New Iranian-Syrian Pact is both Dangerous and an Insult
Posted by editor-at-large on 29 May 2008 at 11:46 am UTC
Iran and Syria continue to slap the West in the face: And they are doing so in the face of the recent unchallenged terrorist attacks by – and subsequent over-the-top concessions granted to – Lebanon-based Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy army supported by Syria.
Fact is, Iran and Syria have achieved a near inextricable foothold in Lebanon (read our previous commentary) over the past few weeks.
Now, the two nations have reinforced — and even expanded — their reciprocal pledge of strategic military support to one another.
According to Naharnet:
“Iran and its close ally Syria have signed a new defence cooperation pact, Iranian media reported on Wednesday, just a week after news broke that Israel had begun indirect peace talks with Damascus.
“’The two countries pledge their mutual support regarding territorial independence and integrity in terms of international and regional authorities,’ the state-run IRNA news agency reported.”
This pact comes on the heels of not only the failure of the Lebanese government and the army (as well as the Western nations allied to Lebanon) to thwart this month’s terrorist attacks and political gains achieved by Hezbollah; but it comes during a series of so-called peace talks between Israel and Syria, in which Syria is now negotiating from a position of new-found strategic strength (Hezbollah’s recent success against the Lebanese state and Israel’s bloody nose from the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, brings Syria to the table blustering and thumping its chest.).
Israel has been demanding that Syria break “its three-decade alliance with Iran and end support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups as a condition for progress in the talks.”
And the U.S. was hoping in a pipe dream that an ongoing peace-process developing between Israel and Syria might isolate Iran.
Fat chance for either.
Fact is, these two state sponsors of Jihadist terrorism and their terrorist proxies, continue playing solid hands, continue threatening to wipe nations off the globe, continue deliberately targeting and murdering civilians, continue to build their armies, continue their quests to become nuclear powers, continue to feint and deceive, continue to infiltrate Western media, continue to extend their global reach, and continue to buy time.
Meanwhile, our response is to continue to support impotent UN forces in the region, station a U.S. Navy strike group in the region (but only permit that force to observe), and one of the American presidential candidates proposing change wants to talk with the bad guys.
I don’t pretend to have the answers: I’m a reporter and an analyst, not a planner. But I do know a little something about confronting and combatting terrorists – conventionally, unconventionally, assymetrically – and building alliances with friends and potential friends who can depend on us to always do exactly what we say we are going to.
I also know, if we – meaning the U.S. and the West – continue on this same trek of effortless “hope”: doing nothing more than observing, issuing hollowless declarations of support, and hoping we might hold peace talks with thugs like Ahmadinejad, Assad, Nasrallah, or anyone else calling for our “deaths,” we will continue to be slapped in the face. And it’s only going to get worse … much, much worse.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Posted by editor-at-large on 28 May 2008 at 5:51 pm UTC
[Maj. Fred Galvin]
An article published yesterday in the New York Times, focuses on a crack group of leathernecks with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, who have been taking the fight hard to the Taliban in Afghanistan since landing in that country earlier this year. The Marines’ performance has been exemplary – in very tough environs I might add – as would be expected of America’s few good men.The Times cannot deny this fact. But the Old Gray Lady also and obviously cannot pass up an opportunity to get in its personal dig against U.S. Marines – or any other soldiers, sailors, or airmen who might give it the opportunity – even when the dig is based on an obvious untruth (at the very least, a public deception).
Here’s what the Times says regarding the 24th MEU:
“It was their first major combat operation since landing in March, and it stood in stark contrast to the events of a year earlier, when a Marine unit was removed in disgrace within weeks of arriving because its members shot and killed 19 civilians after a suicide bombing attack.”
What the Times fails to explain in this piece (but to its credit, did mention in a Saturday piece), is that the Marines in 2007 – WHO WERE NOT REMOVED IN DISGRACE by the way – have since been exonerated. And there never was any proof — forensic or otherwise — that 19 civilians were killed.
This is the kind of thing that shames me as a journalist (Far too many in our profession are too quick to publicly condemn – thus convict in the court of public opinion – and then fail to adequately retract the inaccuracies which have the potential of ruining peoples’ lives.) and boils my blood as a former Marine.
