C U R R E N T N E W S

E A R L Y B I R D

January 7, 2008Use of these news articles does not reflect official endorsement.

Reproduction for private use or gain is subject to original copyright restrictions.Story numbers indicate order of appearance only.

IRAQ1. Deadly Bombing Mars Iraqi Celebration

(New York Times)....Solomon Moore and Mudhafer al-Husaini...When four Iraqi soldiers moved to block the bomber from entering, he detonated his explosive vest, killing at leastthe four soldiers and wounding at least six people, according to the Iraqi police and military officials. There werediffering accounts of the death toll, with some saying as many as 11 had been killed, but they could not beconfirmed.

2. 'The Reality Is Very Hard'(Newsweek)....Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry KaplowGen. David Petraeus has led the most dramatic turnaround in Iraq since 2003. But he's not planning to celebrate yet.

3. All Eyes On The Iraqi Army(Los Angeles Times)....Tina SusmanTraining efforts continue amid U.S. hopes that the security forces will be able to maintain gains cited in security. Butthe troops have had a mixed track record.

4. New Look At Foreign Fighters In Iraq(Christian Science Monitor)....Gordon LuboldAn analysis shows that the bulk of them come from countries allied with the US.

5. For Pentagon And News Media, Relations Improve With A Shift In War Coverage(New York Times)....Thom ShankerThe anguished relationship between the military and the news media appears to be on the mend as battlefieldsuccesses from the troop increase in Iraq are reflected in more upbeat news coverage.

PAKISTAN6. Suggestion Of Covert U.S. Mission Stirs Anger

(Washington Times)....Combined dispatchesPakistan reacted angrily yesterday to reports that President Bush is considering covert military operations in thecountry's volatile tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

7. In Musharraf's Shadow, A New Hope For Pakistan Rises(New York Times)....David Rohde and Carlotta GallOver the last several months, a little-known, enigmatic Pakistani general has quietly raised hopes among Americanofficials that he could emerge as a new force for stability in Pakistan, according to current and former governmentofficials. But it remains too early to determine whether he can play a decisive role in the country.

8. U.S. Officials Review Approach In Pakistan(Washington Post)....Ann Scott Tyson and Robin Wright

...The Pentagon seeks greater authority to conduct operations while coordinating with the State Department. Adm.Eric Olson, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, visited Pakistan last month and discussed with PresidentPervez Musharraf and senior military leaders how else the U.S. military can assist in countering "a very complexinsurgency," one military official said.

9. Poll Finds Pakistanis Want Democracy(Boston Globe)....ReutersMost Pakistanis want their country to be a democratic Islamic state but are deeply distrustful of the United States andits war on terrorism, according to a poll released yesterday.

AFGHANISTAN10. Defying U.S. Plan, Prison Expands In Afghanistan

(New York Times)....Tim GoldenAs the Bush administration struggles for a way to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a similareffort to scale down a larger and more secretive American detention center in Afghanistan has been troubled bypolitical, legal and security problems, officials say.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT11. Why Anthopologists Are Reluctant Army Recruits

(CQ Weekly)....Elaine MonaghanAnthropologists are the original participant-observers, but they don’t much like what they’re seeing — and whatsome members of their profession are doing — at the behest of the Department of Defense.

12. Union Asks High Court To Hear Pentagon Suit(Federal Times)....UnattributedThe American Federation of Government Employees plans to take its fight against the Pentagon’s new personnelsystem to the Supreme Court.

ARMY13. Katrina Victims Swamp Corps For Trillions In Claims

(USA Today)....Brad Heath...The Army Corps of Engineers received 247 claims from residents, businesses and government agencies seeking $1billion or more, according to the agency. That's the tip of a very large iceberg: The corps, which designed and builtthe city's storm protections, faces more than 489,000 claims for the damage and deaths in the post-Katrina flooding.

14. In Blog, A Military Man Writes About His Own Death(New York Times)....Brian StelterAndrew Olmsted, a United States Army major who wrote an online blog for The Rocky Mountain News, preparedfor the possibility of his death by writing a 3,000-word piece.

15. On The Mend(Army Times)....Kelly KennedyArmy disability retirement system better.

16. Why Have Fort Monroe Costs Soared?(Newport News Daily Press)....David LermanTwo local members of Congress are pressing the Pentagon to explain why the cost of closing Hampton's FortMonroe has increased 298 percent.

MARINE CORPS17. The Long And Winding Road

(Washington Post)....Walter PincusIn 1996, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command determined that its expeditionary forces needed an agileand mobile weapon to fire over the enemy's front lines, a concept quickly dubbed Dragon Fire.

page 2

AIR FORCE18. C-17 Mission Completed

(Tacoma News Tribune)....Scott FontaineNear the bottom of the globe, an American crew took off from a New Zealand runway to help a stranded Britishship. And after a drop above one of the most treacherous reaches of the Earth, airmen from McChord Air Force Basewere the heroes.

CONGRESS19. The Many Factors Behind 2008's Bigger Raise For Federal Workers

(Washington Post)....Stephen Barr...The differences in the raises largely can be attributed to the political process on Capitol Hill. At the end of 2006,Congress had not completed most of the annual appropriations bill and left it to President Bush to set the 2007 raise.Last month, Congress put together a consolidated spending bill and got Bush's signature before the year ended.

AFRICA20. Kenya 'Critical' To U.S. Military

(Washington Times)....Rowan ScarboroughA destabilized Kenya would deprive the United States of one of its staunchest allies in Africa, because Nairobi sinceSeptember 11 has provided military bases, communications networks and intelligence-sharing to prevent al Qaedafrom making inroads on the continent.

MIDEAST21. As Bush Heads To Mideast, Renewed Questions On Iran

(Washington Post)....Michael Abramowitz and Ellen KnickmeyerPresident Bush intends to use his first extended tour of the Middle East to rally support for international pressureagainst Iran, even as a recent U.S. intelligence report playing down Tehran's nuclear ambitions has left Israeli andArab leaders rethinking their own approach toward Iran and questioning Washington's resolve, according to seniorU.S. officials, diplomats and regional experts.

22. Egypt To Bolster Gaza Border(Washington Post)....Ellen KnickmeyerEgypt has agreed to spend $23 million in U.S. military aid on robots and other advanced technology to detectsmuggling tunnels along its border with the Gaza Strip, a U.S. congressman said Sunday. Egypt also has accepted aU.S. offer to send experts from the Army Corps of Engineers to train Egyptian border guards in the technology, saidRep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

EUROPE23. Poland Signals Doubts About Planned U.S. Missile-Defense Bases On Its Territory

(New York Times)....Judy DempseySignaling a tougher position in negotiations with the United States on a European antiballistic-missile shield system,Poland’s foreign minister says his country’s new government is not prepared to accept American plans to deploymissile-defense bases in Poland until all costs and risks are considered.

TERRORISM24. Qaeda Urges Meeting Bush With Bombs

(New York Times)....Associated PressAn American member of Al Qaeda urged fighters to meet President Bush “with bombs” when he visits the MiddleEast this week, according to a new videotape posted on the Internet on Sunday.

25. Al Qaeda’s Newest Triggerman(Newsweek)....Sami Yousafzai and Ron MoreauBaitullah Mehsud is being blamed for most of the suicide bombings in Pakistan, including Benazir Bhutto's

page 3

assassination. The rise of a militant leader.

MILITARY26. Helping Hand For Hurt Bomb Squads

(U.S. News & World Report)....Paul BedardIt has never been a great job, but in the Iraq war, where improvised explosive devices are a leading cause of injuryand death, being a member of the military bomb squad is more dangerous than ever.

BOOKS27. In A Shorter War, The Numbers Might Have Added Up

(Washington Post)....Michael Abramowitz...But in a book being published this week -- "What a President Should Know ... But Most Learn Too Late" --Lindsey offers for the first time what he terms "the true story" behind his estimate, including what he sees as amistaken White House strategy to play down the costs of war to maintain public support for an invasion.

OPINION28. 2008 Full Of Challenges For Asia Leaders

(Honolulu Advertiser)....Richard HalloranThe year 2008 will confront many leaders in Asia, especially those in Beijing and Islamabad, Pakistan, withexceptionally difficult tests. For the U.S., stuck with a lame-duck president and a tedious election campaign, the testswill not come until a new president enters the White House in January 2009.

29. Biased Against Homosexuals -- (Letter)(Washington Times)....Kayla Williams...The operations tempo of the military today makes every service member who is well-qualified and hardworking avaluable, necessary part of the team. Troops on the ground are aware of that. It is unfortunate that Ms. Donnellyplaces her political bias above this reality.

page 4

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 111. Deadly BombingMars Iraqi CelebrationBy Solomon Moore andMudhafer al-Husaini

BAGHDAD — Asjubilant Iraqi soldierscelebrated Army Day bydancing and chantinganti-insurgent slogans inside adowntown office building hereon Sunday, a suicide bombertried to shove his way throughthe gate.

When four Iraqi soldiersmoved to block the bomberfrom entering, he detonated hisexplosive vest, killing at leastthe four soldiers and woundingat least six people, according tothe Iraqi police and militaryofficials. There were differingaccounts of the death toll, withsome saying as many as 11 hadbeen killed, but they could notbe confirmed.

“The suicide bomber wasvery young,” said an Iraqipolice officer who declined tobe identified because he wasnot allowed to speak to thenews media. “We found hissevered head, and we found aYemeni identification cardnear the rest of his body.”

