December 27, 2005
State of Scandal
Yet another U.S. embassy is being dragged into controversy by the actions of its foreign employees. This time, it is Muslim employees of the U.S. embassy in Cairo who are allegedly influencing the visa-granting process to favor fellow Muslims and exclude Christians. One Coptic Christian was told (twice) to either remove his cross or see his visa application rejected. He refused and was refused. Disgraceful.
Posted by Richard Miniter at 09:15 PM
December 19, 2005
The Case for Murdering Infidels
The commander of the terrorist cell behind the Bali bombings—which claimed the lives of 202 people on that Hindu-majority island—is named Mukhlas and, from prison, has written a 60-page tract calling for sniper and other types of terrorist attacks on Westerners. His comments are certain to ignite debate among those who think that Islam, as opposed to radical Islam, is the cause of terror.
"You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other... Aren’t you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?"
Can you imagine what Michael Savage would do with a quote like that?
Mukhlas’ tract points to a key failure of U.S. public diplomacy, which tends to argue against terrorism as bad in its effects. In fact, it is a ideology that needs to be confronted ideologically. Mullahs, imams and others should be employed (covertly or not) to explain why Murhlas’ understanding of jihad is wrong or doesn’t apply now. So far, the State Department has turned up its nose at getting into faith or ideological fights. It is time to drop the prissy Marquess of Queensbury rules and face facts: the enemy likes to fight on ground where we are uncomfortable. That means terrorists strike in cities where the U.S. Army hates to operate and in the world of ideas, where the State Department fears to tread.
According to The Australian, Down Under’s biggest quality paper, "the jihadist tract reportedly began its life in Bali’s Kerobokan prison, where Mukhlas was jailed until recently." Mukhlas’ call to arms ran on anshar.net web site, now shuttered by Indonesian police. Now that anshar.net is gone, will the U.S. covertly help some moderate Muslims put up something in its place?
Posted by Richard Miniter at 06:33 PM
September 14, 2005
Turning down Katrina Aid
Why is the U.S. State department turning down aid and medical personnel from a certain Middle Eastern country? Caroline Glick has the surprising story.
Posted by Richard Miniter at 06:47 PM
June 05, 2005
Kissinger attacks a straw man
Former Secretary of State and dean of so-called "realist" school of foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, recently fired back at the "idealists" who want to implement the "freedom agenda" around the world. He doesn't engage the idealists' best arguments, but debates a series of straw men. Too bad. And he keeps talking about the changing strategic stituation, without acknowledging that it was Bush's idealist agenda that effected that change. Disappointing.
Posted by Richard Miniter at 10:27 PM
March 30, 2005
Rep. Mark Kirk Stands By Pakistan Account
As I wrote yesterday in the New York Sun's Foreign Desk Editorial Staff column:
"WASHINGTON - From the podium, a State Department deputy spokesman, Adam Ereli, attacked a story that appeared in the Monday edition of The New York Sun."
"Mr. Ereli said the story that chronicled the then-ambassador to Pakistan's efforts to shut down a program to distribute materials designed to elicit information leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders as "unfair" and "untrue."
Mr. Ereli did not cite any specific facts or allegations that were untrue.
The lawmaker at the center of The New York Sun's exclusive yesterday stands by his account. Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican of Illinois, who sits on the appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department, faulted Ambassador Nancy Powell's decision to impound wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items translated into local languages.
Asked for comment yesterday, Mr. Kirk declined to elaborate further, adding that the hunt for Mr. bin Laden has been invigorated by the replacement of Ms. Powell by veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker.
Yesterday, Mr. Ereli said the decision to discontinue the program was made before Ms. Powell arrived in Islamabad - a point attributed to a senior State Department official in Monday's edition.
When asked yesterday by the Sun to comment on Mr. Kirk's statements, Mr. Ereli declined to direct criticism at the lawmaker. Instead, he told the Sun, "I would say suggestions by anyone that Ambassador Powell, our mission in Islamabad, or the Department of State lacks commitment to the war on terror or the hunt for bin Laden are a disservice to the courage and commitment to everyone who works here." The New York Sun article stated no such allegations.
