SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (63575)12/30/2002 11:31:44 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Wall Street Journal published more of Al Qaeda's memos from the computer they bought in Kabul in the fall of 2001. Excerpt:

Perhaps more revealing, however, is the yardstick set by Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants in messages stored on a computer they used in Afghanistan and in statements issued since Sept. 11 through Arab media and the Internet. The internal messages, placed on the computer shortly before U.S.-backed Afghan troops seized Kabul on Nov. 13, 2001, include communications from Mr. bin Laden to Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. It couldn't be determined whether Mr. bin Laden stored the documents on the computer himself or they were transferred from a disc created elsewhere.

...

Measured against its own expectations, al Qaeda stumbled badly immediately after Sept. 11. Since then, however, it has reshaped its strategy to survive and even thrive as a serious menace. Much of its infrastructure has been destroyed, but the anti-American resentment that underpinned al Qaeda has only increased, creating a fresh pool of potential recruits in addition to those like Mr. Yusuf and his fellow volunteer, both of whom apparently remain at large.

Some of the computer messages indicate Mr. bin Laden miscalculated America's resolve in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Shortly before the U.S. bombing campaign, he wrote a soothing message to Mullah Omar, advising the Taliban leader that Washington might shy from military action. Even if America did strike, he added, it would quickly retreat, humiliated like the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s. Either way, he said, America would end up a "third-rate power like Russia."

Mr. bin Laden urged a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that intervention would only lead to "further losses of money and lives." He told Mullah Omar this would "cause a rift between the American people and their government." The letter, signed "your brother Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden," was dated Oct. 4, 2001. Three days later, Mr. Bush announced that U.S. warplanes had launched strikes against al Qaeda camps and Taliban positions.

Raising a New Army

After the bombing began, al Qaeda evidently hoped for a replay of the anti-Soviet jihad, and drafted a budget for the raising of a new army of mujahedeen. Its bookkeepers estimated it would cost $670,000 to arm and clothe 2,000 fighters, each getting a Kalashnikov rifle, four grenades, two pair of socks, slippers and a hat. But panic was already taking root: One Arab militant used the computer to draft a letter that asked for his cash to be moved elsewhere.

Mr. bin Laden fretted about his own safety. In a separate letter, he anxiously told Mullah Omar the U.S. intended to "arrest all those whom America terms terrorists, at the head of which is my weak person." He said Mullah Omar would likely be killed. The letter doesn't appear to have been finished.

In the ensuing weeks, al Qaeda leaders scrambled to save themselves and their cause. They abandoned grand plans to extend what, in Afghanistan, had become a parallel state with territory and its own bureaucracy. Instead, they rebranded al Qaeda as a champion of Palestinians and Iraqis, people in whose suffering Mr. bin Laden hadn't previously shown serious interest. They also set about salvaging their core activity: suicide terrorism.

"Stimulating jihad against the Crusader aggression requires a stepping up of incitement to jihad, of training and preparation, of martryrdom and of spending for God's cause," said Mr. bin Laden in a message stored on the computer.

Al Qaeda chiefs homed in on what they saw as the West's big weakness: its struggling economy. They inflated their image with boasts of having crippled capitalism. In one of his messages to Mullah Omar, Mr. bin Laden reported with glee that "many American and European airlines are on the verge of bankruptcy," and "seven out of every 10 Americans suffer psychological problems following the attacks on New York and Washington."

'Glorious Tuesday'

The most detailed account of al Qaeda's thinking immediately after Sept. 11 is a rambling 52-page essay, "The Truth About the New Crusade," that crows about the success of "Glorious Tuesday" and calls for a "thousand more operations like these." Stored in draft form on the Kabul computer and later revised slightly and distributed abroad to rally recruits, the text includes hints that the White House was among the targets. It refers several times to the "destruction of the World Trade Center, the Defense Department and the White House."

The author apologizes for "errors and deficiencies" due to hasty composition. Nonetheless, he wanted his work preserved for posterity: "Please Translate into English and Keep at the Library of the American Congress," says a note appended to the computer draft. On its cover: a drawing of a hand smashing a plane into a black map of the U.S., along with the flags of America and Israel and a skull-and-crossbones banner.

The draft version is unsigned, but authorship was claimed this year by Ramzi Binalshibh, who had roomed with hijacker Mohamed Atta in Hamburg, Germany. Mr. Binalshibh, who wanted to be a hijacker but couldn't get a U.S. visa, gave a revised edition to Yosri Fouda, a journalist for the Arab-language television channel al-Jazeera, who interviewed him in May. Called the "Second Edition," this version had a more polished cover, a montage of photos from Sept. 11.


online.wsj.com



To: tekboy who wrote (63575)12/30/2002 12:02:58 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Any time frame for that Korean discussion on Squawkbox? First half hour, later? Whatever?



To: tekboy who wrote (63575)1/1/2003 3:49:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Outfoxed by North Korea

By LEON FUERTH
Editorial
The New York Times
January 1, 2003

WASHINGTON — We're beginning the new year in a deep fix.