A military officer with the11th Iraqi Army Division whoalso spoke on condition ofanonymity praised the foursoldiers’ sacrifice. “If they hadallowed him to enter thebuilding, even more peoplewould have been killed,” theofficer said.

The Iraqi authorities saidthey suspected that the bomberwas sent by Al Qaeda inMesopotamia, a mostlyhomegrown insurgent groupthat American intelligenceagencies say has foreignleadership. Many of thegroup’s suicide bombers havebeen recruited abroad andsmuggled into Iraq fromneighboring countries.

Despite the insistence byAmericans and the Iraqigovernment that insurgentgroups have been greatlyweakened in recent months, the

attack on Sunday, the 87thanniversary of the Iraqi Army’sfounding, was anotherreminder of the threat posed bythe militants.

Much of the credit for anoverall decline in attacks inIraq recently has been given toAmerican-recruited Sunni Arabmilitias known as Awakeninggroups. But they haveincreasingly become targets ofthe insurgent groups they havebeen fighting, and that trendcontinued Sunday.

In Baquba, gunmen burstinto the home of Sheik DhariMandeel, a leader of the mainAwakening group in DiyalaProvince, and shot him todeath. The attackers also killedthe sheik’s wife, according tothe local police, and kidnapped10 of his relatives.

And in Baghdad’spredominantly Shiite district ofShaab, the police reported thatIsmael Abbas, another triballeader who had pledged loyaltyto the United States, was shotto death outside his home onSunday morning.

Members of theAwakening groups havecomplained lately that they areincreasingly caught between AlQaeda in Mesopotamia and theShiite-led Iraqi government,which is suspicious of theAwakening groups and hasshown reluctance to integratethem into the security forces.

Prime Minister NuriKamal al-Maliki, in aninterview in London with theprominent Arabic-languagenewspaper Asharq al-Awsat,signaled his government’sambivalence about the Sunnimilitias — at once praisingthem for fighting Al Qaeda inMesopotamia while expressingsuspicion that many of theirmembers may be insurgentsthemselves, trying to infiltrateIraq’s security forces.

“The government supportsthe Awakening Councils, but itmust safeguard itself frominfiltration,” he said. “We, as agovernment, have intelligencenow that the Baathists orderedits members to join theAwakening Councils and that

Al Qaeda did that as well.”Mr. Maliki returned to Iraq

on Saturday after a series ofmedical tests at a Londonhospital. Government officialssaid that the prime minister, aShiite, was suffering fromexhaustion, but that tests hadshown that he was in otherwisegood health.

The Iraqi police saidSunday that a joint raid byAmerican and Iraqi forces hadkilled four suspectedinsurgents and destroyed twohomes, for fear that they werebooby-trapped, in southwestBaquba, a city north of thecapital that has become a focalpoint for insurgent groups. AUnited States militaryspokesman said he could notconfirm that the operation tookplace.

In addition to the ArmyDay bombing, four otherbombing attacks in Iraq — onein Baghdad and three in thenorthern city of Mosul —killed at least three people andwounded at least 19.

The Iraqi police also saidthey had discovered 12 bodiesin Baghdad and five severedheads outside Baquba.

The violenceovershadowed Iraq’s militarycelebrations, including adisplay of its newest equipmentat the national soldier’smemorial, a largesaucer-shaped sculpture insidethe heavily guarded GreenZone. Soldiers in crisp fatiguesand royal blue formal wearstood at attention during theexhibition of armored vehicles,ambulances andbomb-detection equipment.

In order to avoid securitythreats, the commemorationwas invitation-only.

Qais Mizher contributedreporting from Baghdad, andIraqi employees of The NewYork Times from Baghdad,Baquba and Mosul.

NewsweekJanuary 14, 20082. 'The Reality Is VeryHard'Gen. David Petraeus has led

the most dramatic turnaroundin Iraq since 2003. But he's notplanning to celebrate yet.

It's far too early to declareGen. David Petraeus, 55, thegeneral who tamed Baghdad. Adramatic drop in violence inthe Iraqi capital is recent andtenuous, and Petraeus is thefirst to admit it owes much todecisions taken by Sunniinsurgents and Shiite clericMoqtada al-Sadr's militia tosuspend attacks there. Still, thePh.D.-toting general, whoco-wrote the Army'scounterinsurgency manual andhas led the surge of U.S.troops, has presided over themost dramatic turnaround inIraq since the invasion in 2003.As this election year begins,that has some partisans talkingup his future politicalprospects. Petraeus met withNEWSWEEK's BabakDehghanpisheh and LarryKaplow at his office in the U.S.Embassy in Baghdad lastweek. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: HOW didthe Anbar Awakeningmovement [of Sunni sheiksallying with U.S. troops]start? How much of that wasplanned, and how much wasluck?

PETRAEUS: I do thinkthat we were willing to takerisks and … take advantage ofopportunities that presentedthemselves. Because of theaccumulated experience thatour leaders have, and becauseof changes in the way theArmy and the Marine Corpsprepare units for deployment… our leaders are really quitenuanced in their understandingof situations and, again, havethe ability to recognizeopportunities where perhapswe might not have recognizedthem in the past.

How much did youwrestle with the idea oftalking to people who hadattacked and maybe evenkilled Americans?

We did wrestle with it…There were many[conversations] as we all sortof tried to come to grips withthis… I think [many Sunnis]

page 5

just sort of woke up and said,"What were we thinking? Whyin the world did we sheiks,who often go to Amman for theweekend, why did we end upin league with guys who have aTaliban-like ideology, kill oursheiks and take our daughters?"… By the way, take none ofthis to be optimistic orpessimistic. [We] should berealistic at this point, and thereality of Iraq is that it's veryhard.

So you wouldn't say AlQaeda's finished?

Oh, no, not at all. AlQaeda is like a fighter that'staken some very serious shotsto the head but shakes them off[and] can come back with avery lethal right hand.

Are you frustrated thatthe Iraqi government hasbeen slow to absorb theseSunni fighters?

To me that's somewhatunderstandable… becausesome of these individuals wereundoubtedly in the resistance.So there have to be safeguards,there have to be assurances. Itdoes seem like the eye of aneedle sometimes, trying to getthese lists [of fighters to beintegrated into the securityservices] through. But they doget through.

Are you having directtalks with Sadrists as well?

We certainly talk tomembers of what would mostaccurately be called the SadrTrend, as you know—thepolitical wing. We havecertainly had conversations atlocal levels with numerousleaders of Jaish al-Mahdi[Sadr's militia] … It's waxedand waned. I guess you canclassify it as mildly waxingright now.

Were you surprised bySadr's declaration of aceasefire? Skeptical?

Sure. I think we've saidrepeatedly, "We're fromMissouri, the Show Me State."But … if we could sit downacross the table with insurgentswho were shooting at us—likewe did in the late spring andsummer, [with] Sunni Arabinsurgents—we figured we

could at least give Jaishal-Mahdi a chance. Now,having said that, once anelement or an individualviolates that ceasefire,obviously they're criminals andthey have to be dealt with byIraqi or Coalition forces, ortogether, more likely.

Where do you see trooplevels by the time U.S.elections roll around inNovember?

What we're doing rightnow is the analysis that willprovide the basis forrecommendations that theambassador [Ryan Crocker]and I will take back in lateMarch or early April. We'veliterally just begun thatanalysis. We're looking at threedifferent scenarios. One isthings get better; one is thingsstay about the same as wecome down [in troop strength];another is things get worse.

Have you consideredbecoming a vice presidentialcandidate?

I will say on the record …I really do not have anypolitical aspirations. I havechosen to serve our country inuniform and I respect thosewho serve it in politics … Theywon't nominate me foranything anyway.

So you wouldn't considera presidential run?

No.You have a copy of the

Aeneid in your bookshelfhere. What are you readingnow?

I just finished DavidHalberstam's book on Korea; Ithink it's titled "The ColdestWinter." I read Rick Atkinson'ssecond book in his trilogy onWorld War II, which is terrific.He's a good buddy. He did the[trip] to Baghdad in the back ofmy Humvee. He learned abouthis second or third Pulitzerwhile we were out in a duststorm. I read "April 1865," andit's very good. And I read"Grant Takes Command,"which was really quiteinstructive.

Some could compare youto Grant.

I'm not trying to get

compared to anybody. Everysituation is unique.

Los Angeles TimesJanuary 7, 20083. All Eyes On The IraqiArmyTraining efforts continue amidU.S. hopes that the securityforces will be able to maintaingains cited in security. But thetroops have had a mixed trackrecord.By Tina Susman, Los AngelesTimes Staff Writer

MAHMOUDIYA, IRAQ— The 10 rows of men stoodramrod straight, their righthands saluting in unison, theirleft arms stiffly at their sides,save for one in a plaster castand sling.

Then, in a burst ofcollective energy, they racedout the door, crossed a vastfield and hurled themselvesonto an obstacle course ofswinging ropes, muddyditches, catwalks and toweringwalls.

Welcome to the new Iraqiarmy, or at least a tiny portionof it that U.S. and Iraqiofficials hope will serve as amodel for the rest. Themid-December event was agraduation at the new IraqiArmy Commando Course, andit provided a look at theprogress being made and thechallenges still facing the160,000-strong army.

On the plus side, 50soldiers made the cut. On theminus side, 106 didn't. Still, thepass rate was better than forfour previous commandoclasses, which graduated about35 each.

