acquired, military officials said thousands more are still in circulation.
U.S. military helicopters have flares and other counter-measures designed to deflect missiles. It was not clear whether they were used by the crew.
Witnesses said they saw two missiles fired at the Chinooks from a grove of date palms about 500 yards from where the helicopter crashed. "It hit the back of the helicopter," said Hadi, the farmer. "There was an explosion and fire, then it crashed. The smoke was everywhere."
When the missile struck, the second helicopter made a sharp right turn and threw up several flares, then circled before landing, apparently in an attempt to help rescue survivors and put out the fire, witnesses said.
Soon thereafter, several Black Hawks swooped in to pick up survivors while at least six other Black Hawks hovered over the area, a flat expanse of farms with corn and clover, bisected by dirt roads and canals fed by the Euphrates River. The region, just south of the Euphrates town of Fallujah, has emerged as a center of resentment over the U.S. occupation, and most residents gathered near the crash site celebrated the helicopter's downing as a victory. By noon, soldiers forced onlookers to evacuate the site.
"Why are the Americans here? They're just showing off their muscles," said Habib Ali, a 36-year-old truck driver. "Force creates force."
Others from the nearby village of Albu Ali Harat gathered around. "This is an expression of our opinion," he said, "of Muslims, of all people."
"This is my land, and they came as strangers," said 22-year-old Jassim Mohammed. "They should be afraid."
Nafia Fahed Hamoud, 32, a builder who lives near the crash site, praised the person who fired the missile as "an honest man who does not like to be occupied by foreigners."
At a news conference Saturday, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, acknowledged that American forces were facing a "determined enemy." He predicted that in the months ahead, the U.S.-led occupation would face "more obstacles, more setbacks and more tragedies in the future."
But as in the past, Sanchez dismissed the importance of an increase in attacks carried out by resistance fighters. "The coalition has maintained its offensive focus in the face of what we regard as a strategically and operationally insignificant surge of attacks," he said.
Before Sunday's loss, the deadliest attacks during the military campaign in Iraq occurred March 23 around the southern city of Nasiriyah, where a total of 29 U.S. troops died, including 12 Marines killed in an ambush by Iraqi soldiers who appeared to be surrendering, and 11 Army soldiers killed in an ambush after they were separated from their convoy. Six other Marines also died in fighting near Nasiriyah that day.
Iraq's six neighbors convened security talks in Damascus, the Syrian capital, on Sunday in response to American allegations that countries bordering Iraq, particularly Iran and Syria, are not doing enough to clamp down on the flow of militants into Iraq. In a statement, the countries condemned terrorist attacks on "civilians, humanitarian and religious institutions, embassies and international organizations" and promised to cooperate with Iraqi authorities to "prevent any violation of borders." Iraq's interim foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, turned down a belated invitation to attend the talks.
Chandrasekaran reported from Baghdad. Correspondent Anthony Shadid and staff writer Vernon Loeb in Fallujah contributed to this report.
--------
Day's Death Toll For U.S. Troops Is Highest Since March
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54882-2003Nov2.html
With the deaths of at least 17 soldiers yesterday in Iraq, the total number of U.S. troops who have died there has increased to 379 -- almost two-thirds of them since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1.
Yesterday's death toll from the downing of a Chinook helicopter outside Baghdad, plus a death from a roadside bomb explosion, was the highest in a single day since early in the invasion of Iraq.
As November begins, it is potentially the deadliest month since the U.S.-led attack began. At least 19 soldiers have been killed in two days, compared with a total of 33 U.S. military deaths in September and 42 in October.
The deaths reported by the U.S. Central Command include those considered "hostile" from enemy fire, and "non-hostile" from vehicle accidents, medical problems and suicides not directly related to combat. The total number of "hostile" deaths now stands at 253, according to military accounts, including 139 since May 1.
The number of wounded U.S. soldiers also has begun to climb more steeply: 26 have been wounded this month, and 2,155 since hostilities began in March. Of those, a large majority were injured in action.
When U.S. troops first entered Iraq and dashed toward Baghdad, many of the casualties occurred in clusters during deadly ambushes and from artillery fire and helicopter crashes. In keeping with the guerrilla war that U.S. and coalition troops are now facing, the U.S. casualties tended to come in ones, twos and threes before yesterday's crash.
As reported by Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Persian Gulf region, the U.S. deaths are coming most frequently from rocket-propelled grenade attacks, roadside explosives and small-arms fire.
Although there was a significant increase in U.S. casualties in October and now November, the month of July, with 46 dead, still has the highest per-month casualty toll since major hostilities ended.
With soldiers from the National Guard and Army Reserves well represented in Iraq, they are a growing part of the casualty list. Before this month's deadly attacks, the total number of Guard and Reserve dead in Iraq since the end of hostilities totaled at least 46, according to Defense Department statistics.
Included in the casualty count are at least four women. Although small, the number is significant in relation to the total of eight women in uniform who died during the far longer Vietnam War.
The identities of all but one of the 36 soldiers on the helicopter that crashed yesterday were withheld until their families could be notified; last night, defense officials confirmed the death of Staff Sgt. Paul A. Velazquez, 29, of California, assigned to a unit of III Corps Artillery at Fort Sill, Okla. Some of the 20 wounded were reported to be in serious condition.
Before yesterday's Chinook downing, the most lethal attack in Iraq occurred during the military campaign on March 23, when Army soldiers were ambushed near the southern city of Nasiriyah. Twelve soldiers were killed, nine wounded and seven captured, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch. A total of 29U.S. troops were killed that day, making it the deadliest of the war.
In addition to the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, 51 British troops and five others from Spain, Ukraine and Denmark have died. At least six American civilian contract workers, as well as United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross employees, have been killed in recent months. Two civilian contractors working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers died in a roadside bomb attack yesterday outside the volatile city of Fallujah, and another was wounded.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld stressed yesterday that U.S. troops are not the only ones being targeted. A total of 85 Iraqis working with the United States as security forces have been killed in recent months, he said on ABC's "This Week."
The United States has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, and other coalition partners have about 30,000. It remains unclear exactly who is mounting the daily attacks against the soldiers, because no one has taken responsibility for them. But Rumsfeld gave a description yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" of the attackers.
"There are criminals in the country who will do anything for money," he said. "There are foreign terrorists in that country, like the Ansar-al-Islam, who have come back in from Iran and are trying to kill people. And there are the remnants of the Baathist regime, and they want to take the country back."
-------- israel / palestine
Israel Can't Sway Russia on 'Road Map'
November 3, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-Israel.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon tried to persuade President Vladimir Putin on Monday to drop his support for a U.N. resolution on a Mideast peace plan.
Sharon met with Putin for three hours, during which the two leaders also discussed Israeli fears that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a senior Israeli official told reporters traveling with Sharon.
The official said Putin listened seriously to Sharon's concerns but made no promise to take action on them.
Sharon arrived in Moscow Sunday on his third visit as prime minister.
Welcoming the Israeli leader to the Kremlin, Putin said Russia would continue to work for peace in the Middle East and added that recent violence in Israel had caused much concern in Russia for former citizens who have emigrated to Israel.
``We know Israel is striving for peace,'' Putin said. ``The Jewish people have suffered a lot over the last decades.''
Russia wants the Security Council to formally endorse the ``road map'' Mideast peace plan, which sets out steps for the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state.
The official said Sharon told Putin the road map was aimed at forging a bilateral agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and could not work if imposed by outsiders. Israel sees the United Nations as a hostile body, skewed in favor of the Palestinians.
``Russia's position in this (U.N.) forum does not help strengthen our relations,'' the Israeli official quoted Sharon as telling Putin.
Israel only reluctantly accepted the road map, attaching a list of reservations making its implementation dependent on the Palestinians disarming and disbanding militant groups and stipulating that any monitoring be under U.S. control.
``The agreement we accepted was between two sides and needs to be resolved between two sides, not by coercion from the Security Council,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The United States backs the road map but is against the Russian proposal, saying that it is ill-timed, as an emerging Palestinian government needs to assert itself first.
A major part of the one-on-one portion of Monday's summit was devoted to Israel's fears that Iran is covertly trying to develop nuclear weapons, the official said.
Sharon told Putin that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat not only to Israel but to world peace.
``My impression is that (the Russians) see the danger,'' the official said, adding that Putin and Sharon agreed to keep up consultations on the issue.
Asked if Sharon carried any American message on the perceived Iranian threat, the official said only that Jerusalem and Washington were in very close contact on developments in Iran.
``I imagine our position resembles that of the Americans,'' the official said.
Russia's relations with Israel have seen a dramatic improvement since the Soviet collapse, and Moscow has played a role in peace efforts as part of the international quartet also including the United States, the United Nations and the European Union.
The presence of 1 million Russian-speaking immigrants, one-sixth of Israel's population and a powerful political force, has become an important factor in bilateral relations.
-------- mideast
Meeting of Iraq Neighbors
November 3, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DAMASCUS, Syria, Nov. 2 (AP) - The foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring countries met here on Sunday and condemned the bombings in Iraq and called on Iraqi officials to cooperate on border control.
The Iraqi Governing Council boycotted the meeting, apparently offended by last-minute invitations Iraq's foreign minister called vague.
The neighbors did not directly address pleas from within Iraq that they stop fighters from crossing into Iraq. The council had wanted to demand an end to cross-border infiltration and to demand information on Saddam Hussein loyalists who may be hiding in neighboring countries.
--------
Arabs Celebrate Strikes on U.S. in Iraq
November 3, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Arabs-Iraq.html
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Across the Arab world, strikes like the deadly downing of a U.S. helicopter are applauded by many as resistance to occupation and proof that Iraqis were not completely humiliated by the ease of the U.S.-led victory over Saddam Hussein.
The reaction is not surprising given prewar opposition among many Arabs to the invasion of Iraq. At a meeting in Damascus Sunday, foreign ministers from countries bordering Iraq and others in the region repeated calls on the United States to restore order in Iraq.
In Egypt, U.S. Ambassador C. David Welch has accused Egyptian commentators of spending too much time criticizing the United States and too little exploring how Iraqis might benefit from the fall of Saddam. Egyptian journalists responded by declaring a boycott of Welch.
``Iraq is now building the glory of the (Arab) community,'' Mustafa Bakri, editor-in-chief of the Egyptian weekly Al-Osboa, wrote Sunday, referring to the resistance.