In a statement released Friday, Lt. Gen. Samuel T. Helland, commanding general of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, determined that the officers – including Maj. Fred C. Galvin, commander of Fox Company, Second Marine Special Operations Battalion; and Capt. Vincent J. Noble, special ops platoon commander — and the troops in the Marine convoy “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack.”
Galvin’s Marines were ordered out of Afghanistan – far too hastily in my professional opinion – pending an investigation that dragged on far too long, and in which too much political correctness and perhaps (based on my own personal musing) a bit of inter-service rivalry were infused: Not to mention the fact that the word of the locals, and a human rights group that was not there at the time, was considered more believable than that of the Marines. The locals, whose stories often conflicted with one anothers,’ never could come up with a firm casualty count (though U.S. Army officers reportedly made cash payments to Afghans who said they were survivors or members of survivors’ families).
Fact is, there is no proof – much less evidence – that any civilians were killed: No bodies or forensic evidence, except for that of the suicide bomber, were recovered.
“No civilians were killed,” says Galvin’s mother, Toni Galvin, who along with her family and an entire network of Marine Moms, have been fighting to get their sons vindicated in the public eye. “Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney took the word of the area locals. Yet many of our guys withstood nearly a year of interrogation by the NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] trying to get them to break.”
But truth can’t be broken.
Maj. Galvin, Capt. Noble, and the other brave Marines who have had to endure this shabby treatment after serving our country honorably in one of the world’s most dangerous places, are the true victims: These young men deserve medals and promotions. Why aren’t those Americans who say they support the troops demanding that? Instead, most Americans reading the Times on Saturday would have simply picked up the paper, read about a Marine unit being “removed in disgrace,” shaken their heads (wrongly assuming the report to be true), had another sip of coffee, and gone on with their lives. Meanwhile, Galvin, Noble, the other Marines wrongly accused of “overreacting” in a firefight, were hung out to dry.
Yes, the Marines were exonerated – as they should have been – which means they will not be sent to prison. But what about their careers? Their reputations? The one-plus year of hell they’ve had to endure? And what about the third-largest newspaper in the nation still reporting that they were “removed in disgrace?”
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Gunbattles Erupt Today in Lebanon … and Updates
Posted by editor-at-large on 26 May 2008 at 11:21 pm UTC
Brief gun-battles erupted between Hezbollah (with its Amal allies) and the pro-democracy majority in Beirut today. Clashes also have been reported between the same in the Bekaa Valley: Reports are thus far sketchy. Between nine and 18 people are said to have been wounded. And one of our sources has reported at least one rocket-propelled grenade attack.In addition to our sources, NOWLebanon is reporting:
“Amal and Hezbollah gunmen opened fire and hurled rocks in the direction of Tarik al-Jedideh and Corniche al-Mazraa earlier today, coinciding with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech. RPGs were also fired at the Abed an-Nasser mosque. The Lebanese army has been deployed and has cut off the roads between Corniche al-Mazraa, Barbour and Tarik al-Jedideh. The wounded have been transferred to nearby hospitals.”
Narharnet also reports:
“Clashes between the Hizbullah-led opposition and majority supporters in the Beqaa Valley village of Taalabaya.”
The firefights come the day after the election and inauguration of Pres. Michel Sleiman, the pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-friendly former commander-in-chief of the Lebanese armed forces (I discussed him here); and hours after Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, delivered a fiery speech in which – according to the AP – he, “warned against any efforts to disarm his Iranian-backed guerrilla group.”
Updates will follow.IN RELATED NEWS:The Baltimore Sun is reporting:
“[Hezbollah’s] rising influence around the world has led some intelligence and counterterrorism officials to ask whether the Iranian-financed organization has grown more dangerous to the United States than al-Qaida.”
We’ve been reporting this FOR MONTHS.Moreover, Haaretz is reporting:
“The head of the Military Intelligence research division Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz on Monday said that Syria was continuing to transfer significant amounts of weapons to the Lebanon-based guerilla group Hezbollah.”