"We're ready for anything.We'll demolish the enemy witha big fist!" declared newlyminted commando Ziad KhalafHamza, 20, an amber-eyedjudo expert.

Perhaps no Iraqi institutionfaces greater scrutinynowadays than the securityforces, which the U.S. andBritish militaries are countingon to maintain recent gainsofficials have cited.

Britain last month signed

over responsibility for securityin Basra, the last of the fourprovinces under British controlto be handed over to Iraqis.The U.S. military has begunpulling out the five extracombat brigades it deployed inIraq last year, which will bringthe American troop level toabout 134,000 by the middle ofthe year, down from more than160,000.

Yet relying on Iraqisecurity forces has provedrisky. In February, when ArmyGen. George W. Casey Jr.handed off command of U.S.troops in Iraq to Gen. David H.Petraeus, he predicted thatIraqi forces would be in chargeof security nationwide by fall.

Casey's time in Iraq wasmarked by a push to bringdown the U.S. troop level andspeed the transfer ofresponsibilities to the Iraqigovernment. But insurgentstook advantage of the lessexperienced Iraqi forces toramp up violence, which ledPresident Bush to deploy theadditional brigades.

Attacks on civilians andcoalition forces have droppedto their lowest level in morethan two years, according toArmy Lt. Gen. Raymond T.Odierno, the day-to-daycommander of U.S. troops inIraq. Opinions vary, though, onhow ready Iraqi troops are totake charge.

Iraqi governmentspokesman Ali Dabbagh saidin December that Iraq wouldneed foreign troops to defend itfor a decade.

"Of course we needinternational support. We havesecurity problems. For 10 yearsour army will not be able todefend Iraq," Dabbagh told thestate-run Al Iraqiya TV.

A Pentagon quarterlyreport to Congress releasedDec. 18 says that 77% of Iraqiarmy units are consideredcapable of planning, executingand sustaining operations withlittle or no help from U.S.forces. But it says the army'sreadiness is constrained byshortfalls in its ability tomanage logistics, such as

page 6

providing equipment. It alsosays a shortage of officers totake on leadership roles"remains problematic" and thatit will "take years" to close thegap.

In testimony to Congressin September, Petraeus saidtraining of the Iraqi army hadbeen hampered by violencethat kept too many troops oncombat missions.

Brig. Gen. Ali Furaiji,commanding officer of theIraqi army's 4th Brigade, 6thDivision, whose area ofoperation includes formerinsurgent strongholds south ofBaghdad, agreed with thatassessment.

"The thing is, our soldiersdo not get much trainingbecause they're always out onthe streets," said Furaiji, whoserved under Saddam Husseinfor 20 years. "Back in the oldarmy, we'd get up at 5 a.m., run[about three miles], train13-hour days."

However, Furaiji said theold military was not highlyrespected, because it was seenas a protector of Hussein ratherthan the Iraqi people.

That's one reason for theCommando Course, aimed atinstilling a sense of pride inyoung soldiers and puttingthem on the path to becomingofficers.

"When he finds there ismore respect for him, he'll findhe has better stamina," Furaijisaid after handing out frameddiplomas, commando badgesand watches to the latestgraduates.

"This invests much moreleadership skills at a lowerlevel," said Brig. Gen. JamesYarbrough, commandinggeneral of the Iraq AssistanceGroup, which advises the Iraqimilitary on training programs.

Troops chosen bycommanding officers train for12 hours a day for about threeweeks. Most drop out quicklyduring the grueling physicaltests, said Furaiji, a tall, elegantman who said that he could notmake the grade himself. Askedwhy not, he held up a pack ofKent cigarettes. "Five a day,"

he said.The desire to become a

commando is fierce, Furaijisaid, recalling a young manwho broke down and criedwhen he failed the physicaltest. The soldier begged foranother chance. Furaiji gave itto him, and he passed. The manwith the cast on his arm hadbroken it during the course butwent on to gain his commandobadge anyway.

Those who pass theendurance portion of the23-day course move on toother specialties, most ofwhich were not part ofprevious Iraqi army training:changing a Humvee tire underfire, for example, or first aid.

Yarbrough said the Iraqimilitary practice had been totransport wounded soldiers tothe nearest civilian hospital. Bycomparison, each U.S. militaryplatoon has a medic.

On the obstacle course,graduates showed off theirskills to an audience of U.S.and Iraqi officers andjournalists. They bellied underwires through muddy bogs,rappelled down walls, inchedacross ropes suspended about40 feet in the air and poundedone another in a judo ring. Thefinale was a demonstration ofhouse raiding and targetshooting.

Afterward, Yarbrough saidhe had few worries about thededication of soldiers such asjudo expert Hamza, orMohammed Ali Kamel, aboxer who also was among thenewly graduated commandos.

"I want to protect myhome, my country and theinnocent people," Kamel said.

The Iraqi army has notsuffered from the sectariantroubles that have beset thenational police force, which isoverwhelmingly Shiite Muslimand infiltrated by militiamen.

Yarbrough said one of hismain concerns with the armywas improving its ability tomanage logistics. "That'sproving a tough nut to crack,"he said, referring to such tasksas repairing damagedequipment. The difficulty is

linked to the broader U.S.effort to force Iraqi officials toturn to their own governmentto fix things, instead ofcounting on American forces.

Ten new logistics centers,to be completed in May, aredesigned to speed up thetransition by giving the Iraqimilitary a place to warehouseparts and equipment and tosend hardware that needsrepair.

"But as you map this out,it simply takes time,"Yarbrough said, noting that themilitary was being createdfrom scratch after having beendisbanded under a 2003 decreeby the U.S. officials of theCoalition Provisional Authoritythat ran Iraq in the immediateaftermath of Hussein's ouster.

Yarbrough, withoutcriticizing that move,acknowledged the strain it hadplaced on U.S. and Iraqi forces."I'd hope we would deliberatethat decision in future conflictsvery, very hard," he said.

Christian Science MonitorJanuary 7, 20084. New Look At ForeignFighters In IraqAn analysis shows that the bulkof them come from countriesallied with the US.By Gordon Lubold, Staffwriter of The Christian ScienceMonitor

WASHINGTON -- Littlehas been known aboutso-called foreign fighters inIraq, other than that they aretypically motivated byideology and are usuallysmuggled in through Syria insmall numbers. Many performsuicide bombing missions andinstigate some of the country'sstarkest violence.

But a new analysispublished last month byexperts at West Point showsthat most of these individualscome from Saudi Arabia andLibya, as well as other NorthAfrican countries such asAlgeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.The analysis suggests that thebulk of foreign fightersoriginate from countries with

whom the United States isallied – Saudi Arabia, for one –and also offers clues as to howAmerican officials can stemthe flow of these terrorists.

The report, which is basedon data compiled by Al Qaedaand captured by coalitionforces last fall, shows that themost violent acts in Iraq aretypically carried out by foreignfighters. Their goals sometimesalign with the group Al Qaedain Iraq, which, estimatessuggest, has between 5,000 and8,000 people associated with it.The foreign fighters, however,represent just a small fractionof that group.

"We don't mean to implythat the bulk of theorganization is foreign," saysLt. Col. Joseph Felter, whoco-wrote the analysis for theCombating Terrorism Center atthe US Military Academy atWest Point, N.Y. "But whatyou can take away from this isthat it seems very likely thatthe vast majority of the suicidebombers do seem to becommitted by non-Iraqis."

The US militarydiscovered documents andcomputer data that belonged toAl Qaeda after conducting araid in Sinjar, which is alongthe Syrian border in westernIraq and was thought to be anentry point for many of Iraq'sforeign fighters. Thedocuments and computer dataoffered a unique look at theflow of foreign fighters.

US military officials notethat they don't know preciselyhow many foreign fighters arein Iraq; even this report doesnot indicate one way oranother. Some accounts havesuggested that the number is nomore than a few hundred at anyone time.

But while the total numberis unknown, US militaryofficials have determined thatthe fighters' flow into Iraq isdecreasing – from as many as110 per month in the first halfof 2007 to about 40 per monththis past fall.

Although it remainsunclear the degree to whichShiite-dominant Iran is

page 7

influencing the violence inIraq, the analysis indicates thatmost of the foreignintervention is Sunni-based,which includes Al Qaeda.

The more than 750personnel records obtained atthe raid site showed that SaudiArabia was the country oforigin for 41 percent of therecords analyzed, or 244fighters. Libya was the sourcefor 18 percent, or 112 of thefighters. Syria, Yemen, andAlgeria were the next mostcommon, according to the29-page report, titled"Al-Qaida's Foreign Fighters inIraq: A First Look at the SinjarRecords."

One of the only otheranalyses of foreign fighters,conducted in 2005 by an Israeliresearcher, did not indicatenearly as many fighters beingrecruited from North Africa.The revelation that more arefrom North Africa comes asthe US Defense Departmentsets up a new combatantcommand in Africa that aimsto help African nations makethemselves less hospitable toforeign terrorists.

The Sinjar analysis alsooffers clues about how thefighters get to Iraq: Most comethrough Syria, and the fighters,depending upon theirnationality, use fairlypredictable routes to Syria.

For example, fighters fromLibya tend to go through Egyptand then Syria. Tunisianstypically travel throughGermany and then Turkey toSyria.

Armed with thisknowledge, the US and itsallies can attempt to breakthose "logistical chains" beforethe fighters even get to Syria.

"There seem to be veryestablished routes," says BrianFishman, the other co-author ofthe analysis. "That suggeststhat there are clear logisticsnetworks based on nationalitiesto get people there. We need tobreak those logistics chains notonly to Syria, but all the way inSyria."