Samir Ragab, editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gomhouria, lauded the Iraqis in his column for fighting back.
``Every citizen who lives in Iraq, be they Baathist or anti-Baathist, whether they support or oppose Saddam, will stand up and shout at the top of his lungs: `We will chase the Americans and their followers until they leave our home ashamed and defeated.'''
In Saudi Arabia, Al-Watan newspaper said last week that U.S. war planners did not foresee that although ``the Iraqi people hated Saddam Hussein, they also hate having a foreign presence on their land.''
``Even though such attacks are not welcomed because they took innocent Iraqi souls, they have, however, delivered a strong message to decision-makers in the White House that they are no longer in control of security in Iraq, and that the victory in the classic war does not mean total control over Iraq,'' Al-Watan said.
The comments followed one of the bloodiest weeks in Iraq. On Oct. 26, ground-fired rockets slammed into a Baghdad hotel housing hundreds of staffers for the coalition administration, killing one person. The next day, three dozen people were killed in a series of suicide bombings in Baghdad that devastated the international Red Cross headquarters and four Iraqi police stations.
Sunday was the deadliest day for American troops in their six-month occupation of Iraq, with a U.S. Chinook helicopter hit by a missile and crashing west of Baghdad. At least 16 soldiers were killed and more than 20 wounded.
Iraqi villagers displayed charred pieces of wreckage like trophies to reporters and in nearby Fallujah, center of opposition to the Americans, townspeople celebrated on the streets.
Some Arab observers are disturbed to see international aid workers and Iraqis attacked along with the Americans.
Under the headline: ``More than a crime: a political mistake!'' Talal Salman, publisher of Lebanon's As-Safir newspaper, urged Iraqis to choose their targets carefully after the Red Cross attack.
``There is a huge difference between the bombing which targeted a hotel known to be the base for occupation officials and their followers, and the crimes of mass murder that took place ... against the Red Cross and Iraqi police stations and groups of Iraqi citizens,'' Salman wrote. ``Precision in specifying the target is the sharpest resistance weapon.''
The Emirates' Gulf News said attacks that do not target coalition forces cannot be called resistance.
``To attack humanitarian organizations, which are trying to help Iraq recover, is an exercise in trying to create terror and confusion, with purely destructive intent,'' the newspaper said. ``These attacks will not help Iraq, and will not solve the country's political future. They should stop.''
-------- nato
NATO commander says rapid reaction force is model for future
BERLIN (AFP)
Nov 03, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031103182851.fril4tq5.html
The NATO rapid reaction force must serve as a model for the future of the transatlantic alliance, NATO's supreme commander said Monday.
"The NATO response force is the clear vehicle for NATO's military transformation in the 21st century," US General James Jones said at a two-day defence conference in Berlin.
Jones said the alliance must implement "a tiered response" to security crises around the world with a rapid deployment in as quickly as five days in some cases.
He said the alliance needed to be capable of deploying troops rapidly and for weeks or months at a time, and that NATO had to develop standards for the admission of new states into the reaction force.
But he warned that two "cancers" were compromising the alliance's effectiveness: a discrepancy between the planning phase for military deployment and the way it was finally carried out; and the issue of national caveats, under which countries impose conditions on the use of their troops.
"We have got to go beyond the point where commanders spend most of their time trying to work out what they cannot do instead of what they can do," he said.
Jones insisted that NATO "remains the best and ultimate coalition of the willing and we should keep it that way."
-------- spies
Seized Intelligence Files Spur U.S. Investigations
By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 3, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54942-2003Nov2?language=printer
BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 -- The CIA has seized an extensive cache of files from the former Iraqi Intelligence Service that is spurring U.S. investigations of weapons procurement networks and agents of influence who took money from the government of Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. officials familiar with the records.
The Iraqi files are "almost as much as the Stasi files," said a senior U.S. official, referring to the vast archives of the former East German intelligence service seized after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
The records would stretch 91/2 miles if laid end to end, the officials said. They contain not only the names of nearly every Iraqi intelligence officer, but also the names of their paid foreign agents, written agent reports, evaluations of agent credentials, and documentary evidence of payments made to buy influence in the Arab world and elsewhere, the officials said.
The officials declined to name individuals who they believe received funds or to name the home countries of the alleged recipients. One official said the recipients held high-ranking positions and worked both in Arab countries and in other regions. A second official said the payments were the subjects of "active investigations" by U.S. government agencies.
The recipients of the Iraqi funds were described by U.S. officials not as formal intelligence agents, but as prominent personalities and political figures who accepted money from Iraq as they defended Hussein publicly or pressed his causes.
CIA officers and Pentagon intelligence specialists have been poring through the files from the Iraqi Intelligence Service and the notorious Special Security Organization in part because they see the services as central to Hussein's clandestine efforts to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraq Survey Group, the CIA-supervised body appointed by President Bush to lead the hunt for special weapons, hopes its searches for fugitive officers from the Iraqi security services may also produce breakthroughs in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
In the meantime, as they travel on site visits and conduct interviews, survey group teams increasingly are falling under hostile, professional surveillance and ambush attempts, according to officials involved in the weapons searches.
-------- us
Corps Voters
For over two decades, the bond between the GOP and the U.S. military has been getting stronger.
Since the invasion of Iraq, that may be changing.
By Benjamin Wallace-Wells
Washington Monthly
November 3, 2003
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.wallace-wells.html
The Jacksonville unit of the North Carolina National Guard held its mobilization ceremony on the lawn of the local armory during an unseasonably chilly day last month, and even the town cut-up came, a shambolic, gray bearded, big bellied man. He was wearing a neck brace so loosely fashioned that it looked less like a helpful medical device than a prop from a high-school play, and at 10 o'clock on this soberingly cold morning, he seemed drunk. Five minutes before the ceremony began, he lurched past the microphone: "Don't worry," he called out to the crowd, "I'm not the guy who's speaking." Most of the crowd giggled nervously, embarrassed for him. The company, 120 men standing in columns behind four sergeants, listened to speeches from a half-dozen local dignitaries about the importance of their mission, the pride the community had in them. Then a member of the company stepped up to the microphone with a black acoustic guitar and sang "I'm Proud to be an American" in a high, country-styled voice.
There's a line in the chorus that goes "I gladly stand up next to you/ and defend her still today," and when the singer hit "stand up" for the first time, the soldiers stiffened to attention. On the second chorus, the officers and dignitaries who had addressed the soldiers stood up, as one. The third time through, the crowd itself, a ragtag bunch that had come in run-down pickups and Trans Ams, stood up together, with military precision, with no prompting. I looked over at the town cut-up; his fingers were clutching his temples, and he was bawling his eyes out, loudly and unabashedly. These are deep bonds. In an all-volunteer army buttressed by a volunteer reserve, soldiers don't fight simply for abstractions. When soldiers find themselves in tough spots, they tend to find solace and vigor in the conviction that they are fighting not just for their president or vague notions of patriotic duty, but for specific civilians they know from their hometowns, and that in battle they are defending the freedoms of the people they grew up with. The American military is composed of thousands of men and women who have made these deeply personal, I-and-thou contracts with their friends and families: The soldiers promise to die, if needed, to defend your freedoms, and the civilians promise to honor them.
In this section of coastal Carolina, fewer than 30 miles from the Army's Fort Bragg, the Marines' Camp Lejeune, and the Air Force's Seymour Johnson Base, these promises are made more frequently and taken more seriously than in most places around America. It is the presence of the military and their willingness to sacrifice that give this town its sense of its own values, that it is more than just another section of sprawling, strip-malled blacktop. It gives citizens the sense that everything they do to support the troops has deep import. In this deeply Southern town, a visitor comes across the unlikely sight of a white grandmother volunteering to pay for the meals of a couple of off-duty black enlisted men who are eating in the local Bojangles fried chicken joint. At the mobilization ceremony I attended, an old man with a veteran's cap told his grandson importantly, "Four companies in a battalion, four battalions in a regiment." And a sergeant acting as usher asked a lanky young man whether he was here with any families or friends with whom he wanted to sit, but the young man said no, "Just here to support."
Six months ago, that patriotic support extended to President Bush and the Republican Party. This section of coastal Carolina is staunch GOP territory, with Rush Limbaugh on the radio and flag decals--American mostly, but a few confederate--on the back of the pick-up trucks. "That's the recent tradition here--being a patriot and supporting the military means being a Republican," says Lockwood Phillips, publisher of the Jacksonville Daily News and conservative host of the local political call-in show. The Third Congressional District, which includes Jacksonville, gave President Bush a 23-percent margin over Al Gore in 2000, and even favored Bob Dole over Bill Clinton by 15 percent in 1996. Six months ago, you simply didn't hear anything against Bush in Jacksonville, and if people had doubts about the war in Iraq, they kept them to themselves. But these attitudes have begun to change. The local newspaper's editorial board, which has been vocally pro-Bush throughout his administration, ran an editorial at the beginning of October criticizing the administration's policies on Iraq, and suggesting that the campaign could end in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Soldiers' wives ask reporters why their husbands are still being sent off to Iraq, to face car bombs and chaos, months after the president said the war was over. Returned reservists, who saw their return dates pushed back again and again while they sat in a chaotic war zone, call the same radio station to say they didn't sign up for this sort of treatment, and they won't be reenlisting. If pressed, most people you talk to around here still say they'll support Bush. But their faith in him, and the GOP powers in Washington, has been rattled. "I'm a strong Republican, but the Republicans have been the problem; we've been treated like second-class citizens," a retired Vietnam Marine helicopter gunnery sergeant named Don Beaver told me in North Carolina. Elsie P. Smith, the town's Republican mayor, says: "There's a few people who have become very hostile [towards the Bush administration]. . . the longer the war goes on, the more of that subtle shift you're going to see."
This subtle distancing of Republicans from Bush has begun to show up, locally and nationally, even among those conservative politicians who spent this administration's first two years hugging the president as if their political future depended solely on the strength of their grip. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr, (R-N.C.), Jacksonville's man in Congress, has joined other pro-military conservatives in stepping out of line with House leaders and criticizing the administration's policies towards veterans; Jones has said the administration treats vets like "second-class citizens." Conservative Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) led vocal Republican opposition to the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq in September, a move which found conservative allies from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). House majority whip Roy Blount (R-Mo.) has taken the administration to task over its troop-rotation policies.