We’ve been saying this FOR MONTHS, TOO … along with our accurate reporting on Hezbollah’s strength and activities over the past eight months, including: Unreported and underreported military exercises and operations, predictions that Hezbollah would indeed turn its weapons on the Lebanese people (and when), the extent to which the terrorist group had established an internal telecommunications system, and the extent to which the terrorist group has infiltrated Lebanese and international media (to include buying off seemingly objective media outlets and reporters).There is so much more to this story, and so much that continues not to be reported.— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Speaker of Lebanese Parliament Blasts U.S.
Posted by editor-at-large on 25 May 2008 at 6:30 pm UTC
Several days ago, I wrote a piece for Human Events entitled, Lights Out Temporarily in Lebanon, in which I discussed the strengthening of Hezbollah and the temporary setbacks faced by the majority pro-democracy movement in that country.
I still believe freedom and democracy will prevail in Lebanon: a crucial front in the broader war on terror. But just as I said, “the lights will only be out temporarily,” it is becoming increasingly evident that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have all of their electricians on the case, ensuring that the proverbial circuits are cut so that the lights will never be switched back on.
All of the concessions granted in so-called “crisis talks” have been in favor of the dark side. And which side is dark, is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact, as evidenced by what has happened in Lebanon since May 7 when Hezbollah begin killing and burning.
Today pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-friendly Gen. Michel Sleiman was elected president.
During Sleiman’s inauguration ceremonies, pro-Syrian speaker of the Lebanese parliament Nabih Berri — a Hezbollah ally and leader of the Amal movement – took the opportunity to blast the United States (a key ally of the Lebanese government and the majority of the Lebanese people) with a sarcastic expression of “gratitude” to America, “because it [America] got convinced that Lebanon is not the proper place to apply its agenda for the new Middle East.”
Berri and his newly empowered ilk, of course, prefer the lordship of Syria and Iran, and the still-wet sword of Hezbollah.
Yes, the lights may be out for awhile.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Gen. Sleiman Elected President of Lebanon
Posted by editor-at-large on 25 May 2008 at 4:05 pm UTC
I discussed the presidential election of Gen. Michel Sleiman in my previous post.
Following are a few quick highlights from his inauguration address delivered an hour or so ago (translated from one of our sources):
1) “We will respect the UN Security Council Resolution [regarding the pressing forward with the investigation into the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri].”
2) “The resistance movement [Hezbolla] was necessary and has done a lot for Lebanon: liberated the south, Shebaa farms still occupied by Israel, therefore it is necessary to build a strategy around the resistance and work with them … ”
3) “The Lebanese prisoners in Israel must be released [no mention of Lebanese prisoners in Syria] …”
4) “We need to work with Syria, and we need to establish diplomatic relations …”
5) “We need to protect Lebanon and we need to keep our weapons [a vague suggestion that Hezbollah should keep its weapons]. Those weapons shall be used only against the enemies [of Lebanon] … And we won’t let those weapons be used for any other purpose …”
Yeah, right.
Apparently, there was no mention of disarming Hezbollah as called for under UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701: No expressed commitment to reigning in Hezbollah. Just an expression of what Pres. Sleiman sees as a justification for the continued existance of Hezbollah despite the terror Hezbollah unleashed on the state this month.
Pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-friendly General to become Lebanese President
Posted by editor-at-large on 25 May 2008 at 1:12 am UTC
Barring some catastrophic series of events in Lebanon (in that country, one never knows), in a few hours, the commander-in-chief of the Lebanese armed forces, Gen. Michel Sleiman — also spelled, “Suleiman” – will become president of Lebanon.
There’s so much here regarding his ascendancy from the highest post in the Lebanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) to the Presidential Palace that it would take a book to detail. And I won’t go into his military career, because there are multiple English-language versions of his bio presently being published worldwide.
What I will say is that I have had personal interaction with the general: I met with him for over two hours one-on-one in his office at the MoD in Beirut, last fall. I was personally invited by the general to attend two special functions. I met and was personally briefed by many of his generals and his chief of intelligence. Sleiman granted me complete access – though reluctantly in the beginning – to Lebanese Army infantry units on the Israeli border, and those in the north (Tripoli), as well as Lebanese special forces. And I have learned from sources closely connected to Sleiman, that he made two international phone calls to Washington (after I had returned to the U.S.) in an attempt to determine why I was not always writing favorable things about him (We will touch on some of those unfavorable things in a moment.).