Any analysis of foreignfighters in Iraq is accompanied

by much skepticism since noaccounting, even using dataobtained from terroristnetworks, rarely offers atransparent look at who isbehind the violence in Iraq.Lieutenant Colonel Felter andMr. Fishman acknowledge thatthe data is only a snapshot.

Such pictures of thoseentering Iraq only provideinsights into that particulargroup of people and aren'tusually representative, saysAnthony Cordesman, a seniorexpert at the Center forStrategic and InternationalStudies, a think tank inWashington.

"We have a very roughidea of people moving throughSyria," he says. "Thesenumbers are extremely rough,and there is no real way toknow who is an Iraqi and whois not an Iraqi."

Meanwhile, the dynamicsof the violence in Iraq havechanged as the securitysituation has improved.Overall, violence is down.Whereas as many as 1,600attacks were taking placeacross the country per week inJune, there are now fewer than600 attacks per week, says Col.Donald Bacon, a spokesmanfor the US military in Baghdad.

Yet as security hasimproved, it has forcedinsurgents and foreign fightersto change the way they operate.

Foreign fighters enteringIraq from Syria typically camethrough Anbar Province, but assecurity there has improved –attacks there are down 90percent from earlier this year –those fighters have had tomove their routes farther north,say military officials. As aresult, declines in violencehave been far more gradual inthe American military sectorknown as Multi-NationalDivision-North, which includesMosul and Diyala.

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 13Military Memo5. For Pentagon And

News Media, RelationsImprove With A Shift InWar CoverageBy Thom Shanker

WASHINGTON — Theanguished relationship betweenthe military and the newsmedia appears to be on themend as battlefield successesfrom the troop increase in Iraqare reflected in more upbeatnews coverage.

Efforts from the newPentagon leadership, as well asby top commanders at theheadquarters in Baghdad, havealso eased tensions betweenreporters and those in uniform.Positive or negative, thetroops’ view of the news mediais set as much by the tone ofcommanders as by the tenor ofindividual news clips.

Gen. David H. Petraeus,the senior American officer inIraq, and his subordinates haveworked hard to convey therationale for their strategy andthe evidence that persuadesthem it is succeeding. Adm.Mike Mullen, the newchairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, has engaged reporters ina variety of venues: at thePentagon, on travels across theUnited States and overseas,including the Middle East.

And, perhaps mostimportant, their boss, DefenseSecretary Robert M. Gates, hasstated a view never heard fromhis predecessor, Donald H.Rumsfeld. “The press is not theenemy,” Mr. Gates tellsmilitary audiences, including atthe service academies, “and totreat it as such isself-defeating.”

At the start of the Iraq war,decades of open hostilitiesbetween the military and newsmedia dating from Vietnamwere forgotten, if only for abrief and shining moment. Onereason was the embed programfor the Iraq invasion thatplaced hundreds of reportersfrom across the journalisticspectrum into combat units.Soldiers and correspondentsshared tents, meals and risks,and both sides said thatperhaps their differences were

not irreconcilable after all.Then, however, the

success of the lightning-quickinvasion became not the fullstory, but merely the earlychapter of a frustrating anddeadly narrative of war in Iraq.

As insurgent violence rosein 2003, echoes of that earlierconflict in Southeast Asiacould be heard. The downturnaccelerated with the AbuGhraib prison scandal in 2004.The credibility of the armedforces fell even further in theeyes of reporters when it wasdisclosed that militarycontractors in Baghdad hadpaid Iraqi reporters for storiesin the local news media.

In return, the military’sfamiliar complaints resumed:There is no coverage of thegood news from Iraq, officerssaid. The focus is on violenceand daily casualty counts, andnot progress. Reporters cannotor will not get out and about inIraq to tell the whole story.Editors and reporters arebiased.

As recently as October, Lt.Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, whohad served as the firstcommander of the Iraqoccupation, came out ofretirement to condemncoverage of the war.

“The death knell of yourethics has been enabled byyour parent organizations whohave chosen to alignthemselves with politicalagendas,” General Sanchezsaid in comments that earnedfar less coverage than hisequally harsh statement that theBush administration hadmismanaged the war.

“What is clear to me,”General Sanchez told a mediagroup, Military Reporters andEditors, “is that you areperpetuating the corrosivepartisan politics that isdestroying our country andkilling our service memberswho are at war.”

Just days earlier, in hisvaledictory address aschairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, Gen. Peter Pace used hisfinal minutes as the nation’shighest-ranking officer to

page 8

describe how his interactionswith Congress and the newsmedia had soured him on both.

“In some instances rightnow we have individuals whoare more interested in makingsomebody else look bad thanthey are in finding the rightsolution,” General Pace said.

Yet, as the tone of newsreporting from Iraq has shiftedin recent months, so have theviews commonly heard fromofficers in Iraq.

Recent interviews withdozens of military officers inIraq found a sense offrustration that the war wasreceiving less coverage thanthey would like — but a sensenonetheless that the coveragewas forthright and balanced.

“The media in general isdoing a pretty good jobportraying the situation,” saidLt. Col. Rodger Lemons,operations officer for the FirstCavalry Division’s FourthBrigade Combat Team.

Interviewed last month inMosul as he was completing a15-month tour, ColonelLemons said: “Spectacularattacks still get the big mediaattention. I would like to seemore good news. Whowouldn’t? But the reporterswho have embedded with ushave been fair.”

In a study of last year’spublished news reportsconducted by the Project forExcellence in Journalism at thePew Research Center, morethan half of all coverage of Iraqwas found to be pessimistic.The view of American policyand military progress wasmixed over all, with 4 in 10pieces offering a mixedassessment, one-third anegative view and one-quartermore optimistic.

The troop increase orderedby President Bush in Januarybegan to show results over thesummer, and improving trendsin security have receivedcommensurate coverage. ThePew researchers found thatpositive assessments of theexpanded American militaryoperations began to rise inNovember.

“It is obvious that many ofthe stories in print andtelevision now have a morepositive tenor; it ties directly towhat is happening on theground,” said Lt. Col. JamesHutton, public affairs officerfor Multinational Corps-Iraqand the spokesman for Lt. Gen.Raymond T. Odierno,commander of day-to-daymilitary operations.

“I’m satisfied that themajority of reporters on theground want to get the storyright and are responsive whentheir reporting is seen as lessthan accurate and we call themon it,” said Colonel Hutton,who is nearing the end of hissecond tour of duty in Iraq.

Setting the tone from thetop, General Petraeus decidedthat managing the military’smedia mission required ahigh-ranking career publicaffairs officer, and he assignedRear Adm. Greg Smith,previously chief of informationfor the Navy, to be director ofcommunications forMultinational Force-Iraq, thetop military command structurein the country.

Admiral Smith, the firstone-star public affairs officerin Baghdad, acknowledged thattroops who had previouslyserved in Iraq “may have livedthrough a time when it seemedthat all that was being reportedwas negative news, eventhough they were doing somuch good on any given daythat was not being reported.”

“I think there was a periodtime in the past in whichreporting was behind reality,”Admiral Smith said. “Today,that gap between perceptionand reality has closed, if notcompletely.”

Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl,public affairs officer forMultinationalDivision-Baghdad for the past15 months, described oneconcern heard often fromofficers in Iraq — the lack ofreporters covering the war as itentered another decisive periodduring the troop increase.

“In general, I thought themajority coverage was very

accurate and fair,” said ColonelBleichwehl, who has servedtwice in Iraq. “There were notalways enough reporters therefull-time to provide thecomplete story of what wasgoing on in a city with sevenmillion people, much less therest of the country.”

Washington TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 96. Suggestion Of CovertU.S. Mission Stirs AngerMusharraf puts full blame onBhutto for assassination

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan— Pakistan reacted angrilyyesterday to reports thatPresident Bush is consideringcovert military operations inthe country's volatile tribalareas bordering Afghanistan.

"It is not up to the U.S.administration. It is Pakistan'sgovernment who is responsiblefor this country," chief militaryspokesman Maj. Gen. WaheedArshad told AgenceFrance-Presse.

"There are no overt orcovert U.S. operations insidePakistan. Such reports arebaseless and we reject them."

The New York Timesreported on its Web site lateSaturday that under a proposalbeing discussed in Washington,CIA operatives based inAfghanistan would be able tocall on direct military supportfor counterterrorism operationsin neighboring Pakistan.

Citing unnamed senioradministration officials, thenewspaper said the proposalcalled for giving CIA agentsbroader powers to strike targetsin Pakistan.

Pakistan's western tribalbelt is seen as a safe haven forTaliban and al Qaeda militants,who carry out attacks inAfghanistan, as well as themost-likely hide-out for alQaeda leader Osama binLaden. The United States nowhas about 50 soldiers inPakistan, the report said.

In an interview broadcastyesterday, Pakistani PresidentPervez Musharraf blamed

Benazir Bhutto for her owndeath, saying she should nothave poked her head out of hervehicle's sunroof while leavingthe Rawalpindi rally, whereshe was assassinated.

Mr. Musharraf said hisgovernment provided Mrs.Bhutto with enough protectionand it was her own negligencethat led to her death. Sheshould have left the rallyquickly instead of lingering towave to supporters, Mr.Musharraf said in an interviewwith CBS' "60 Minutes"program.