A similar mood is emerging in small, patriotic towns around the country. According to a study conducted in mid-October by Stars and Stripes, half of American soldiers in-country say their units have low morale, that they were insufficiently trained, and that they won't reenlist. The ubiquity of email in Iraq means that husbands, wives, families, and friends of these troops have a mainline to these gripes, and to the day-to-day grit and threat of combat, that they haven't had in previous wars. Holly Rossi, whose husband, Rob, is an Army reserve engineer out of Londonderry, N.H., has watched the Family Support Group for his unit, wives who started the war as staunch pro-Bush patriots, come to doubt the political mission. "A lot of people feel tugged. We have built our lives around ... patriotism no matter what, but we're feeling very abandoned." Charles Carter, a retired Naval chief petty officer, told Knight Ridder: "I will vote non-Republican in a heartbeat if it continues as is."
Carter's opinion is representative. While the GOP hasn't lost the military vote, if present trends continue, it could see substantial defections in one of its core constituencies. Even small numbers can swing an election. Almost all observers concede that heavily Republican overseas ballots, with much of the margin coming from military personnel, handed Florida, and the presidency, to Bush in 2000. Some of the most closely contested states in the last election have the most dense populations of military voters: Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, Nevada. But beyond the military voter is an even larger electoral bloc: tens of millions of "national security voters," who are not themselves necessarily connected to the military, but who judge a president's capacity to defend the country by how well he treats the troops, and by how much the troops support him.
The administration, armed with a new U.N. mandate, has recently begun a new effort to solicit money and troops from other nations, while maintaining that it is not willing to turn over control of Iraq. Unless these efforts are successful enough to permit the administration to withdraw large numbers of troops and unburden itself of the financial responsibility for reconstruction, the White House remains in an unenviable position. To quell the uproar among its own ranks, the administration will be strongly tempted to pull back troops and slight investment in Iraq. But that will almost certainly undermine the administration's stated policy of democratizing Iraq and, through it, the region. If, on the other hand, the White House chooses to maintain high levels of aid and manpower in Iraq, it risks fracturing the GOP and losing the 2004 election. Either way, the searing experience of young soldiers in Iraq today will likely have profound effects in coming years on the GOP's foreign policy and on the military's attitude toward civilian authority.
Voting right
Trying to suss out the voting patterns of the military, and the ways in which their professional frustrations and satisfactions spill over into politics, has always been a murky, Kremlinology-like game. The Department of Defense, which since 1955 has had an office designed to promote voting among the military and track participation rates, does not keep statistics on how many soldiers vote Democrat or Republican, though it does know that they vote at slightly higher rates than average Americans. And ever since shortly after World War II, when academics first became numerous and frisky enough to want to poll soldiers, there have been laws making it illegal to do so. Scholars who study the politics of the military rely on what scraps of data they can assemble, and then, squinting, try to understand a pattern. They look at surveys of the political attitudes of high school seniors, cross-referenced by whether the students plan to go on to college, to work, or to the military. They note those national opinion surveys which ask participants whether or not they are veterans. They rely on the non-political surveys of the social and cultural attitudes of the military. They scan absentee-ballot returns in search of discernible patterns of military voting. Mostly, they talk to soldiers in the field and develop, over the course of their careers, anecdote-driven, rough senses of how soldiers are likely to vote. But the consensus view seems to be that the military as a whole votes Republican by a margin of slightly less than 2-to-1, with enlisted men and women Republican by 3-to-2, and Republicans outnumbering Democrats among officers by 8-to-1. (Thankfully for Democratic partisans, there are 15 times as many enlisted men as officers). Scholars know even less about how the military has voted in the past. But they have established a broad narrative of the demographics and shifting historical cultures of the military that helps explain its evolution as a political entity.
For the first half of the 20th century, the American military followed a "surge-and-decline" model of military staffing; in times of crisis, young men would be summoned through the draft, quickly trained, and sent to war, and then would be sent home when the war was over. But after World War II, the constant specter of a fight with the Soviet Union demanded a more comprehensive battle force. Military planners decided to keep a large enough corps of active officers to provide the shell of a military whose enlisted ranks could then be filled by a draft in the case of war: The men, the thinking went, would then at least have capable leaders.
In these early days, soldiers were kept nonpartisan by two institutions: the officer corps and the draft. In the emergent military academies and staff colleges that had been developed to continually train this new, permanent officer class, students were taught the George C. Marshall credo of military non-partisanship, and, historians say, it took hold. (Marshall, famously, had argued that soldiers should not vote or support politicians or parties because it would compromise their ability to do their jobs; though that standard has lapsed in today's military, soldiers still retain a distaste for officers they see as overtly political.) Then, too, the enlisted army was, when it swelled in times of war, comprised of draftees, and consequently was diverse enough to reflect the broadest political leanings of its generation. Historians think that during World War II, when most soldiers had grown up during the Roosevelt '30s, the military was more Democratic than Republican. By the early '60s, the ranks reflected the conservatism of the 1950s. Vietnam made the military even more conservative. First, the all-volunteer military established by the 1973 abolition of the draft gave the troops a different demographic cast. They were disproportionately Southern, rural, poor, and morally traditional-the cultural base which would drive Nixon's Southern Majority and, 30 years later, Red America. Second, and perhaps more importantly, scholars say, men who had fought in Vietnam came out of that era with the sharp sense that they had been abandoned by American liberals, and to a lesser extent by the nation as a whole. A profound cultural divide appeared to develop between civilians and the military, two institutions with different sets of values. The distinction served, social scientists say, to help sharpen the soldiers' conservatism.
Through the 1970s, this cultural conservatism was kept from becoming overtly partisan in part because the military was an interest group: Soldiers wanted more pay and better, newer equipment, and so needed to negotiate both with Republicans and with the Democrats who controlled Congress. The Republicans, moreover, still had a strong fiscal conservative wing, which made them leery of outsized defense spending, and the Democrats still had a strong defense hawk wing, led by Washington Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, which made them more amenable to big outlays.
But Ronald Reagan's presidency, accompanied by dovish realignments within the Democratic party, shattered this construct. Reagan's program of massive defense spending, along with his rhetorical massaging of the military's damaged, wound-licking ego, "gave the military back the respect it felt had been stripped from it by liberals after Vietnam," said David Segal of the University of Maryland, a sociologist who studies the American military. Soldiers became not only more Republican, but also more overtly political: For the first time, in 1988, a retired four-star general publicly endorsed George H. W. Bush for president, the sort of public demonstration of partisanship that would have been unimaginable two decades before.
Bill Clinton's presidency galvanized the base even more strongly. "There was a lot of anger towards the administration," said Wade Sanders, who served as deputy assistant undersecretary of the Navy from '93 to '98. Sanders says that even to military administration higher-ups like him, "it was clear that with the exception of [defense secretary] Bill Perry, nobody we dealt with understood the soldiers or were interested in making the services work better--they had fear of us, but no respect." The pattern of base closings initiated during the Clinton administration as part of the post-Cold War draw-down ended up relocating much of the nation's fighting forces to the South and the Southwest. This not only reinforced the military's southern cast, but meant that the local congressmen who would fight most strongly for the people on the military bases were Republicans.
It was during the mid-1990s, sparked by the rather overt and sometimes borderline disloyal antagonism members of the officer corps showed for the commander-in-chief, that clued-in academics and journalists began to worry about the "civil-military divide." Their thesis was that the nation's soldiers, since Vietnam, had been drifting in a profoundly right-wing direction, and now found themselves out of step with the more liberal values of the rest of the country. Thomas E. Ricks, a Washington Post reporter then with The Wall Street Journal, wrote a remarkable journalistic account of this divide in The Atlantic Monthly in '97, which found that soldiers tended to find civilians undisciplined, immoral, unpatriotic, and selfish. This divide, Ricks and others worried, was leading to a military that was increasingly unwieldy, and might grow impossible for civilians to really control.
Mind the gap
But when the first comprehensive academic study of the topic was published in 1999, it found that the divide was not as dramatic as had been assumed--a conclusion the study's lead author, Duke political scientist Peter Feaver, had not expected. He and his co-authors extensively polled soldiers on social issues and attitudes and found them "very much in line with what most of the country believed." But soldiers did differ profoundly from a group that the survey's authors classed as "cultural elites"--mostly liberal city-dwellers, people like the Clintons--and the soldiers believed their values, in some crucial ways, to be directly opposed to elite values. Soldiers, the study found, fitted firmly within the conservative end of the American mainstream.
One important moderating influence, sociologists think, has been the presence of large numbers of uniformed African Americans and, later, Hispanics and women. In 1973, when the brass tried to figure out how to staff a volunteer force, they chose to focus their recruiting efforts in large cities, where the most potential enlistees lived. By the mid-'80s, the military was the one place in America "where blacks regularly commanded whites," sociologist Charles Moskos wrote in 1984, and its reputation for giving minorities a fair shake drew increasing numbers of blacks, Hispanics, and women. Blacks now comprise almost a quarter of the military, women are nearly 15 percent, and Hispanics are more than 9 percent. The blacks, Hispanics, and women in the military are less liberal and Democratic than blacks, Hispanics, and women in the general population, but they are also less conservative and Republican than white men in the Armed Forces.
But the conservative base has remained the dominant political feature of the military, as the 2000 election showed. Agitated after eight years of the Clinton administration, enlisted men, officers, and veterans turned out strongly for Bush. George W. Bush found himself endorsed by more than 80 retired senior military officers--the sort of public, partisan support that would have been unthinkable 20 years earlier. There was a broad sense at all levels of the services, says Donald Vandergriff, an army major and a professor at Georgetown, that Bush "understood the military, valued it, that he would be their guy."
Flag poll
But there were signs of trouble from the beginning. From his first weeks in office, Rumsfeld initiated a series of semi-secret studies, as he prepared to revamp the entire military, from the way it deployed soldiers to the technologies it chose to purchase to the role of the reserves. By early May '01, Gordon Sullivan, the former Army chief of staff, sent an email to influential military personnel and thinkers in Washington sharply criticizing Rumsfeld's project; the note was published in National Journal, The Washington Post, and other publications, which took Sullivan's remarks as proxy for the opinions of a senior officer corps prohibited by law from speaking out themselves. "My sensing," Sullivan wrote, "is the Army will suffer greatly because of flawed assumptions and theories." Other voices quickly joined Sullivan's: "[Rumsfeld has] blown off the Hill, he's blown off the senior leaders in the military, and he's blown off the media," Thomas Donnelly, then a defense expert at William Kristol's neoconservative think-tank Project for the New American Century, told the Post.