I have no way of independently confirming the context of those phone calls. But the information comes to us from very reliable, high-ranking sources within the Lebanese leadership.
But let’s first take a look at one or two of the more serious problems associated with Sleiman’s becoming president of Lebanon, which he probably will be by the time this is published.
When I was in Lebanon back in September and October — weeks before it was assumed he was in fact destined for the presidency — several of my sources (some within the Cedars Revolution, some within the Army) predicted that Sleiman would indeed become president. But, they said, there would first have to be a constitutional amendment before a sitting Army commander could become head of state. Those sources also told me, “Watch and see, Gen. Sleiman will either maneuver around the constitution, or there will be an amendment. Either way, he will become president.”
What they told me eight months ago is now coming to pass. Sleiman’s ascension to the presidency is part of the recent Arab League deal that was cut between a frightened Lebanese government (which has been unable to elect a president in multiple attempts) and a bullying, threatening, murdering, Iranian-proxy terrorist-army (supported by Syria), Hezbollah.
After launching a campaign of terror against the Lebanese state this month, Hezbollah was granted all sorts of concessions, including the authority to continue to operate its extensive telecommunications system in Lebanon (which the government wanted to shut down), and the terrorists were granted new veto powers in government decisions. And as previously mentioned, Sleiman will become president as part of the deal.
But here’s one of the problems: Sleiman has apparently skirted an amendment of the constitution.
In this regard, the World Council for the Cedars Revolution issued a statement, a portion of which reads:
“… It is important that the sole candidate, General Michel Sleiman, refuses the current process before the Lebanese Cabinet of Fuad Siniora initiates it. For the election could be deemed unconstitutional by future parties. If that is the case, the Parliamentary election of the next President could be taken to courts, both internal and international. …”
[Read statement in its entirety here.]
So what does this mean? Well, several things, not the least of which a non-constitutionally appointed president of Lebanon will be a president who, if he ever makes a decision Hezbollah doesn’t like, the terrorist group (which – along with their allies – also holds seats in the cabinet and parliament) can make the claim that Sleiman is “an illegitimate head of state,” thus (in their minds) any unfavorable decision he makes about Hezbollah won’t constitutionally hold water.
Or Hezbollah can simply veto the decision. The terrorist group now has that power.
Or Hezbollah can do what it has always done: Murder people, blow up things, and burn property, like they did this month, which is the terrorist group’s political action of choice.
So what about the aforementioned unsavoriness surrounding Sleiman, the man?
First, Sleiman is a pro-Syrian commander of the Lebanese Army, and I can tell you from my personal conversation with him, he is also pro-Hezbollah, believing that Hezbollah’s Taliban-like kingdom within the sovereign state of Lebanon is acceptable because, as he told me, they “resist foreign aggression” and “they were here before the army.”
Well, guess what, Gen. Sleiman: Hezbollah also attacked the Lebanese people – including women, children, and the elderly – and you all but refused to repel the attack, which ultimately gave Hezbollah the upper hand. And, yes, the post-attack decision-making is now awarding you the presidency.
Then there are Sleiman’s Syrian connections: First, Sleiman was appointed army commander when the Syrians’ had overt control over Lebanon (I say overt, because Syria certainly has a covert operational hand in Lebanon today). Second, Sleiman has reportedly trained with Syrian military forces in Syria. Third, Sleiman’s brother-in-law, Gebran Kuriyyeh, was press spokesman for the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad (and a couple sources tell us Kuriyyeh is also a former press officer for Assad’s son, current Syrian Pres. Bashar Assad.).
There is so much more to this story, and more to come.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Hezbollah in West Africa (Photos reveal the long-arm of Hezbollah)
Posted by editor-at-large on 23 May 2008 at 12:23 pm UTC
As I and others have reported with increasing frequency over the past few months, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are increasingly developing forward operating bases in many of Africa’s “ungoverned” – or poorly governed – regions.