"I mean, God was kind —she went into the car in spite ofthe fact that she was wavingand all that. She did go into thecar. Now — now is the point.Why did she stand outside thecar?" he said. "For standing upoutside the car, I think it wasshe to blame alone. Nobodyelse. Responsibility is hers."

The U.S. strike planreportedly was discussed byVice President Dick Cheney,Secretary of State CondoleezzaRice and national securityaides in the wake of the Dec.27 assassination of Mrs.Bhutto.

Gen. Arshad alsodismissed comments from Sen.Hillary Rodham Clinton ofNew York, a Democraticcandidate for president, thatshe would propose a jointU.S.-British team to overseethe security of Pakistan'snuclear arsenal if electedpresident.

"We do not requireanybody's assistance. We arefully capable of doing it on ourown," he said.

Pakistan's foreign ministryspokesman, Mohammad Sadiq,late yesterday described theNew York Times report as"speculative" but said anysuggestion of U.S. forces on itsterritory is "unacceptable."

On Mrs. Clinton's remarksabout nuclear weapons, Mr.Sadiq added: "It must beclearly understood thatPakistan alone is and will beresponsible for the security ofits nuclear assets."

page 9

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 37. In Musharraf'sShadow, A New HopeFor Pakistan RisesBy David Rohde and CarlottaGall

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan— Over the last severalmonths, a little-known,enigmatic Pakistani general hasquietly raised hopes amongAmerican officials that hecould emerge as a new forcefor stability in Pakistan,according to current andformer government officials.But it remains too early todetermine whether he can playa decisive role in the country.

In late November, thegeneral, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani,took command of Pakistan’sarmy when the country’slongtime military ruler, PervezMusharraf, resigned as armychief and became a civilianpresident. At that time, GeneralKayani, a protégé of Mr.Musharraf’s, became one ofPakistan’s most powerfulofficials.

The Pakistani Army hasdominated the country fordecades and the army chiefwields enormous influence.Over time, as General Kayanigains firmer control of thearmy, he is likely to becomeeven more powerful than Mr.Musharraf himself.

“Gradually, GeneralKayani will be the boss,” saidTalat Masood, a Pakistanipolitical analyst and retiredgeneral. “The real control ofthe army will be with Kayani.”

But within weeks, GeneralKayani’s loyalties — and skills— are likely to come underintense strain. The two civilianpolitical parties that opposeMr. Musharraf are vowing toconduct nationwide streetprotests if Mr. Musharraf’sparty wins delayedparliamentary elections nowscheduled for Feb. 18.

The parties already accuseMr. Musharraf — who is

widely unpopular according topublic opinion polls — offixing the elections. Ifdemonstrations erupt, GeneralKayani will have to decidewhether to suppress them.What he decides will determinewho rules Pakistan, accordingto Pakistani and Americananalysts. The decision alsocould affect whether thecountry descends into evendeeper turmoil.

They predict that GeneralKayani will remain loyal toMr. Musharraf to a certainextent. But they say he will notback Mr. Musharraf if hisactions are viewed asdamaging the army.

“He’s loyal to Musharrafto the point where Musharraf isa liability and no longer anasset to the corporate body ofthe Pakistani military,” saidBruce Riedel, a former C.I.A.and White House official and aPakistan expert.

As he has ascended,General Kayani has impressedAmerican military andintelligence officials as aprofessional, pro-Westernmoderate with few politicalambitions. But the elevation toarmy chief has been known tochange Pakistani officers.

Mr. Musharraf was seen asuninterested in politics whenhe became army chief in 1998.A year later, he orchestrated acoup and began his eight-yearrule.

General Kayani hasbecome an increasinglyimportant figure to the Bushadministration as Pakistan’sinstability grows and Mr.Musharraf faces intensifyingpolitical problems, accordingto American and Pakistanianalysts.

Mr. Musharraf’sdeclaration of de facto martiallaw in November was widelyseen in Pakistan as an effort byhim to crush his civilianopponents and cling to power.

At the same time, manyPakistanis blame Mr.Musharraf for failing toprevent the assassination offormer Prime Minister BenazirBhutto last month. They

contend that the governmentdid not provide adequatesecurity.

General Kayani’s personalviews are difficult to discern.Since taking command of thearmy, he has continued hispractice of never grantinginterviews.

In one of his first acts asarmy chief, he declared 2008the “year of the soldier,” anattempt to improve theweakening morale of thePakistani Army, a gesture thatwas praised by Americanmilitary officials. The army hasstruggled in combatingmilitants, with more than 1,000soldiers and police officerskilled since 2001. Lastsummer, several hundredsoldiers surrendered tomilitants, causing intenseconcern among Pakistanimilitary officials.

The battle againstinsurgents continues to beintractable. A security officialsaid Monday that suspectedIslamic militants killed eighttribal leaders involved inefforts to broker a cease-firebetween security forces andinsurgents in northwesternPakistan, The Associated Pressreported. The men were shot inseparate attacks late Sundayand early Monday in SouthWaziristan, a mountainousregion close to Afghanistanwhere militants allied with AlQaeda and the Taliban operate,the official said.

General Kayani’s earlypolitical moves as commanderincluded two small gesturesthat were interpreted asattempts to ease tensionsbetween the government andcivilian opposition parties.After the assassination of Ms.Bhutto on Dec. 27, he sentsoldiers to place a wreath onher grave and privately metwith her husband.

On Thursday, GeneralKayani led the first meeting ofPakistan’s corps commanders— the dozen generals whodominate the military. It wasthe first time in eight years thatMr. Musharraf had notattended. During the meeting,

the general stressed unity.“It is the harmonization of

sociopolitical, administrativeand military strategies that willusher an environment of peaceand stability in the long term,”the state-run news mediaquoted him as saying.“Ultimately, it is the will of thepeople and their support that isdecisive.”

The son of a junior officerin the Pakistani Army, he isfrom Jhelum, an arid region inPunjab Province known forproducing Pakistani generals.Raised in a middle-classmilitary family, he attendedmilitary schools and is seen asloyal to the army as aninstitution above all else.

His appointment waspopular among army officers,some of whom blame Mr.Musharraf for hurting thearmy’s image.

His career has includedrepeated military education inthe United States. He receivedtraining in Fort Benning, Ga.,and graduated from theCommand and General StaffCollege at Fort Leavenworth,Kan. He also took an executivestudies course at theAsia-Pacific Center of SecurityStudies in Hawaii in the late1990s.

In an army deeplyenmeshed in Pakistani politics,he has declined to ally himselfwith any political groups,according to retired Pakistanimilitary officials. As a juniorofficer, he briefly served as amilitary aide to Ms. Bhuttoduring her first term as primeminister in the late 1980s, buthas stayed away frompoliticians since then.

“Kayani throughout hiscareer has shown little in theway of political inclination,”said a senior American militaryofficial who has workedextensively with him but didnot wish to be identifiedbecause of the sensitivities ofPakistani politics. “He is ahumble man who has shown adecided focus on the soldier.”

When he was appointeddeputy army chief last fall, hisfirst move was to visit the front

page 10

lines in the tribal areas.Spending the Muslim holidayId al-Fitr with soldiersprompted American militaryofficials to praise him as a“soldier’s soldier.”

The senior Americanmilitary official predicted thatthe Pakistani Army wouldperform better under GeneralKayani than Mr. Musharraf,who was often distracted bypolitics while serving as bothpresident and army chief.

But any progress GeneralKayani achieves militarilycould be undermined bycontinuing political turmoil,according to Pakistani analysts.To end that instability, hemight have to strike a “grandbargain” with Pakistan’scivilian political parties thatwould end the army’sdominance.

“If Kayani, in a way, triesto promote democracy andbecomes the protector ofdemocracy,” said Mr. Masood,the Pakistani political analystand retired general, “then Ithink Pakistan has a chance.”

Mr. Masood and otheranalysts said General Kayaniwould be more able to strikesuch a bargain than Mr.Musharraf, who is now deeplydistrusted by the country’spolitical parties. But to do sohe would have to peacefullygive up power, something noPakistani leader has done in thecountry’s 60-year history.

Carlotta Gall reportedfrom Islamabad, and DavidRohde from Islamabad andNew York. Eric Schmittcontributed reporting fromWashington.

Washington PostJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 138. U.S. Officials ReviewApproach In PakistanFight Against Al-Qaeda MayIntensifyBy Ann Scott Tyson and RobinWright, Washington Post StaffWriters

The political upheaval inPakistan and emergence thereof a new military leader has

revitalized the Bushadministration's long struggleto develop a coherent strategyfor uprooting al-Qaeda fromPakistan's western tribal areas,U.S. officials said yesterday.

The administration ishopeful that Pakistan's newarmy chief, Gen. AshfaqKiyani, will support morerobust efforts involving U.S.intelligence and militaryoperatives targeting al-Qaeda'sterrorist sanctuaries in thecountry, the officials said.

"Kiyani has a strongrecognition that things haven'tworked," said one seniormilitary official, who spoke onthe condition of anonymitybecause of the sensitivity of thetopic. "He recognizes the levelof competence andproficiency" of Pakistan'sforces "will need attention."

The unrest has led to agreater focus in Washington onthreats facing Pakistan,including not only terrorism,but increasingly a growingreligious insurgency, saidanother senior military official."The conditions we face arenot waiting, so why should wewait?" he said.

Senior U.S. officialsdiscussed at the White Houselast week a new proposal togive U.S. Special Operationsforces and the CIA greaterleeway to conduct operationsin the tribal areas.