But these rumblings were mostly confined to the senior level of the officer corps, those people who were directly involved in the creation of military policy. They were also particularly concentrated in the Army, the service branch that Rumsfeld had targeted for most dramatic reform. And even those gripes stopped, for the most part, after September 11, when Rumsfeld played what for most in the military was a hero's role during the attack on the Pentagon. He had been on the opposite side of the building when the hijacked plane crashed into the south side, and ran to the spot of the crash to help out those who had been hurt. The surge of patriotism and common purpose after September 11 was particularly strong within the military, and it quieted those officers who had been upset earlier.
Still, there was a persistent, if muted, sense among many in the senior levels of the officer corps that Rumsfeld's transformation of the military might be hasty and ill-considered. This opposition coalesced in the buildup to the Iraq war, and became particularly pointed after Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, pooh-poohed Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's testimony before Congress that the occupation of Iraq would require "hundreds of thousands of troops;" Shinseki, not Wolfowitz, turned out to be right. There was great skepticism among many officers that Iraq was the right "next target" in the war on terrorism, and an emerging doubt that Rumsfeld and his lieutenants really knew what they were do-ing. But as the troops deployed, a sense of mission took over, and much of the grumbling stopped. Only in the aftermath of the conquest did there emerge a barely contained fury.
The military's gripes with the administration didn't grow widespread until after we'd conquered Iraq; the problems with planning, previously a matter of policy debate for top-level officers, translated into unpleasant realities for soldiers in the field. Many officers have become disenchanted with the continuing chaos in Iraq, and with the lengthening of in-country stays and the changing rotation schedules. "What I've seen throughout the officer corps is a real pendulum swing over the last three or four months, from being pro-Bush to anti-Bush," Vandergriff said. "The officers at the middle levels, who are traditionally the most Republican, are frustrated ... that there's no exit strategy," and worry that "this conflict could just drag on and on." Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had been friendly enough with the Bush administration that he was sent last year as the president's special emissary to the Israelis and Palestinians, last month called the administration's policy a "brain fart." Says Richard Kohn, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina and a scholar of the military: "It is my belief that the Iraq war may be what forces the officer corps to return to the old George C. Marshall model of non-partisanship."
Corps voters
Discontented enlisted men and women have a separate set of provocations, which have been aired not only through the embedded media, but through weblogs updated and emails sent by soldiers in-country. Chief among these complaints is a widespread criticism that the military has fought this war with too few troops. The war in Iraq is already brutal enough day-to-day: Soldiers spend their days in hundred-plus degree heat, being shot at, peering anxiously into the distance, trying to pick out anyone likely to drive through a barricade with a car stuffed with explosives or whip a rifle out from under his robes and start shooting. They are facing an enemy who is not easily identifiable; when they are too aggressive, they are criticized by the press, and when they are not aggressive enough, they are reprimanded by their superiors, if they don't end up dead. In a chaotic situation like this, soldiers in-country live for the date on which they can return stateside. But many of them have seen that date pushed back, and then pushed back again, and then pushed back again. For a soldier, accustomed to regular, long-planned-for rotations, this makes the operation seem overwhelmingly open-ended-and is crushing to morale. "They feel overused, and under-appreciated, particularly in the enlisted ranks," Wilson said. Christopher Parker, a former Army captain and a political scientist at the University of California-Santa Barbara, put it to me more bluntly: "What we're seeing now is almost unprecedented, this widespread sense among people in the military that they're being jacked around."
Smaller slights have taken their toll, too. Those troops who have stayed in Iraq have been doing jobs that they have not been trained to do--most notably, combat units are doing peacekeeping. Just weeks after Condoleezza Rice promised that American troops would not be used to "escort Iraqi kids to kindergarten," newspaper photographs showed that they were doing exactly that. When Special Forces needed to be moved from Afghanistan to Iraq this summer, they were replaced by reservists who had been trained to speak Spanish and Russian. "There's a sense from everyone I talk to, even down at the unit level, that whoever planned this war simply had no idea what we were getting into," a retired Army captain told me.
Troops have been charged a dollar a minute to call home, newspapers have reported, and soldiers have to buy calling cards from Iraqi kiosks. Tens of thousands of troops have been sent to Iraq with flak jackets from the Vietnam era which, unlike the modern Kevlar, can't stop rounds from the Kalashnikov rifles typically fired by the Iraqi enemy. The Pentagon, looking to trim costs last spring, floated a plan to eliminate the pay benefits soldiers got for serving in so-called "hostile areas"; after a loud outcry from the ranks, they killed the plan. Some injured reservists were billed for food they were served while in the hospital. And veterans' groups are up in arms over the concurrent receipt issue, a military regulation which mandates that no retired soldier receiving his pension from the Department of Defense can also qualify for disability. As veterans' groups have pointed out, retired soldiers (who have more legitimate per capita disability claims than any other group of federal workers) are the only group of employees in the civil service who are barred from drawing simultaneous pensions and disability payments. The regulation has been in place for half a century, but veterans' groups had begun pushing aggressively for a regulation change in the last years of the Clinton administration, and there was a widespread expectation that Bush would reward the vets for having supported him so robustly in the election. "There are six hundred thousand disabled veterans, and they are furious," Joseph Galloway, Knight Ridder's esteemed military reporter, told me.
Reservists may be the tipping point. The reserves have been summoned nine times in the last 12 years, to meet American obligations around the world, after having previously been summoned only six times since World War II. Reservists who have been sent to Iraq recently have found themselves vastly under-equipped. Things have gone so badly for the reservists that many senior officers, like Helmly, expect a staffing crisis when the current tours are up.
Values and weathervanes
The effect of all of this, says Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and professor of political science at Boston University, is that "the soldier vote and the pro-military vote are in play." In 2004, says Feaver, the military sociologist at Duke, "there is the potential for these forces which have always pushed towards the Republicans to be neutralized, or even pushing towards the Democrats."
If these frustrations spill over into politics in the next election, they could profoundly shift the structural underpinnings of the current nearly 50-50 American split. This country has 1.4 million active duty soldiers, and 1.2 million reserves. It also has 26.4 million veterans, nearly 13 percent of the nation's adult population. Politicians and activists involved in veterans affairs take it as a truism that a defining feature of veterans' politics is their perception of how the active military is being treated, and used. Subtle shifts in the way that massive population votes could obviously have far-reaching impacts in national politics.
A reassignment of less than two-hundredths of 1 percent in the military vote to the Democrats from the Republicans in Florida in 2000 would have moved that state to the Democratic column, and a similar shift of less than 5 percent in the veteran vote alone would have given Arkansas, Nevada, and New Hampshire's electoral votes to Gore, not Bush. And Pennsylvania and Ohio, expected to be crucial swing states in the next presidential election, each have more than a million veteran voters.
But the military and veterans' communities don't simply deliver their own votes. All over America, voters look to the military as a sort of weathervane--an institution whose values civilians trust and want politicians to support. This is particularly true of working-class white swing voters, many of whom have a soldier in their family or know someone who does. The attachment to the military is even more potent among certain occupations-police, firefighters, engineers--whose ranks are heavily represented in the reserves. The policemen, firemen, and engineers who stay at home look across the room each day at the empty desks of their colleagues fighting in the Iraqi theater. They check email each day for personal dispatches from the front lines. They drop off food for the left-behind families.
Then there are those who are not personally connected to the military, but for whom honor of the military and the military's opinion acts as a moral barometer, revealing which politicians have the right values and which don't. The military is a deeply trusted and honored institution in American life-far more important than the media, politicians, or teachers. To respect the military doesn't simply require the sort of offhand pieties that liberal politicians frequently toss at it, but a deeply felt sense of belonging, a sense that the military embodies values which most of the country believes in. Treatment of the military consequently acts as an indicator for tens of millions of Americans who aren't enlisted of how seriously a party, administration, or politician takes the nation's security, and how competent he is to defend it. Political scientists call these people national security voters. "[They] are not so minutely interested in issues like health care for the military or how many reserves are in Iraq at one time," said Feaver. "These people rely heavily on general impressions of whether a particular politician or administration is good for the military or bad for the military. What should really worry the Republicans is the potential for all of these problems you hear about to add up to an impression for the national security voter that the Republicans may not be so good for the military."
The current rough balance in national politics between Democrats and Republicans is due in large part to a delicate calibration between a Democratic advantage on domestic issues and a Republican edge on national security. "Those two things determine the country's political structure; when they cancel each other out, then other issues, like health care, education, or social issues become important, but that pretty much only happens when the economy and national security are not decisive," says John Aldrich, a political scientist at Duke University. The Republicans have maintained an advantage of between 15 and 20 points on national security for the last 20 years, since Ronald Reagan's massive defense spending bills, an advantage which right now equals the Democratic advantage on the economy. The calibrations are so precise that minute shifts matter. The great political triumph of Bill Clinton's presidency was to move the Democratic advantage on the economy by between two and three points; this slight shift, Aldrich and other political scientists say, boosted him to sweeping reelection victory in 1996, and enabled his party to improve their congressional advance in 1998, an historic achievement for the party of a second-term president. What has some Republicans scared is the specter of a similar shift, numerically small but profound, that dents the GOP's advantage on national security and threatens their slim electoral majority. This is the kind of vulnerability that could change the structure of American politics.
Imperial anachronism
But the current discontent among troops will reverberate far beyond the next election. "Failed wars are momentous occasions in any nation's history," observes William Lind, Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation. And while the ultimate success or failure of the current war has yet to be determined, Lind notes that "the consequences of what is happening in Iraq are likely to be complex and profound." The effects of military failure in Vietnam lasted for decades, as young officers who served in the rice paddies rose in the ranks, eventually translating their searing experiences into new politics (a heightened distrust of liberals) and new policy (the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force). Similarly, those young officers currently coping with the lethal chaos of the Sunni triangle will forever remember the false assumptions and outright deceptions that put them in that position. And while it is impossible to know exactly what their long-term reactions will be, two possibilities come to mind. First, having strongly supported the GOP, only to watch some of its leaders dismiss their concerns, many members of the uniformed military-especially in the Army-may conclude that it is a mistake to bestow their loyalties on to any one party. Second, having allowed Bush administration officials to quash their advice and analysis, military leaders may decide that next time around, they will be less deferential to policymakers. In other words, the military may become both less partisan and less respectful of civilian authority-or at least more willing to challenge that authority when it seems warranted.