Additionally, these groups – as unlikely allies as they may be – are coordinating their efforts more and more. We’ve seen quite a bit of this in North African countries like Morocco and East African Somalia, wherein captured or hunted Jihadists have been determined to have received tactical training by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then received funding and were taught the finer points of bomb-making by Hezbollah in Lebanon (I wrote about this at Human Events and Townhall.com).
The disturbing thing about these African bases of operation is that they are frequently being used as launching points for terrorist operations worldwide. Europe – just across the Mediterranean and with large African-emigrant populations – is extremely vulnerable (which may have something to do with the European parliament’s calling for the “disarming of Hezbollah,” yesterday, in the wake of Hezbollah’s political gains in Lebanon while pretty much getting a free pass from the rest of the international community).
We are also piecing together more intelligence related to Middle Eastern terrorist activity in West Africa, which brings us to several photographs received yesterday from one of our sources.
The following images are apparently of Hezbollah activities in Nigeria: Note the Hezbollah flags, the posters of Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, the Iranian Ayatollahs (One dead, one living; and remember, Iran funds Lebanon-based Hezbollah to the tune of $ one-billion a year.), and the late Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. Also, pay attention to the Arabic inscription on the reviewing-stand banner (surrounded by the Nation-of-Islam look-alikes). The inscription reads: “Peace to you, Hussein.”
Additional commentary follows images.
After receiving these photos, I forwarded them to Africa expert Dr. J. Peter Pham, who says it is “not surprising,” and provides additional context.
According to Pham:
“I am afraid that there are two blind spots in most of our conventional analysis of militant Islamism in general and its manifestations in Africa in particular. First, we overestimate the Sunni-Shiia divide, while underestimating the militants’ capacity to overcome sectarian differences when offered the opportunity to confront non-Muslims they perceive as hostile. Secondly, we recite textbook definitions about whole regions being traditionally one thing or another without accounting for the possibility of dynamic change. In Africa, for example, we hear constantly that Islam there is Sunni and often even Sufi. True enough historically, but the traditional Sufi turuq ( = proper plural for the singular “tariqa,” brotherhood) are often underreseourced when compared to newer foreign groups with better financing, many of whom are Salafist and even Wahhabi.
“As for Hezbollah’s presence, I am not at all surprised. The Lebanese terrorist group has long made West Africa a center for its financing [see Dr. Pham’s column of two years ago, here]. Furthermore, even before that, I had reported on Iranian influences on Muslims in Nigeria [Pham’s column here]. Last year, a well-known Sunni cleric in Sokoto – the traditional center of Nigerian Islam and seat of the sultanate – by the name of Umuru Danmaishiyya was shot dead in his mosque, purportedly by Shiites angered by his orthodox Sunni denunciations of Shiism. In response, Nigerian security forces demolished the Shiia center belonging to the radicals.
“Elsewhere in West Africa, an Iranian outfit, the Ahlul Bait Foundation, set up an Islamic University College of Ghana in 1988. The president and senior administrators are all Iranian.
“If Iran is involved in the region, it would certainly make sense for its proxy Hezbollah to be, especially since the Lebanese group has an even easier time operating in West Africa given the longstanding presence of a Lebanese Shiia diaspora there.”
More to come.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Iranian soldier killed in Lebanon
Posted by editor-at-large on 22 May 2008 at 1:24 pm UTC
Yes, I know it’s grisly, but the following is the first of some pictures we are receiving from Lebanon of Iranian soldiers killed in the Chouf mountains southeast of Beirut. This soldier, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Hezbollah, was killed more than a week ago by Druze fighters.
Iran’s foreign legion wins political victory
Posted by editor-at-large on 21 May 2008 at 6:40 pm UTC
Hezbollah — Iran’s foreign legion in Lebanon — won a major political victory today.
During “crisis talks” in Qatar among members of the Arab League, it was agreed that Hezbollah (which tries to portray itself as a legitimate Lebanese political party, but in reality is something along the lines of a Talibanesque terrorist army — supported by Iran and Syria — with a dangerous political wing, and cells of its military and media-propaganda wings operating worldwide) would be granted additional cabinet seats plus veto power in all decisions made by the Lebanese government.