But that proposal, alongwith several different U.S.scenarios for addressing thesanctuary, remains hamperedby bureaucratic infighting inWashington, according tosenior military officialsfamiliar with the plans. "Thereshould be a plan, singular. Thatis what we are trying to donow," one official said.

One point of contentioninvolves who within the U.S.government would approveoperations in the FederallyAdministered Tribal Area, therugged and lawless regionbordering Afghanistan.

The Pentagon seeksgreater authority to conductoperations while coordinatingwith the State Department.

Adm. Eric Olson, head of U.S.Special Operations Command,visited Pakistan last month anddiscussed with PresidentPervez Musharraf and seniormilitary leaders how else theU.S. military can assist incountering "a very complexinsurgency," one militaryofficial said.

The State Departmentposition is that the U.S.ambassador should approveevery operation in Pakistan.

The impasse between thePentagon and State Departmentproved a sticking point in lastweek's meeting, although thedisagreement is known to havefestered since 2002.

The meeting, attended byAdm. Michael Mullen,chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, and other senior nationalsecurity advisers, was firstreported yesterday by the NewYork Times. Administrationofficials confirmed that themeeting took place, butspokesmen for the Pentagon,CIA and State Departmentdeclined yesterday to discussit.

Currently, the main U.S.counterinsurgency effort inPakistan consists of a multiyearpackage of economicdevelopment and militaryassistance that is nowbeginning to be implemented.The military component aimsto bolster training andequipment for Pakistan'sFrontier Corps, which operatesin the tribal areas, and to stepup training of elite PakistaniArmy units by U.S. SpecialForces.

Defense Secretary RobertM. Gates recently warned thatal-Qaeda and Taliban havensare a serious problem. "One ofthe top-agenda items that wehave with the government ofPakistan is working together interms of ... what they can domore unilaterally, how we canwork with them to help thembe more effective, and whetherthere are instances in which weshould or must take action byourselves," Gates told a Housecommittee.

In Pakistan, speculation

has intensified for weeks thatthe Bush administration wouldact unilaterally in thenorthwestern frontier tocounter al-Qaeda's growingpresence.

Some U.S. militarysources said that such publicspeculation, while unfounded,nevertheless serves to lessenthe political cost of any U.S.actions.

Still, some Pakistaniobservers warn that a morevisible U.S. presence wouldalmost certainly trigger abacklash against Musharraf. "Itwould give the militant Islamicparties a strong whip to useagainst moderates, especiallyin the northwest territories,"said Shuja Nawaz, aWashington-based Pakistanijournalist and author.

Staff writers Joby Warrickand Michael Abramowitzcontributed to this report.

Boston GlobeJanuary 7, 2008Pakistan9. Poll Finds PakistanisWant Democracy

WASHINGTON, D.C. -Most Pakistanis want theircountry to be a democraticIslamic state but are deeplydistrustful of the United Statesand its war on terrorism,according to a poll releasedyesterday. Funded by the USInstitute of Peace, the poll wastaken in the nuclear-armednation before President PervezMusharraf's six-week state ofemergency and theassassination of former primeminister Benazir Bhutto lastmonth. The results, releasedabout six weeks beforeelections scheduled for Feb.18, show that a large majorityof Pakistanis see democracy asfully compatible with Islam,the pollsters said.

--Reuters

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 110. Defying U.S. Plan,Prison Expands In

page 11

AfghanistanBy Tim Golden

WASHINGTON — As theBush administration strugglesfor a way to close the militaryprison at Guantánamo Bay,Cuba, a similar effort to scaledown a larger and moresecretive American detentioncenter in Afghanistan has beentroubled by political, legal andsecurity problems, officialssay.

The American detentioncenter, established at theBagram military base as atemporary screening site afterthe invasion of Afghanistan in2001, is now teeming withsome 630 prisoners — morethan twice the 275 being heldat Guantánamo.

The administration hasspent nearly three years andmore than $30 million on aplan to transfer Afghanprisoners held by the UnitedStates to a refurbishedhigh-security detention centerrun by the Afghan militaryoutside Kabul.

But almost a year after theAfghan detention centeropened, American officials sayit can hold only about half theprisoners they once planned toput there. As a result, themakeshift American site atBagram will probably continueto operate with hundreds ofdetainees for the foreseeablefuture, the officials said.

Meanwhile, the treatmentof some prisoners on theBagram base has prompted astrong complaint to thePentagon from theInternational Committee of theRed Cross, the only outsidegroup allowed in the detentioncenter.

In a confidentialmemorandum last summer, theRed Cross said dozens ofprisoners had been heldincommunicado for weeks oreven months in a previouslyundisclosed warren of isolationcells at Bagram, two Americanofficials said. The Red Crosssaid the prisoners were keptfrom its inspectors andsometimes subjected to crueltreatment in violation of the

Geneva Conventions, one ofthe officials said.

The senior Pentagonofficial for detention policy,Sandra L. Hodgkinson, wouldnot discuss the complaint,citing the confidentiality ofcommunications with the RedCross. She said that theorganization had access to “allDepartment of Defensedetainees” in Afghanistan, afterthey were formally registered,and that the military “makesevery effort to registerdetainees as soon as practicableafter capture, normally withintwo weeks.

“In some cases, due to avariety of logistical andoperational circumstances, itmay take longer,” Ms.Hodgkinson added.

The obstacles Americanofficials have faced in theirplan to “transition out” of theBagram detention centerunderscore the complexity oftheir challenges in dealing withprisoners overseas. Yet even asBagram has expanded over thelast three years, it has receiveda fraction of the attention thatpolicy makers, Congress andhuman rights groups havedevoted to Guantánamo.

“The problem at Bagramhasn’t gone away,” said TinaM. Foster, a New York humanrights lawyer who has filedfederal lawsuits on behalf ofthe detainees at Bagram. “Thegovernment has just done abetter job of keeping it secret.”

The rising number ofdetainees at Bagram — upfrom barely 100 in early 2004and about 500 early last year— has been driven primarilyby the deepening war inAfghanistan. Americanofficials said that all but about30 of those prisoners areAfghans, most of them Talibanfighters captured in raids or onthe battlefield.

But the surging detaineepopulation also reflects a seriesof unforeseen problems in theUnited States’ effort to turnover prisoners to the Afghangovernment.

In a confidentialdiplomatic agreement in

August 2005, a draft of whichwas obtained by The NewYork Times, the Bushadministration said it wouldtransfer the detainees if theKabul government gavewritten assurances that it wouldtreat the detainees humanelyand abide by elaborate securityconditions. As part of theaccord, the United States said itwould finance the rebuilding ofan Afghan prison block andhelp equip and train an Afghanguard force.

Yet even before theconstruction began in early2006, the creation of the newAfghan National DetentionCenter was complicated by turfbattles among Afghangovernment ministries, some ofwhich resisted the Americanstrategy, officials of bothcountries said.

A push by some DefenseDepartment officials to haveKabul authorize the indefinitemilitary detention of “enemycombatants” — adopting alegal framework like that ofGuantánamo — foundered in2006 when aides to PresidentHamid Karzai persuaded himnot to sign a decree that hadbeen written with Americanhelp.

Then, last May, thetransfer plan was disruptedagain when the two Americanservicemen overseeing theproject were shot to death by aman suspected of being aTaliban militant who hadinfiltrated the guard force.

The Pentagon initiallyreported only that the twoAmericans, Col. James W.Harrison Jr. and Master Sgt.Wilberto Sabalu Jr., werekilled May 6 by “small-armsfire.” But American officialssaid the Afghan guard hadopened fire with asemiautomatic rifle as twovehicles carrying seniorofficers waited to pass throughthe prison gate. The killingsforced more than a month offurther vetting of the Afghanguards and the dismissal ofalmost two dozen trainedrecruits, Pentagon officialssaid.

A Spartan Site of MetalPens

The Bagram TheaterInternment Facility, as it iscalled, has held prisonerscaptured as far away as CentralAfrica and Southeast Asia,many of whom were sent on toGuantánamo. Since the flow ofdetainees to Cuba was largelyshut off in September 2004, theBagram detention center hasbecome primarily a repositoryfor more dangerous prisonerscaptured in Afghanistan.

Despite some expansionand renovation, the detentioncenter remains a crude placewhere most prisoners arefenced into large metal pens,military officers and formerdetainees have said.

Military personnel whoknow both Bagram andGuantánamo describe theAfghan site, on anAmerican-controlled militarybase 40 miles north of Kabul,as far more spartan. Bagramprisoners have fewerprivileges, less ability tocontest their detention and noaccess to lawyers. Somedetainees have been heldwithout charge for more thanfive years, officials said.

The treatment of prisonersat Bagram has generallyimproved in recent years,human rights groups andformer detainees say,particularly since two Afghandetainees died there inDecember 2002 after beingbeaten by their Americancaptors. Two Americanofficials familiar with the RedCross complaint that wasforwarded to the Pentagon overthe summer described it as anotable exception.

A Red Cross spokesman inWashington, Simon Schorno,said the organization would notcomment on its discussionswith the Defense Department.But in remarks about theorganization’s work inAfghanistan, its director ofoperations, PierreKraehenbuehl, emphasized onDec. 13 that “not all places ofdetention and detainees” aremade available to the group’s

page 12

inspectors.“The fact that the I.C.R.C.

does not publicize its findingsdoes not indicate satisfactionwith the conditions of anygiven detention place,” he saidon the group’s Web site.