Similar reverberations are likely to alter the Republican Party's conduct of foreign policy. The GOP has never been a foreign-policy monolith. Its thinkers span a broad spectrum, from patriotic isolationists like Pat Buchanan, to go-it-alone interventionists like Rumsfeld and Cheney, to more moderate figures like Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who value of institutions like the United Nations. If there was a majority foreign-policy position among conservative voters and activists before 9/11, it tended to be closest to the Buchananite wing. Indeed, for the first few months of George W. Bush's presidency, his foreign policy was cautious, minimalist, and incited little opposition. But September 11 empowered the administration's unilateral interventionist wing, and pushed isolationists and multilateralists to the sidelines. The White House began to adopt policies that matched the strategic disposition that such officials as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz had had all along: a belief in the necessity of aggressive preventative action abroad, and a conviction that international institutions held values which were at best inconsistent with, and at worst antithetical to, American principles and interest. Ever since September 11, Bush has taken most of his advice from "what is really a very, very narrow range of Republican opinion," says James M. Lindsay, vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a scholar of presidential foreign policy. Republicans (and Democrats) in Congress went along with the shift-in part, no doubt, from a sense that perhaps international politics had changed irrevocably and that the way Americans pursued their goals needed to change, too, but also because of the political pressures of the moment: It seemed foolhardy and unpatriotic to criticize a war president with 90 percent approval ratings. This state of affairs continued until the last few months, when the Bush administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction, a mounting death toll, and sticker shock over the bill in Iraq ripped open the old divisions. The unilateral interventionists still hold the reins of power within the GOP, largely because their champions dominate the West Wing and the Department of Defense. But their purchase on rank and file, Republicans especially among the military and national security voters, is slipping. That slippage will continue unless the Bush administration can secure enough international funds and troops so that the U.S. military presence can be scaled back without compromising the stability of Iraq. If these efforts fail, and if that failure contributes to Bush losing in '04, the unilateral interventionist wing will be disgraced. Power within the GOP will flow to the isolationists and multilateralists, respectively hampering or helping any Democrat who might win the presidency.
Six months ago, commentators of all ideological and strategic points of view were debating the merits, and potential form, of an American empire. But now, restive citizens are unhappy about the financial burdens of occupation, and soldiers are complaining to family and friends that they're sitting ducks and want out. The world-straddling, saber-rattling visions of the unilateral interventionists, who a few short months ago had Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang in their sights, now seem a little less like an imminent reality, and a little more like a bad dream.
--
Sidebar
The Compassion Gap
While I was in North Carolina, I spent two hours as a guest on the local political call-in show. I came on right after Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated program, and just before the local host interviewed Rush's brother, David Limbaugh, who has apparently written a book about liberals' war on Christianity. ("What the secularists don't want to admit," David Limbaugh told the host, "is that the monks kept learning alive throughout the Middle Ages.") The callers were all conservative, and no more than one personal relationship removed from the military (their husband, son, or co-worker had just left for Iraq, or they themselves had just come back. To a caller, they were upset with the way the war had been conducted. "The president keeps dragging these boys over there to be shot at; we don't know when it's going to end," one widow, from Morehead City, whose husband had been a veteran, told me. But she, and the other callers, had a near-sputtering, subarticulate hatred towards the Democrats - from Wesley Clark on left. "The Democrats are the ones who drew down the forces to begin with," Tony, a young ex-marine from Havelock, N.C., told me. "They have no respect for what we're trying to do."
Misusing the military is one thing; failing to respect it is a much more grave offense. If Democrats are to take advantage of the Republicans' vulnerability among national security voters in the 2004 Presidential election, they're going to have to learn to speak the language of the military, and communicate a passion for and empathy with the soldiers that few Democrats so far have managed. Another scene I saw at the mobilization ceremony in Jacksonville suggests the Democrats still have a long way to go.
The Wolverines had invited both North Carolina senators, Democrat John Edwards and Republican Elizabeth Dole, to address them as they were sent off to six months of training and 18 months of war, but both had prior engagements. They sent letters instead, and the mobilization ceremony's MC, a North Carolina National Guard lieutenant colonel named Tom Harris, read both aloud, Edwards's first. It was five short sentences long.
"I write to wish you well as you assume a vital role in our nation's continuing war against terrorism," Edwards wrote. North Carolina Guardsmen represented the "best our nation has to offer." Edwards offered his "deepest thanks to you and your loved ones for the courage you so readily display and the sacrifices you so willingly make."
Dole's, by contrast, was wonderful, touching, and personal. She talked about the "trials" the soldiers would go through, and how proud and worried the families would be. She discussed the experiences of her husband, fighting through the mountains of Italy in World War II She wrote empathetically about the difficulties that families would face, and employers, and how crucial their small sacrifice was to the larger, so important sacrifice the men in the guard would be making. She mentioned the places the men in this company came from by name, and reminded them how proud they had made those towns. When Colonel Harris finished reading Dole's letter, the two women on my left were crying, for the first time in the ceremony, and the older gentleman in front of me began to applaud, quietly, to himself.
Any Democrat in the crowd or among the Wolverines would have cringed at the contrast. These letters are an unglamorous staple of life in political offices in Washington; 27-year old junior staffers, not Edwards or Dole themselves, wrote them. But they reflected quite clearly what many, many retired officers told me last month: The Republican majority in the military community is due less to any specific policies than to a sense that they "get" what the military is all about, while the Democrats don't. Elizabeth Dole's letter, compassionate and personal, "got" the military. John Edwards's perfunctory, bland sending off, which could have been a fare-ye-well to recently assigned airport security guards, did not.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells is an editor of The Washington Monthly.
--------
Rumsfeld: No Need For More U.S. Troops
Iraqi Forces Are Filling Gap, He Says
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55016-2003Nov2.html
On the bloodiest day for the U.S. military in more than seven months, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld insisted yesterday that the Bush administration's plan to improve security in Iraq was on track, with no need for additional U.S. troops as Iraqis are quickly trained to fill any manpower gaps.
"In a long, hard war, we're going to have tragic days, as this is," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." "But they are necessary. They are part of a war that's difficult and complicated."
President Bush, visiting his ranch in Crawford, Tex., made no public appearances Sunday. A White House spokesman issued a statement of determination in response to the day's events -- the downing of an Army helicopter that left at least 16 dead, the killing of a U.S. soldier in a bomb attack in Baghdad and the deaths of two American civilian contractors in a roadside mine blast.
As a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed 51 percent of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, his Democratic rivals pressed their case that the administration has bungled postwar operations and has no strategy for ending U.S. involvement.
With yesterday's deaths, the total number of U.S. troops who have died in Iraq has increased to 379 -- almost two-thirds of them since Bush, standing in front of a banner declaring "mission accomplished," announced an end to major combat operations on May 1.
Blunting new calls from Capitol Hill to dispatch more U.S. troops, Rumsfeld said that "over 100,000" Iraqi forces had been trained to provide security and that the number would double by next September. Rumsfeld's number of Iraqi forces is 15,000 higher than numbers provided by the U.S. occupation authority and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in the past week, and it represents a 40 percent increase from administration estimates a month ago.
The administration has stressed a rapid "Iraqification" of the security situation as attacks against U.S. targets have dramatically increased in recent weeks. But, paradoxically, the attacks appear to be increasing in sophistication and accuracy as the administration asserts that more of the security is being turned over to Iraqis.
The U.S. military has lost CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters before, including one shot down by machine gun fire in Afghanistan. But this may be the first time a Chinook -- or any other U.S. military aircraft -- has been taken out by a handheld surface-to-air missile.
Two influential senators said yesterday the answer may be an increase in U.S. forces. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "in the short term, we may need more American forces in there while we're training these people up." He said the administration also needed to enlist European allies by giving them a greater say in the postwar enterprise. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the committee chairman, echoed Biden's comments on the same program.
But Rumsfeld said that although the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has declined from 150,000 to 130,000, "the total number of the security forces in the country has been going up steadily" because the number of forces contributed by other countries has remained steady at 30,000 and the number of Iraqi forces has "gone from zero on May 1st up to over 100,000 today."
Rumsfeld said "it's the totality of those three that needs to go up, and it is going up steadily. And there has not been a need for additional U.S. forces."
The administration has not explained why its estimate of the number of Iraqi forces has risen so rapidly. On Oct. 9, L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, told a news conference in Baghdad that 60,000 Iraqis were providing security to their country. On Thursday, about three weeks later, Rice told foreign reporters the overall number was "over 85,000 and growing." That same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told an audience at Georgetown University the figure was "some 80,000 to 90,000."
On Saturday, the day before Rumsfeld said there were more than 100,000, a senior official in the occupation authority provided a figure of nearly 85,000, which included 50,000 police, 20,000 in the facility protection service, 7,800 in the civil defense corps, 5,000 border guards and 1,400 in a new Iraqi army.
Democratic presidential candidates, while faulting the administration's strategy, generally offered restrained statements about the large loss of life. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), appearing on "Face the Nation," said it was clear "we cannot solve this problem alone" and urged Bush to meet with foreign leaders, "treat them with respect and . . . get the help that we should get from our friends."
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean called the crash "a terrible tragedy" and said the perpetrators "must be brought to justice," but he said nothing about administration policy. A Dean adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity and reflecting the private views of several other campaigns, said the candidates "can be critical tomorrow" but did not want to immediately politicize a tragedy. "By turning on the television, people can see that these attacks have become more sophisticated," the adviser said. "They don't need Howard Dean to tell them that."
Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) was more critical, issuing a statement reflecting his view that the larger problem in Iraq is anti-Americanism and that the occupation will be a failure as long as it has such an overwhelmingly American face. Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former NATO supreme allied commander, said he and his wife, Gert, "hope that all our troops will be out of harm's way as soon as possible."
Aides said Bush had no plans to appear in public before he leaves the ranch for seven hours today to travel to Birmingham to raise money for his reelection campaign and speak about the economy. The White House issued a statement, in the name of a spokesman, invoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and pledging that the United States "will prevail in this critical front in the war on terror, because the stakes are too high to do anything less." The statement did not mention the Chinook crash, but included a general statement of gratitude to "the brave men and women in the military and elsewhere" who make sacrifices to make the world safer.