How did Hezbollah achieve this? By killing people and destroying property in an armed offensive launched against the Lebanese state after the government tried — unsuccessfully I might add — to both fire a senior airport security officer (who was Hezbollah) and dismantle Hezbollah’s unauthorized telecommunications system (Walid Phares details the extent of that system and its sinister application at World Defense Review.).
I wrote about this disturbing turn of events this morning at Townhall.com (see also yesterday’s piece at Human Events).
What’s next? As I explain in both pieces, at least a couple hundred (present numbers are sketchy) members of Lebanon’s pro-democracy majority have formed — and are forming — resistance groups. These groups, the largest of which according to my sources is forming in Beirut, will have as their goal: “resistance” against Hezbollah.
Where it will all lead is anybody’s guess at this point. But one thing is certain: Hezbollah has enjoyed two major victories in less than one week: One was a strategic pseudo-military victory in which the legitimate Lebanese government reversed its orders against the firing of the airport security officer as well as the plan to dismantle the telecommunications system. Hezbollah’s second victory was the political one, today, wherein the terrorist group won new cabinet seats in the Lebanese government and veto powers. This also means Iran and Syria have the power to veto any decision made by the Lebanese government.
Lebanon’s pro-democracy movement has clearly had it with weak national leadership, toothless UN forces, and hyper-agressive militancy. The other certainty is that Hezbollah has clearly demonstrated that if cannot have its way through peaceful means, it will make its way via the blood of innocent men, women, and children.
Nothing new there, though.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Lebanese Resistance against Hezbollah
Posted by editor-at-large on 20 May 2008 at 11:40 am UTC
In my piece in this morning’s Human Events, I discuss what we first disclosed on Sunday — that is, the formation of a resistance group (now, apparently, groups) against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
You’ll recall, Saturday, Dr. Walid Phares said during an international radio broadcast directed at the pro-democracy Lebanese people and their supporters worldwide:
“Lebanese citizens have the fundamental right to resist Hizballah’s terror and invasion of west Beirut, the mountains and the north. … All efforts by Lebanese citizens to oppose terrorism and to do so in defense of democracy will be endorsed worldwide.”
Then as we reported at World Defense Review (quoting Arab media): The Lebanese people — weary of war, terrorism, and the constant threat of both – are now “taking matters into [their] own hands.”
I report today at Human Events:
“On Sunday evening, sources informed us that members of the pro-democracy movement in Lebanon had, hours earlier, formed a ‘resistance group against terrorism.’ Monday we learned the resistance group — formed in Beirut — was composed of Christians, Druze, and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiia), all ‘committed to resisting Hizballah.’ There also are reports of a like-minded Sunni resistance group forming near Tripoli.”
Resistance against Hezbollah is an understandable, noble, and necessary effort; and should be supported vigorously by the West, and, more specifically, the UN (which by the way, failed miserably in its responsibilities of — at a minimum — keeping the airport and seaport open when Hezbollah attacked).
What we don’t want to see is a strategic power play in all of this on the part of Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates like Fatah al Islam.
The resistance against Hezbollah must be supported as we — meaning the West — continue to support the legitimate Lebanese government and the army. Hezbollah must be resisted and thwarted at every turn and opportunity, and that means also going after its sources of funding and other support (yes, Iran and Syria). And as this resistance grows, Al Qaeda must never be given a hole through which it can substantively raise its ugly head in Lebanon (I say “substantively,” because AQ — as an ideology – already has sympathizers, perhaps more, among some segments of Lebanon’s Sunni population.). If AQ does raise its head, we must have a plan to immediately cut it off.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by the author) are held by the author.
Archives:
J. Peter Pham, Ph.D. : 'Strategic Interests'
The Battle for Libya: Implications for Africa
[03 Mar 11]
Walid Phares, Ph.D.
Assad's Taqiyya Against His People
[22 Apr 11]
Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
Whither Palestine?
[17 Jun 11]
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
'Beyond the DropZone'
Intelligence and Analysis