The two United Statesofficials, who insisted onanonymity because of theconfidentiality of Red Crosscommunications, suggestedthat the organization had beenmore forceful in private. Theysaid the group had complainedthat detainees in the isolationarea were sometimes subjectedto harsh interrogations andwere not reported to Red Crossinspectors until after they weremoved into the main Bagramdetention center and formallyregistered — after being heldincommunicado for as long asseveral months.

One former Bushadministration official said thePentagon told Congressionalleaders in September 2006 thata small number of prisonersheld by Special Operationsforces might not be registeredwithin the 14-day period citedin a Defense Departmentdirective issued that month.The exceptions were to be“approved at the highestlevels,” the former officialsaid.

Discounting ComplaintsBush administration

officials have at timesdiscounted complaints aboutthe crowding and harshconditions at Bagram by sayingthe detention center was nevermeant to be permanent and thatits prisoners would soon beturned over to Afghanistan.

Hundreds of Bagramdetainees have been releasedoutright as part of an Afghannational reconciliationprogram. But by early 2006,internal Defense Departmentstatistics showed that theaverage internment at Bagramwas 14.5 months, and onePentagon official said thatfigure had since risen.

After a White Houseagreement by President Bushand Mr. Karzai in May 2005,the plan to transfer the

prisoners was drawn up byadministration officials andoutlined in an exchange ofconfidential diplomatic notesthat August.

The two-page Washingtonnote — the first document tobecome public showing theterms that Washington hassought from other governmentsfor the transfer of detaineesfrom Guantánamo and Bagram— asks the Kabuladministration to share anyintelligence information fromthe prisoners, “utilize allmethods appropriate andpermissible under Afghan lawto surveil or monitor theiractivities following anyrelease,” and “confiscate ordeny passports and takemeasures to prevent eachnational from traveling outsideAfghanistan.”

At the time, some Bushadministration officialspredicted that transfers fromBagram could begin within sixmonths. Col. ManuelSupervielle, who worked onlegal aspects of the transfers asthe senior United Statesmilitary lawyer in Afghanistan,recalled that officials inWashington expected theprimary difficulty to be therebuilding of a cellblock atAfghanistan’s decrepitPul-i-Charkhi prison to meetinternational standards ofhumane treatment.

“We’ve got a bunch ofguys we want to hand over tothe Afghans,” ColonelSupervielle said, recalling theprevailing view. “Build a jailand hand them over.”

But complicationsemerged at almost every turn.

Afghan officials rejectedpressure from Washington toadopt a detention systemmodeled on the Bushadministration’s “enemycombatant” legal framework,American officials said. SomeDefense Department officialseven urged the Afghan militaryto set up military commissionslike those at Guantánamo, theofficials said.

Officials of both countriessaid the defense minister,

Abdul Rahim Wardak, wasreluctant to take responsibilityfor the new detention center asthe Pentagon wanted, fearinghe would be besieged by triballeaders trying to secure therelease of captives. Theminister of justice, SarwarDanish, opposed sharing hiscontrol over prisons, theofficials said.

American officials finallybrokered an agreementbetween the ministries, internaldocuments show. But that didnot resolve more basicquestions about the legal basisunder which Afghanistanwould hold the detainees.

For nearly a year,American military officials anddiplomats worked with theAfghan government to draft aplan for how it would detainand prosecute all prisonerscaptured in Afghanistan.Colonel Supervielle, who hadhelped set up legal operationsat Guantánamo, said the effortin Afghanistan was in someways more complex. “Youweren’t dealing just with aU.S. interagency process,” hesaid. “It involved theinteragency process, bilateralrelations with Afghanistan, themilitary coalition and otherinternational interests.”

The draft law was finallydelivered to Mr. Karzai inAugust 2006. DespiteAmerican entreaties, hedecided not to sign it afteropposition from senior aides,officials said.

The construction of a newdetention center atPul-i-Charkhi also provedmore complicated than UnitedStates officials had anticipated.

A New Project Is FlawedWhen Afghan contractors

broke ground on the $20million project in 2006, UnitedStates officials estimated thatthe center would hold as manyas 670 prisoners. But as themilitary police coloneloverseeing the project touredthe site with Afghan and RedCross officials, they pointed toa significant flaw. In otherparts of Pul-i-Charkhi, menwere crammed as many as

eight to a cell, and used toiletsdown the hall. To improvesecurity and hygiene, theAmericans equipped eachtwo-man cell in the new blockwith its own toilet.

But because the culturalmodesty of Afghan men wouldmake them uncomfortablesharing an open toilet, it wassubsequently decided that theprisoners should be heldindividually, two formerofficials involved in the projectsaid. That immediately reducedthe optimal capacity of themain prison to about 330detainees, they said, although aPentagon spokeswoman saidits “maximum capacity” was628 prisoners.

The training of Afghanmilitary personnel to guard andadminister the new prison hasposed other challenges. Afterinitially budgeting $6 millionfor guard training, the DefenseDepartment decided it wouldneed about $18 million fortraining and “mentoring” ofguards over three years,officials said.

A first group of 12Bagram detainees was movedinto the Pul-i-Charkhi prisonon April 3. Over the next ninemonths, that number rose to157 prisoners, including 32from Guantánamo, officialstatistics show. Afghanofficials decided to release 12of those detainees soon aftertheir transfer.

American officials said themodest flow had been dictatedmainly by the Afghan military,which has wanted to make sureits guards could handle the newarrivals. But some UnitedStates officials say they havealso had to reassess theAfghans’ ability to hold moredangerous detainees. They saidthe detention center at Bagramwould probably continue tohold hundreds of prisonersindefinitely. “The idea is thatover time, some of ourdetainees at Bagram —especially those at the lowerend of the threat scale — willbe passed on to Afghanistan,”one senior military official saidlast year. “But not all. Bagram

page 13

will remain an intelligenceasset and a screening area.”

Ms. Hodgkinson, thedeputy assistant secretary ofdefense for detainee affairs,acknowledged that the militarywas holding more detainees atBagram than it had anticipatedtwo years ago and that thePentagon had no plan to assistthe Afghans with furtherprison-building. But, sheadded, “A final decision on thehigher-threat detainees has notyet been made.”

And even now, the legalbasis under which prisoners arebeing held at the Afghandetention center remainsunclear. Another DefenseDepartment official, whoinsisted on anonymity becauseshe was not authorized topublicly discuss the issue, saidthe detentions had beenauthorized “in a note from theattorney general stating that herecognizes that they have thelegal authority under the law ofwar to hold enemy combatantsas security threats if theychoose to do so.”

Afghan officials said theywere still expecting virtuallyall of the Afghan prisonersheld by the United States —with the possible exception ofa few especially dangerousdetainees at Guantánamo — tobe handed over to them.

A spokesman for theAfghan Defense Ministry, Gen.Zaher Azimi, said, “What isagreed is that all the detaineesshould be transferred.”

CQ WeeklyJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 1011. Why AnthopologistsAre Reluctant ArmyRecruitsBy Elaine Monaghan, CQ Staff

Anthropologists are theoriginal participant-observers,but they don’t much like whatthey’re seeing — and whatsome members of theirprofession are doing — at thebehest of the Department ofDefense.

In February 2007, the

Pentagon started embeddinganthropologists in its brigadesin Afghanistan and Iraq as partof an ambitious effort calledthe Human Terrain System.The idea, Defense Departmentofficials say, is to refine thecultural understanding of U.S.forces so as to promote“non-kinetic” — i.e.,non-violent — modes ofconflict resolution in theirranks. For example, the abilityto recognize the Iraqi handsignal for “stop” — a handheld parallel to the ground asopposed to the Western gestureof a palm raised in the air —could greatly reduce civiliancasualties at occupationcheckpoints. Presently,embedded anthropologists havejoined five units in Iraq andone in Afghanistan, of aplanned 22 and fourrespectively, that Defensehopes ultimately to deploy.

But some anthropologistscontend that their colleaguesshould vacate the HumanTerrain, since it wouldpotentially breach theprofession’s code of ethics,which pledges to do no harm tonative populations it studies.The Network of ConcernedAnthropologists, an ad hoccoalition opposed to theproject, has publicized apresentation by AssistantDeputy Undersecretary ofDefense John Wilcox before a“Precision Strike WinterRoundtable” last February;there, Wilcox used aPowerPoint display indicatingthat the Human Terrain project“enables the entire kill chainfor the GWOT (global war onterrorism).”

Such talk putsanthropologists in mind of theDefense Department’sVietnam-era forays into thestudy of native populations.The Network of ConcernedAnthropologists notes that thePentagon has likened theprogram to the Vietnamconflict’s Civil Operations andRevolutionary DevelopmentSupport program, whichsecretly lifted the work ofanthropologists that was

subsequently used, says DavidPrice, an anthropologist at St.Martin’s University in Lacey,Wash., to help kill thousandsof Viet Cong.

Anthropologists in theNetwork are circulating apetition pledging not to takepart in the Human Terrainproject. They have gatheredabout 1,000 signatures aftermaking the rounds at theAmerican AnthropologicalAssociation’s annualconference in Washington lastmonth. The debate over theprogram acquired a new levelof intrigue at the conferencewhen a pair of Defenseofficials representing HumanTerrain were seen copying thenames of some pledgesignatories. To further stokesuspicions among theanthropologists, one of thosename-takers was Laurie Adler,a Human Terrain consultantwho came into some notorietyin 2005 as a spokeswoman forthe Lincoln Group, a publicrelations firm caught plantingfavorable propaganda about theAmerican occupation in Iraqinewspapers.