Just three weeks ago, White House officials had mounted a public relations offensive in which Bush and his senior aides accused news organizations of underplaying progress in Iraq, with Bush denigrating "the filter" of national networks and newspapers. But nearly every day since then, a new attack in Iraq has made that strategy harder to pursue. During a southern swing on Saturday, Bush largely ignored the death toll in Iraq, referring specifically to Iraq only once in four speeches totaling 72 minutes.
Bush made an adjustment to his stump speech on Saturday that appeared to reflect concern about the mounting casualties and falling troop morale. He was addressing Republican rallies ahead of Tuesday's gubernatorial races in Kentucky and Mississippi, and three of the four speeches included a message urging families to convey Bush's thanks to relatives in the military. In London, Ky., he said, "When I came into office, morale in the U.S. military was beginning to suffer, so we increased the defense budget."
Allen reported from Crawford. Staff writer Walter Pincus in Washington and correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Baghdad contributed to this report.
-------
Investigators Check Helicopter's Defenses
November 3, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-US-Air.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Among the questions that investigators are asking about the lethal shoot-down of an Army Chinook helicopter in Iraq is whether the chopper used the standard defenses against surface-to-air weapons, such as flares designed to deceive a heat-seeking missile.
Details of circumstances in which the dual-rotor CH-47D Chinook was shot out of the sky over central Iraq on Sunday, killing 16 soldiers and injuring 20, were incomplete Monday.
An Army spokesman at the Pentagon, Maj. Gary Tallman, said all CH-47D helicopters are equipped with missile defense systems, but it was not clear what defensive measures were taken in this case.
The question is important because hundreds of U.S. airplanes and helicopters move troops and supplies around Iraq daily, all inherently vulnerable to the kind of missile that destroyed the Chinook. In practical terms, there is no way to stop using air transport to move troops and equipment around Iraq, even in the most hostile territory north and west of Baghdad, officials said.
A Chinook normally flies with a crew of three and up to 33 passengers, making it an efficient means of transporting troops as well as equipment and supplies around the battlefield. Smaller Black Hawk helicopters as well as Air Force C-130 cargo planes also are used daily.
C-130 and C-17 transports have flare and chaff dispensers as well as radar warning and other defensive systems, and they can fly at altitudes well beyond the range of some anti-aircraft missiles. The threat to planes is enough, however, to have delayed the reopening of Baghdad International Airport to commercial flights, even though the airport has been ready for commercial operations since mid-summer.
Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said there are uncounted numbers of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles in Iraq beyond the control of the U.S. occupation forces.
``We know they've been fired before'' at U.S. aircraft in Iraq, he said. ``Countermeasures are not perfect.''
Rumsfeld said on Sunday that Americans should not be surprised that U.S. aircraft are sometimes hit.
``We all know that these so-called man-portable surface-to-air missiles are widely available in the world and do have the ability to shoot down aircraft and helicopters and that from time to time it happens in various locations,'' he said.
By apparent coincidence, the shoot-down came on the same weekend that Central Command, which is running U.S. military operations in Iraq, expanded the number of soldiers eligible for flights out of the country for two-week vacations. A number of those killed and injured Sunday where en route to Baghdad to begin their breaks.
Maj. Michael Escudie, a Central Command spokesman, said Monday the rest-and-recuperation program would continue unchanged.
Di Rita said it was unclear whether investigators had recovered any tubes from which the surface-to-air missiles were fired, and he could not confirm reports that they were SA-7s. That is a Russian-designed missile that finds its target by seeking the heat from an aircraft's engine exhaust.
Chinooks are equipped with a series of countermeasures devices designed to defeat hostile radar and missile threats. These include metallic chaff for confusing the signals returned to a hostile radar, as well as flares that confuse a missile seeking a heat source.
Tallman said all Chinooks also have an ALQ-156 missile warning system in the cockpit.
The Special Forces variant of the Chinook, known as an MH-47E, is fitted with a missile approach warning system as well as an electronic signals jammer and other sophisticated defensive systems.
The Chinooks also can be equipped with one M60 machine gun mounted in the left side door frame and another in the right side escape hatch, as well as one mounted on the rear cargo ramp. It was not known Monday whether the Chinook hit on Sunday had machine gunners at each station.
Dan Goure, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute research group, said the Army is aware of the inherent vulnerability of Chinook helicopters and can vary their flight patterns to lessen the threat.
``The helicopters are big, relatively slow and noisy, but they provide the mobility you can't get any other way'' except with ground transportation vulnerable to other threats, such as ambushes, land mines and homemade bombs that the U.S. military calls improvised explosive devices, he said.
On the Net:
CH-47D Chinook: http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47sd/ch47sd(underscore)b ack.htm
-------- propaganda wars
WHITE HOUSE LETTER
Two Words on a Banner That No Author Wants to Claim
November 3, 2003
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/national/03LETT.html
Whoever came up with the idea of the "Mission Accomplished" banner that has so plagued President Bush remained as elusive last week as the White House leaker. But here, so far, is the story of "Bannergate" and the hunt for the person or persons behind the two words.
President Bush got the story rolling in a Rose Garden news conference on Tuesday, when he distanced himself from the exultant "Mission Accomplished" declaration that his critics increasingly cite as hubristic and premature. As anyone who has watched television lately now knows, the enormous red, white and blue banner was the backdrop to Mr. Bush's May 1 landing in a flight suit on the carrier Abraham Lincoln and his speech on the open deck declaring major combat in Iraq at an end.
"The `Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished," Mr. Bush testily told reporters at the news conference, on another day of violence and death in Iraq. "I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way."
After the news conference, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, tiptoed around the president's words. The banner "was suggested by those on the ship," Mr. McClellan said. "They asked us to do the production of the banner, and we did. They're the ones who put it up."
The Democratic presidential candidates immediately pounced, saying that Mr. Bush was blaming the Navy for something his advance team had staged. Gen. Wesley K. Clark told reporters that Mr. Bush's comments were outrageous and added, "I guess the next thing we're going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier."
So who on the ship came up with the idea for the banner? How involved were White House imagemakers, who embedded themselves on the Lincoln before Mr. Bush's speech and were at least present when the idea first surfaced? In short, was there truth to General Clark's contention that Mr. Bush was unfairly implicating the sailors for a sign at an event that has appeared more and more untimely, particularly after the attack on a helicopter yesterday that killed 16 American troops in Iraq.
Mr. McClellan referred the questions seaward, where the first stop was Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman in Washington.
"I'll give you the whole scoop," Commander Chun said. "The ship came up with the idea, and thought it would be good to have a banner, `Mission Accomplished.' " The idea popped up in one of the meetings aboard the ship preparing for its homecoming, Commander Chun said, and the sailors then asked if the White House could get the sign made.
But Commander Chun said he was not in any of those meetings, and did not know who had come up with the banner idea.
Next stop was Lt. Cmdr. John Daniels, the public affairs officer aboard the Lincoln, which is now in dry dock in Bremerton, Wash., for maintenance and repairs.
"The sailors came up with an idea of a banner, and they said, `Hey, is there any way we could get a `Mission Accomplished' banner made?' " Commander Daniels said.
But Commander Daniels added that he, too, was not in any of the meetings preparing for the landing and did not know the name of anyone from the Navy who was.
Next stop was again Mr. McClellan, who was told that so far the Navy had not produced a "Mission Accomplished" accomplice. Mr. McClellan said he would see what he could do.
Soon enough, Commander Daniels called to say that one person in the meetings preparing for the ship's homecoming was Cmdr. Ron Horton, the executive officer of the Lincoln and the ship's second in command.
Commander Horton was too busy to come to the phone, Lt. Cmdr. Daniels said, but he recounted what he said Commander Horton had told him about a shipboard meeting in late April with officers of the Lincoln and members of the White House advance team. The team, including security, had boarded the ship in Hawaii around April 28 to make preparations for the president's speech - some 75 to 100 people strong.
"The White House said, `Is there anything we can do for you?' " Commander Daniels said. "Somebody in that meeting said, `You know, it would sure look good if we could have a banner that said `Mission Accomplished.' "
And who was that someone? "No one really remembers," Commander Daniels said.
One of the White House communications people in the meeting, Commander Daniels said, was Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer who oversaw the production of the sign. Mr. Sforza did not return telephone calls seeking comment last week.
In any case, Commander Daniels said that it was not uncommon for a ship to have a homecoming banner. "Having a banner hanging off the ship is not unheard of," Commander Daniels said. "Does it happen every single time? No. Does it happen every third time? Probably."
Meanwhile, Republicans said that it was increasingly unlikely that Mr. Bush would use the film of his "Top Gun" landing on the carrier in a campaign commercial.
But would the Democrats consider using it in an attack ad?
"Yes," said Jim Margolis of GMMB, who is making television commercials for the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
--------
Afghan Women Take Radio Liberties
Tiny Station Transmits Message of Support to a Largely Illiterate Female Populace
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54725-2003Nov2?language=printer
MAZAR-E SHARIF, Afghanistan -- Working from a one-room studio with a gas lantern for illumination and two car batteries for power, a group of young Afghan women are transmitting a low-watt, revolutionary message to female listeners in the vicinity of this remote northern city.
In addition to popular music, live newscasts, humor and chats on child care, Radio Rabia Balkhi (89.7 FM) airs recorded essays and features on more daring topics such as "women and the constitution," how to seek treatment for mental illness and the right of abused wives to divorce.
It also answers listeners' letters, ranging from complaints about poor conditions at women's college dormitories to protests from female doctors that they have not received their hospital salaries. There are also poignant pleas for help from individual women, trapped by tradition with nowhere to turn.
One was from an 11th-grade student whose parents forcibly engaged her to a much older, illiterate man after receiving a substantial sum. An announcer read the letter on the air, identifying her only as "M," and offered suggestions for other young women trapped in such situations.
"We advise parents not to sell girls for money, and we advise girls to reason with their parents," said Farida Paktin, a radio and television veteran who founded the station in March with financial assistance from a Canadian nonprofit agency. "If that doesn't work, they should seek help from other relatives to ask a court to break off the engagement."
Most female listeners have no way to write such appeals, however, because more than 80 percent of women in northern Afghanistan are illiterate. Although Mazar-e Sharif is a large city with a co-ed university, the surrounding region is completely rural, and many village girls and women rarely leave home except to visit relatives or work in the fields.
But word of Rabia Balkhi, named for a famous ninth-century Afghan female poet, has spread fast. Although it is on the air only two hours a day and its tiny transmitter reaches less than three miles, its mix of entertainment, news and practical information for women has already drawn a wide audience.