- Richard Miniter"
Posted by Richard Miniter at 10:35 PM
March 29, 2005
The Empire Strikes Back
So the State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli decided to fire back at me for my article on the front-page of the New York Sun on Monday. What is interesting is that baseless charges ("untrue and unfair"!) are thrown around so freely. I wonder if he actually read the entire article. Mr. Deputy Spokesman raises a number of objections, as you can see below. All of the points he makes are mentioned in the original story. His complaint amounts to arguing that the State Dept. view is buried too far into the story. I guess he wants to play editor...
Of course, there will be a response in the Tuesday editions of the New York Sun.
From the state department press briefing on Monday:
QUESTION: There's a report out that between 2002 and 2004, the then-Ambassador to Pakistan refused to allow the distribution of wanted posters, matchbooks and other items advertising the $25 million reward for the capture of Usama
bin Laden. Can you confirm if this occurred and, if it did, what effect that had on the hunt for Mr. Bin Laden and the Rewards for Justice program?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. That report is untrue and unfair. It's untrue because the decision with regard to the materials in question was made before the Ambassador ever got to post. It was made by the -- it was made, again, previous to her arrival at post. That's number one.
It's unfair because the article somehow suggests that this Ambassador and the Embassy in Pakistan was lackadaisical and unenthusiastic about their pursuit of Usama bin Laden and their commitment to the war on terror. And that's unfair because those people are in the line of fire every day, they have suffered casualties in the war on terror, and to suggest that they lack commitment and courage and sacrifice strikes a raw nerve over here.
Now, to get to the facts of the story, the fact is that the decision
on whether to make use of a particular tool in the war on terror, such as matchbooks or printed material, is based on a number of factors, including whether it's useful, whether it's accomplishing its purpose, or what other methods are there available. The decision is made by a number of entities, including the Ambassador, but also our counter-terrorism professionals from different agencies and other parts of the State Department. The decision to suspend this particular program was made in June 2002 and it was felt that at the
time there were other programs, there were other activities, where our efforts, I think, were better devoted.
Second of all, the article also suggests that somehow counterterrorism was just one of six priorities. Counter-terrorism was the number one priority. The mission was dedicated to it, the U.S. Government was dedicated to it, and whether or not you have a matchbook program is not the measure by which one should judge the commitment to counterterrorism. The measure by which one should judge commitment to counterterrorism is the resources that you're deploying across the board, the diplomatic efforts you're making internationally, the actions you're taking with the government in the
host country. And by all those measures Ambassador Powell and her team, from the day she arrived to the day she left—and the day she left was on normal rotation cycle, not because of some pressure or decision elsewhere—all her actions, from the day she got there to the day she left, were taken with that number one goal in mind.
QUESTION: Were these tools reinstated later? Is that part accurate?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. Well, as we announced very publicly a new campaign to get the word out among previously—get the word out was initiated a few months ago. But what we did in 2005 is very different from what we were doing in 2002. We're doing it in local languages, in areas that hadn't been reached before, in ways we hadn't reached them before, and it was based on what we learned between the previous efforts and these efforts. So it was very much refined, I think very much more focused, and based on the kinds of wide-ranging consultations and discussions and thinking throughout the administration, not just one ambassador but throughout the administration, you come up with a plan that you think is going to work.
Posted by Richard Miniter at 07:49 PM
March 17, 2005
Proud to Have Been an American
Ron Dermer was an American citizen—until the State Department made him renounce his citizenship. His patriotic response is worth reading. But Dermer is too polite to raise the larger issue: Why is the State Department telling foreign governments that it cannot appoint Americans to high-level posts at its embassies, unless they give up their U.S. passports? The U.S. government has long allowed dual citizenship with Israel, Ireland and a few other nations.Why can't diplomats be dual citizens too?
Posted by Richard Miniter at 09:16 AM