The Bush administration's decision to refer North Korea's revival of its nuclear-weapons program to the United Nations is a reasonable, but transparent effort to sidetrack the issue in hopes of avoiding another military crisis on the eve of war with Iraq. It is unlikely the United Nations will take meaningful action in this situation, since no power other than the United States possesses the means to back up words with action.

Even if the administration's strategy of isolating North Korea works, at best it would amount to a partial tightening of sanctions against a country whose economy is already moribund. The only additional threat available is the denial of food aid for the people of North Korea, an act that would take the United States into new moral territory.

The administration now is in the awkward position of choosing to give war with Iraq priority over the most serious threat to stability in Asia since the last North Korean nuclear crisis a decade ago. Moreover, the North Koreans are moving to develop their nuclear stockpile with such dispatch that the administration's delaying tactics appear to have little chance to succeed. With the last of the international inspectors ejected yesterday and the possibility of a mothballed plutonium reprocessing facility coming back on line in the next month or two, North Korea is giving itself the means to produce ever-greater numbers of nuclear weapons, and no subsequent agreement will be able to reverse that fact.

There is still a lingering hope that all this will turn out to have been an attempt by North Korea to get the Bush administration to make major concessions. If that's the case, either the United States or North Korea will have to give way. Unfortunately neither of these scenarios looks likely. And absent either outcome, North Korea is on course to becoming a nuclear power. The consequences of their success are severe.

North Korea already is in a position to provide nuclear technology to other states or to terrorist groups. In any event, we should expect that it will continue to develop the ability to deliver nuclear weapons by ballistic missile. And no long-term comfort can be found from the relatively limited capabilities of North Korea's current missiles, which can still threaten our allies, including Japan. What's more, North Korean weapons engineers can gradually develop longer-range rockets and lighter warheads, giving the country true intercontinental ballistic-missile capability.

While it's uncertain how far North Korea's missiles will be able to travel, it is certain that the Bush administration now faces an immediate loss of credibility. Its report on National Security Strategy, released in September, claims the right of pre-emption as a means to deal with the type of threat that Iraq is said to represent by virtue of its efforts to build weapons of mass destruction. There is no sign, however, that the administration plans to use this doctrine against North Korea, which poses a danger to the vital interests of the United States by virtue of what it has already accomplished.

The administration's special addendum to its National Security Strategy, the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction," published in December, states on its opening page that: "We will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." But there is no sign that this new unconditional doctrine will be directed against North Korea. Another line in the addendum states that "Effective interdiction is a critical part" of the American strategy to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that deliver them. But, again, the administration, after seizing a North Korean vessel in the act of smuggling North Korean ballistic missiles into Yemen, elected to release the ship and its cargo. American officials cited reverence for international law, but such a justification, so unusual during the administration's first weapons-proliferation case, takes the teeth out of its tough pre-emption policy. With what lesson for North Korea?

(Page 2 of 2)

So on the way to war with Iraq, the United States has been caught out by North Korea — which apparently saw its opportunity in our distraction and seized it. This drama is far from over, but with each day North Korea moves closer to its goal of either forcing the administration to negotiate or of enhancing its ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Either way, the balance of power in the Far East is likely to be upset. If the president negotiates, he will send a message that the key to respectful attention from his administration is blackmail. If he can't stop North Korea from pursuing its nuclear ambitions, the only effective remedy would be military action.

War on the Korean Peninsula is almost too horrible to contemplate, although the Clinton administration certainly confronted it when dealing with North Korea's nuclear program in the early 1990's. (Then, as now, the North Koreans were preparing to begin a process that would give them enough plutonium to build nuclear weapons serially.) If North Korea proceeds today, we would then be faced with a ruthless government in a position to increasingly threaten its region. This threat could cause a number of states, including South Korea and possibly Japan, to question whether American security guarantees are still the most reliable means for their defense and survival.

One political reminder from this episode is the danger that can come from tough talk. When using words as weapons, a leader must be prepared to back up his rhetoric with force. The president's nomination of North Korea as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his last State of the Union message now looks like a bluff that is being called. And the outcome of the administration's diplomacy is that we are preparing to fight a war with a country that might eventually acquire nuclear weapons, while another country is closing in on the ability to go into mass production.

Like it or not, the administration needs to test the theory that North Korea is trying to force the United States into negotiations. That would be bitter medicine for the administration to swallow, but in view of the alternatives it would be wise for the administration to reverse course and engage with North Korea. However, if such a process doesn't stop the North Korean nuclear enterprise, and quickly, then the administration must either accept a monumental blow to the security of the United States, or prepare for a second major military enterprise in Korea — one that would take place simultaneously, or nearly so, with action against Iraq.

______________________________________________________
Leon Fuerth, national security advisor to Vice President Al Gore from 1993 to 2000, teaches international relations at George Washington University.

nytimes.com