A larger women's radio station was opened simultaneously on March 8, International Women's Day, in Kabul, the capital, with funds from Canadian and American donors. A third was inaugurated last week in Herat, a major city near the border with Iran.
"Many women in our culture cannot leave their homes at all, so this is the only way to reach them," said Shiqiba Mohid, 25, a reporter for the station. Most residents receive their news and information from local radio and TV, which are state-controlled and bland.
"When I go into the bazaars, women tell me they are listening and they want more than two hours a day," she said.
In some cases, Rabia Balkhi staffers said, simply presenting an available public service in a non-threatening way, using women's voices, can melt taboos and open up new worlds. One recent program featured a visit to a mental health hospital, with female patients describing feelings of anxiety and suffocation familiar to tens of thousands of Afghan women.
Then came a reassuring male doctor's voice, urging women to seek treatment before their symptoms became too pronounced, and an announcer speaking about the mental effects of war and poverty.
"People in Afghanistan feel shame about mental illness and don't want people to know a relative is sick," the announcer said. "They keep it hidden, and that makes it worse."
After listening to such programs, said Farida Rostankhel, 23, a radio staff member, some conservative family heads in the region, who had refused to let their wives visit hospitals or their daughters attend school, changed their minds.
But even though each daily broadcast begins with a recitation from the Koran, Rabia Balkhi's provocative message has already aroused opposition from influential Islamic clerics in the region who view themselves as guardians of Afghanistan's conservative, male-dominated mores.
After the station began airing a series of programs on women's divorce rights, a group of senior clergy visited the studio, alleging that the broadcasts encouraged women to leave their husbands and demanding that the series be stopped. Paktin said they had no choice but to comply.
"We cannot say anything to the mullahs, or they will put the stamp of infidelism on us," she said. Now, the offensive weekly feature, called "Yesterday's Woman and Today's Woman," has been replaced with news.
"There was a misunderstanding, so we canceled it," said Mubina Khairandesh, 25, the station manager. "This is a very traditional society. If we make direct criticisms, it is turned into a religious issue. So we just make indirect criticisms, in jokes and satires."
The quick retreat was especially prudent given the more serious harassment encountered last spring by Marya Sazabor, a journalist and poet from Mazar-e Sharif, after she published an article about the role of women in the new constitution. One sentence, later described as a misprint, read, "Sharia [Islamic law] causes women's problems."
According to a report issued by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based agency that monitors Afghanistan, Sazabor was denounced by Jamiat-i-Islami, the major Islamic party here, as "Afghanistan's Salman Rushdie," suggesting she deserved to die. Only after intervention by the local U.N. office were the threats retracted.
Humaira Nematy, a law professor from Mazar-e Sharif and a member of the national independent human rights commission, said the lives of most women in the region remain sharply circumscribed by poverty, illiteracy and male control.
"They live in a traditional way, and in the villages 98 percent are illiterate. Men run everything and they can marry four times," she said. Persistent armed clashes among militia factions have exacerbated the problem, Nematy added. "People don't dare send their daughters to school, especially beautiful ones, because some commander may just marry her by force."
Perhaps inevitably, the rivalry between the region's two major armed factions, led by Gen. Abdurrashid Dostum and Gen. Attah Mohammad, has touched Rabia Balkhi, though Paktin said the station has so far steered clear of partisan politics.
First Dostum gave a speech offering to support the station, but Paktin said she refused. Then some officials from Jamiat-i-Islami, of which Mohammad is the regional commander, offered to buy the station, but they were turned down, too.
"What we want most of all is to remain independent," Paktin said. Recently, she said, the local government radio station began copying some of Rabia Balkhi's music and feature programming, to compete for female listeners.
"I guess that means we are a success," she said.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- justice
Justices Face Decision on Accepting 9/11 Cases
November 3, 2003
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 - With cases generated by the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, now reaching the Supreme Court in substantial numbers, the court faces a basic decision apart from the merits of any individual case: whether to become a player in the debate over where to set the balance between individual liberty and national security.
As early as this week, there may be an indication of whether the court intends to remain on the sidelines, leaving the last word to lower courts that have so far deferred to the White House, or to weigh in with the same assertiveness it has displayed so often in recent years on some of the most bitterly disputed issues in American life.
The first cases in the queue on the court's docket are appeals filed on behalf of two groups of detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. These appeals frame an issue that at some level all the cases, despite their considerable differences, have in common: the degree of deference owed by the judicial branch to the executive for actions taken in the name of national security in a crisis.
In these cases, two British citizens, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis, all seized in Pakistan or Afghanistan during operations led by the United States against the Taliban, are challenging a ruling by the federal appeals court here in March. That court ruled that no federal court has jurisdiction to consider the legality of an open-ended detention that has now lasted more than 18 months without charges and without review by any impartial military or civilian tribunal. A wide array of groups, including former senior military officers, retired American diplomats and prisoners of war from World War II, are urging the justices to hear the appeals, which the administration opposes.
Later this year, probably before its winter recess, the court will decide whether to hear a United States citizen's challenge to his open-ended detention as an "enemy combatant." The man, Yasser Esam Hamdi, an American-born Saudi who was apparently captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, has been held without access to a lawyer in military brigs, first in Virginia and now in South Carolina, since April 2002. The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that he was not entitled to a lawyer and had no right to challenge the basis for his continued detention.
The justices have also been asked to hear a Freedom of Information Act case challenging the Bush administration's refusal to release information, including their names, about the hundreds of people, nearly all of them Muslim immigrants, who were arrested in the weeks following the terrorist attacks. Overturning a ruling by a federal district judge, the appeals court here ruled in June that the information, even concerning those found to have no connection to terrorism, was exempt from disclosure.
Unlike the small category of cases the Supreme Court is jurisdictionally obliged to consider - the campaign finance case now awaiting decision, which Congress instructed the court to hear, is one example - these appeals all fall within the completely discretionary part of the court's docket. If the court decides not to hear them, no explanation is likely to be forthcoming, only the word "denied" on the weekly list of orders that dispose of new appeals. The votes of four justices are required for the court to agree to hear a case.
The court applies several unofficial criteria for selecting roughly 75 cases to decide each term out of the 8,000 that are filed. These appeals meet none of those criteria.
The issues raised have not produced conflicting rulings in the lower courts - the main test the court uses to choose cases worthy of its attention - and the appeals were not filed by the solicitor general's office, which enjoys a very high success rate in getting its cases accepted, if not always decided favorably.
Indeed, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson is urging the court not to hear the Guantánamo detainees' appeals, Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 03-343. His brief argues that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit properly interpreted a 53-year-old Supreme Court precedent to hold that "aliens detained by the military abroad" have only those rights that are "determined by the executive and the military, and not the courts," and that these cases consequently do not merit Supreme Court review.
The government's formal responses to the other pending appeals - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, and Center for National Security Studies v. United States Department of Justice, No. 03-472 - are due at the court in early December.
The question, then, is whether the justices will nonetheless see these cases as simply important enough to command the Supreme Court's attention despite the absence of the traditional factors that govern discretionary review. The appeal filed by Shearman & Sterling, an international law firm with offices here, on behalf of Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah and 11 other Kuwaitis held at Guantánamo invokes the court's robust sense of institutional pride and concern for the separation of powers, a particular interest of the conservative majority.
"It is not for the executive branch to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts," the brief says. The decision of what steps are required to protect the country "is not a judgment the executive alone should make," it continues, adding: "Someone impartial must have authority to examine the executive's actions. That is the traditional role of the judiciary."
The appeal filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal public interest law firm in New York, on behalf of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, the British and Australian citizens held at Guantánamo, makes a case for the significance of the issue, all other considerations aside.
"The United States has created a prison on Guantánamo Bay that operates entirely outside the law," the brief asserts. It adds, "The conditions that make this `war' unique are the same conditions that make it essential for the government to provide some process by which innocent people can secure their release."
Both appeals argue that the analogy to a World War II-era precedent used by both the appeals court and the Bush administration to deny judicial review to the detainees is faulty. The case, Johnson v. Eisentrager, held in 1950 that enemy aliens in United States military custody overseas had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts by challenging their confinement through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners were 21 German intelligence agents working with the German military who had continued to spy for the Japanese in China after Germany's surrender, and who were convicted as war criminals by military tribunals at which they were represented by lawyers.
Lawyers for the Guantánamo detainees say the current cases are fundamentally different, for three basic reasons: the detainees, most of whom maintain that they were victims of chaotic circumstances rather than fighters, have not been convicted of, or even charged with, any offenses; they are citizens of countries with which the United States has not been at war; and they are being held in territory that is in all functional respects part of the United States.
The Eisentrager precedent "certainly does not authorize the executive branch to imprison petitioners indefinitely at its sole discretion without any legal process or justification for its actions," lawyers for the Rasul group have told the court.
It is apparent that the justices are paying close attention to the debates reflected in the pending cases and are as aware as anyone else that the court's historical reputation has often depended on its response at equivalent moments.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's 1998 book, "All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime," surveyed the landscape from a historical perspective. In a speech in April to the Association of the Bar in New York, Justice Stephen G. Breyer was a bit more topical without tipping his hand on the current disputes.
"I have not told you what you really want to know - how the civil liberties cases will be decided," Justice Breyer told the New York lawyers. "I would like to know that too."
--------
White House to Provide Papers, Roberts Says
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54883-2003Nov2.html
CRAWFORD, Tex., Nov. 2 -- Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Sunday that President Bush's aides had pledged to provide "every document" they have been denying the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but the White House replied with a noncommittal statement.
The White House missed the committee's deadline of noon Friday for information about prewar Iraq intelligence that had been requested in July.
Roberts, the committee chairman, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that his staff informed him late Friday that "in a spirit of cooperation, that the White House has agreed to supply us with the documents and the interviews that we want."
"I have talked with very top White -- or almost the top, you know, White House official, and he has promised that," Roberts said. "Every document we want will be made available."
That would be a remarkable concession by the White House, which has long resisted yielding internal records to Capitol Hill, even about matters less sensitive than war planning. The White House later issued a statement after Roberts's appearance that stopped far short of the commitment he described.
The statement said officials "have had productive conversations about ways we can work with and assist the committee."
"While the committee's jurisdiction does not cover the White House, we want to be helpful," the statement continued. "We will continue to talk to and work with the committee in a spirit of cooperation."
Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the panel's ranking Democrat, was informed of the supposed agreement by Roberts as they appeared together on CNN. Roberts said he had not told Rockefeller because he hadn't "had a chance to call you over the weekend."
Rockefeller expressed skepticism. "I want to see the documentation . . . before I'm satisfied," he said. "I want to know that we really have it in hand."
Congressional sources said committee Democrats have requested speech drafts, files showing documentation for assertions in the State of the Union address and other speeches by Bush and Vice President Cheney, intelligence reports to the president, and correspondence between the White House and the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. Committee Republicans and the White House interpret the request more narrowly.
The congressional sources said the senators have requested interviews with officials of the National Security Council and Cheney's office.
The sources said the committee is interested in a statement by Bush during a prime-time address from Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, referring to "the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
-------- terrorism
Creation of Terrorists Must Be Stopped, Rumsfeld Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54711-2003Nov2.html
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that the world must start thinking about how to reduce the number of people who are becoming terrorists through teachings in radical Islamic schools and not just focus on killing or capturing them after they commit violent acts.
In three television appearances yesterday, he expanded on his Oct. 16 internal memo in which he posed the question, "Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?"
"We are capturing and killing a lot of terrorists," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday," "but we also have to think about the number of new ones that are being created." One problem, he said, is the lack of knowledge about how many anti-American terrorists are being turned out.
"There is no way to measure it because you don't know what's happening in each one of these radical cleric schools . . . how many people are coming out of these radical madrassa schools," he said on ABC's "This Week."
Saying the United States is not organized to handle the problem, Rumsfeld said, "We need to find ways to make sure we're winning the battle of ideas and that we're reducing the number of terrorists . . . that are being taught to go out and murder and kill innocent men, women and children."
Asked for the solution, he noted that with the dissolution of the United States Information Agency and its merger into the State Department, the country is "not organized, trained or equipped" to fight a war of ideas overseas. "What has to change in our country, organizationally, overt, covert, either one, so that we can have a higher confidence that we're reducing the number of people who [become terrorists]?" he asked.
Rumsfeld pointed out that the administration created a new Department of Homeland Security and beefed up the Pentagon's Special Forces units to meet the new world of terrorism, but has not addressed "reducing the number of people who are being attracted into the terrorist business."
Saying the solution was outside the Defense Department and even U.S. hands, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press," "The world needs to think about other things we can do to reduce the number of schools that teach terrorism."
Rumsfeld focused solely on radical Islamic madrassas as the breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists and did not include such things as the actions of U.S. troops in Iraq or their presence in other Muslim countries, which were recently used in a message by Osama bin Laden designed to recruit terrorists.
In a tape played over the al-Jazeera network on Oct. 18, bin Laden warned Iraqis not to cooperate with U.S. forces and urged young people in neighboring Arab countries to join a jihad, or holy war, against the Americans. Whether in response to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the urgings of bin Laden, the number of foreign terrorists entering Iraq has grown despite the increase of Iraqi border patrol forces.
"We've scooped up 200 to 300 foreign fighters who have come into [Iraq] from a whole host of countries . . . 20 to 30 different countries," Rumsfeld said. He added that some of them may have brought in weapons or quickly connected with fighters for former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- genetics
U.N. to Consider Whether to Ban Cloning of Human Embryos
November 3, 2003
By KIRK SEMPLE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/international/03NATI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 2 - Trace the lines of science, religion, ethics and politics and eventually they will intersect at one of the most divisive issues currently at play here: human cloning.
"Among the nonpolitical issues, it's the most contentious," Michèle Montas, spokeswoman for the United Nations General Assembly president, said recently. "They debate over and over again."
The member states of the United Nations will have another chance to express their feelings on the subject on Thursday when they consider two competing resolutions that propose bans on human cloning - and seek to establish international legal boundaries in the field of life sciences.
All the United Nations' member states agree that reproductive cloning, intended to produce a child with the same genes as its genetic parent, should be prohibited. But beyond that, consensus falls apart. The field has begun to divide sharply into two entrenched and unyielding camps.
One group, led by the United States and Costa Rica and including at least 61 other countries, has sponsored a General Assembly resolution calling for a convention that would ban all forms of human cloning - that is, banning the creation of a cloned embryo for any reason.
The second, led by Belgium and including at least 22 other countries, is pushing a counterresolution that would lead to a convention banning the creation of cloned embryos to produce another human being but permitting the use of such embryos for medical experiments.
In this process, known as therapeutic cloning and still in an experimental stage, scientists implant the nucleus of an adult donor cell into a egg whose nucleus has been removed. The eggs develop into blastocysts - four- to five-day-old embryos - from which scientists hope to develop tissues to treat human degenerative diseases.
Both resolutions would permit the unrestricted cloning of animals.
Though General Assembly conventions are nonbinding, they can be ratified by legislatures in signatory countries and, if passed with large majorities, can send a powerful message.
The cloning moderates - who, in addition to Belgium, include major powers like Britain, China and Japan - argue that in light of the widespread support for a ban on human reproductive cloning, the General Assembly should at least try to secure a universal convention on that and leave it to the individual countries to pass even stronger legislation.
"It's easier to hold the extreme full-ban position from a purely moral position but not in terms of legislation and implementation," said a diplomat from the camp proposing a moderate ban. The advocates of the full ban, the diplomat contended, "are just trying to make their point. They're not prepared to be rational."
Several of the moderate resolution's co-sponsors have already passed some form of a ban on human cloning. About 30 nations, though not the United States, have adopted national legislation or guidelines that either explicitly or implicitly prohibit reproductive cloning, according to Unesco.
Supporters of the moderate ban say that a total ban would preclude further embryonic stem cell research. An international coalition of at least 66 science organizations, including the United States National Academy of Sciences, has endorsed a ban on human reproductive cloning but has urged the United Nations and national legislatures to permit therapeutic cloning.
Therapeutic cloning "has considerable potential from a scientific perspective," the coalition said in a statement.
But co-sponsors of the total ban - which include many developing nations - say cloning is unethical and immoral, in part because it entails the destruction of the blastocyst.
The United States, in a position paper issued in August, said therapeutic cloning "would turn nascent human life into a natural resource to be mined and exploited, eroding the sense of worth and dignity of the individual." It called the destruction of cloned human embryos "a morally abhorrent prospect."
During a General Assembly debate in October, Birhanemeskel Abebe, a top official from the Ethiopian mission here, urged a total ban, saying: "Every human being has intrinsic dignity and worth from conception to natural death. Embryo destruction for research purpose fatally disrespects human life." The process, he said, "upsets the social order by confounding the meaning of parenthood and confusing the identity and kinship relations of any cloned child."
A State Department official explained that the American stance is a reflection of President Bush's strongly held views. The Bush administration's support for a total ban stands in opposition to the majority support among American scientists for the right to conduct therapeutic coning.
"I think it's something the administration passionately believes in and some of its supporters do," the State Department official said, adding, "That's not to say to you that people from some of the very conservative religious groups haven't made their views known."
A partial ban, opponents have argued, would leave open the door to abuses, with the emergence of a black market in embryos provided by impoverished women. "Stockpiles of cloned human embryos could be produced, bought and sold without anyone knowing it," the United States mission said in its position paper. "The tightest regulations and strict policing would not prevent or detect the birth of cloned babies."
Finally, the supporters of a total ban say that the scientific ends sought by the scientists using therapeutic cloning may be achieved through other techniques, including the use of stem cells extracted from adults, which do not require the creation of embryos.
This assertion, though, is the subject of intense debate among scientists, said Orio Ikebe, an official in the bioethics section of Unesco.
Belgium's ambassador here, Jean de Ruyt, said in an interview last week that in the absence of scientific certainty, the General Assembly "should leave the door open" to further investigation.
Indeed, that appears to be a likely outcome of the debate this week. The issue is scheduled for consideration on Thursday, but several diplomats say that instead of allowing the resolutions to come to a vote, a bloc of undecided nations, led by the Islamic nations, may push to defer the issue for two years.
The American ambassador to the United Nations, John D. Negroponte, urged the supporters of a total ban to vote against a delay, saying in a letter on Oct. 30 that "there is a need to act now to confront the emerging threat of human cloning."
But Mr. de Ruyt said that a delay might be "the wisest" strategy now.
"It's not much use to have a divided world on this," he said. Unless the United Nations can send a clear and unequivocal message about the permissibility of cloning, he said, scientists will continue to pursue human cloning of all sorts wherever it is still permitted.
"There will be anarchy," he warned.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Israeli Court Limits National Strike
November 3, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Strike.html
JERUSALEM (AP) -- A nationwide strike against plans to overhaul Israel's welfare state shut down government services, banks, the international airport and trains on Monday, but a court limited the stoppages to just four hours.
Since the court did not specify a time for the strike, individual unions held their four-hour stoppages throughout the day, causing additional disruptions and confusion.
Workers staged their strike despite efforts by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who held intense negotiations over the phone from Moscow, where he arrived Sunday on a state visit, officials said.
Early Monday, Israel's Labor Court headed off what was supposed to be an open-ended walkout -- one of the widest strikes in the nation's history and a challenge to Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to overhaul the nation's troubled economy.
The court ordered further negotiations between the union and government and scheduled another hearing for Thursday evening. Its decision appeared to rule out further shutdowns for the rest of the week, barring an appeal by the union.
Israelis awoke to confusion Monday, with the brief strike already under way in some sectors. Airlines moved up flight times at Ben Gurion International Airport to avoid the shutdown, forcing constant air traffic overnight. Airport workers later announced that they would not strike at all on Monday.
At noon, government offices remained closed, while the airport, banks, trains, the stock exchange, ports and border crossings resumed regular activity. But many Israelis remained confused; it was not immediately clear if post offices were open and if garbage would be collected.
Amir Peretz, head of the Histadrut, the country's main labor union, said each sector could decide for itself which four hours to strike on Monday. He also warned the strike could be renewed if talks with the Finance Ministry did not bear fruit.
The unrest reflected a government assault on Israel's venerable welfare state, which for decades has shielded workers from the uncertainties of a free market economy, while keeping public sector employment high.
The labor crisis hit Israel in the midst of a long recession, brought on partly by a world economic slowdown and worsen by three years of Palestinian-Israeli violence, which has cut sharply into tourism and discouraged foreign investment. Unemployment is nearly 11 percent, a near record in Israel, and growth predictions hover near zero.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.