Adler, communicatingthrough Army spokesmanThomas McCuin, says she wasjust culling names of fellowgraduates from her alma mater,the University of Chicago, soas to clue them in on theHuman Terrain System’svirtues. However, HughGusterson, an anthropologyand sociology professor atGeorge Mason University,another original signatory tothe pledge, notes that as of thethird week of December, thepetition had 22 signaturesassociated with the university,and only one had originatedfrom the annual meeting.Gusterson reports that Adlerwas seen writing downmultiple names; she hassubsequently denied thataccount, claiming that shewrote just one name alongsideother notes on the same page.

In a separate report on theHuman Terrain initiativereleased in late November, theAmerican Anthropological

Association called it “certainlythe most ethically fraught”form of anthropologicalengagement with the militaryand intelligence sectors. Butthe report concluded that it wasup to individual associationmembers to decide whether totake part in Human Terrain orin any similar programs in thenational-security sector.

For its part, the Pentagondoesn’t understand what all thefuss is about. “Frankly, I ambaffled that people oppose theArmy’s efforts to findnon-lethal ways to achieve ourgoals,” says McCuin. Perhapsmilitary communication withthe profession of anthropologyis a rich topic for futureanthropological study.

Federal TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 312. Union Asks HighCourt To HearPentagon Suit

The American Federationof Government Employeesplans to take its fight againstthe Pentagon’s new personnelsystem to the Supreme Court.

AFGE said it would onJan. 7 file a writ of certiorari— an appeal asking thenation’s highest court to hearthe case — challenging theNational Security PersonnelSystem.

NSPS allows the DefenseDepartment to discipline poorperformers without offeringthem time to improve and topay employees based on theirperformance rather thanthrough the General Schedule.

Unions also object toNSPS provisions that allowDefense to assign employeesnew responsibilities withoutfirst bargaining with theirunions. But the Defenseauthorization bill, still underconsideration by Congress,would restore unions’ rights tocollectively bargain on NSPS.

A federal appeals courtsided with the Pentagon in a2007 ruling. The appeals courtoverturned a 2006 U.S. District

page 14

Court decision that found thePentagon’s rules went beyondits authority.

USA TodayJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 113. Katrina VictimsSwamp Corps ForTrillions In Claims247 filings seek $1 billion ormoreBy Brad Heath, USA Today

WASHINGTON — Tensof thousands of people whoseproperty was destroyed whenHurricane Katrinaoverwhelmed New Orleans'protective levees have filedclaims demanding thegovernment pay astronomicalsums that would be enoughmoney to makemultimillionaires of everyonein Louisiana.

The Army Corps ofEngineers received 247 claimsfrom residents, businesses andgovernment agencies seeking$1 billion or more, accordingto the agency. That's the tip ofa very large iceberg: The corps,which designed and built thecity's storm protections, facesmore than 489,000 claims forthe damage and deaths in thepost-Katrina flooding.

The claims are so massivethe government could neverhope to pay them. Rather, theyare the hopeful — and at timesinflated — requests of peoplereeling from losses.

Just the top filings add upto so much money that theentire annual output of thenation's economy — $12trillion — couldn't pay themoff, according to the corps'listing. It is the first publicaccounting of the scale ofdamage demands the corpsfaces.

"That's totallyoff-the-wall," says AshtonO'Dwyer, a New Orleanslawyer handling some of theclaims. He says everyonemaking a claim ultimately mustprovide evidence to back it up,"and we won't know the realtotal until that happens."

By comparison, theLouisiana Recovery Authorityestimates that HurricanesKatrina and Rita in 2005together caused about $100billion in physical damagestatewide. The federalgovernment already dedicatedmore than $130 billion onrecovery from the hurricanes.

Most of the claims allegethat the corps is to blame forthe levee failures thatinundated huge sections ofNew Orleans. A claim form isthe first step in seekingcompensation.

One claim alone seeks $3quadrillion in damages, almostall of it for personal injury.That's a 3 followed by 15 zeros— about 250 times the nation'sgross domestic product. Aresident of a section of NewOrleans that includes thehard-hit Lower 9th Ward filedanother claim for $6 trillion,double the annual federalbudget.

"We sort of take it all instride," says Angela Drinkwitz,the corps' claims administrator."We don't say there's no waythis could be true."

Most claims should befiled within two years, butDrinkwitz says new claims arestill trickling in.

Neither the corps nor theJustice Department would saywhether they intend to pay anyof the damage claims, howthey will be processed or whena decision could be made.Already, at least 300 peoplealso have sued the governmentover levee failures, JusticeDepartment spokesmanAndrew Ames says.

"If they'd built the leveesright, they wouldn't have thisproblem," says Daniel Becnel,a Reserve, La., lawyerrepresenting some of thosesuing the government.

The corps would notidentify the people filing largeclaims. Officials still must siftthrough more than 2 tons ofpaperwork to weed outduplicates.

Flood of paperworkDamage claims against the

Army Corps of Engineers after

levees failed:*Total number: 489,000*Claims for $1 billion or

more: 247*Largest: $3 quadrillion*Largest government or

business claim: $586 billion

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. C514. In Blog, A MilitaryMan Writes About HisOwn DeathBy Brian Stelter

Andrew Olmsted, a UnitedStates Army major who wrotean online blog for The RockyMountain News, prepared forthe possibility of his death bywriting a 3,000-word piece.

“I’m dead,” he wrote inJuly 2007 as he arrived in Iraqfor an 18-month tour of duty.“But if you’re reading this,you’re not, so take a momentto enjoy that happy fact.”

The major, who was 38,was killed Jan. 3 by small-armsfire from insurgents inSadiyah, 100 miles northeast ofBaghdad. The next day, afellow blogger publishedMajor Olmsted’s eloquentessay, leading to an outpouringof comments from more than1,000 readers. His blog becameexponentially more popular indeath than in life, garneringmore than 100,000 page viewson Saturday.

Major Olmsted was one ofthe first “milbloggers,” anInternet term for members ofthe military who blog.Thousands of readers hadfollowed his posts for morethan five years, first onAndrewOlmsted.com and lateron the Web site of The RockyMountain News, a newspaperin Colorado.

While bloggers have diedin war zones before, severalprominent military bloggerssaid they could not recall anyprevious instances ofposthumous blog entries.Major Olmsted’s final postinterspersed quotes from Platoand the movie “TeamAmerica” with reflections on

his life and requests from hisreaders. He specifically askedthat his death not be used forpolitical purposes.

“We’re all going to die ofsomething,” Major Olmstedwrote in his final post. “I dieddoing a job I loved. When yourtime comes, I hope you are asfortunate as I was.”

The ending of the post wasalmost uncomfortablypersonal, with a message to hiswife of 10 years, concludingwith “I love you.”

In March Major Olmstedapproached his friend HilaryBok, a professor at JohnsHopkins University, and askedif she would publish a post forhim if he died during the war.She said she immediatelyagreed. He sent a rough draft atthe beginning of June, and keptredrafting until July 15, the dayhe arrived in Baghdad.

“When I first read it, Icried,” Ms. Bok said.

In the essay, simply titled“Final Post,” Major Olmstedacknowledged that he wouldmiss blogging.

“The nature of blogging,the exchange of ideas, wassomething he really enjoyed,”said David Montero, a RockyMountain News reporter whohad spent several days withMajor Olmsted for a front-pageprofile in June.

Before Major Olmsted leftfor Iraq, he met with thenewspaper’s editors to discussmoving his blog to thenewspaper’s Web site. TheArmy approved thearrangement, and he posted atleast 38 times while in Kuwaitand Iraq.

“He was building up aregular readership amongpeople who appreciated hisfrontline view from the war,”said Deb Goeken, themanaging editor of thenewspaper.

Army TimesJanuary 14, 2008Pg. 815. On The MendArmy disability retirementsystem better

page 15

By Kelly KennedyWhen Lt. Col. Chip Pierce

served as troop commander atTripler Army Medical Centerin Hawaii, he said he was“frustrated” by some of theissues he saw his injuredsoldiers face as they made theirway through the bureaucracyof the Army’s militarydisability retirement system.

“At Tripler, we didn’thave the same volume [ofsoldiers] as Walter Reed[Army Medical Center], so wedidn’t have the same level ofproblems,” he said. “But nearlyevery problem they had, wehad a little of it.”

In some cases, he didn’tknow where to turn to solve aproblem, he said. And he“wasn’t satisfied” with thetroops’ living quarters.

So when the Army offeredPierce the opportunity to leadits new Warrior TransitionUnit, a brigade designedspecifically to address theadministrative needs of injuredsoldiers, “I couldn’t get herefast enough,” Pierce said.

That was last spring.Already, he said, he’s seenprogress.

In February, Army Timesreported that soldierslanguished for months — evenyears — in the medical holdsystem, facing bureaucratictangles as they worked theirway toward the physicalevaluation board to determinetheir disability rating forretirement pay.

The stories, as well asreports from the PentagonInspector’s General andGovernment AccountabilityOffice and testimony of injuredsoldiers before Congress,brought about a series ofinvestigations and plannedchanges. And the new WarriorTransition Unit meant officialscould immediately put some ofthose changes into effect.

“Before, folks didn’t feelthey had the power to makechange,” Pierce said, referringto a stifling set of 50-year-oldpolicies and procedures. “Now,everyone is an advocate forchange. If something isn’t

working, they can fix it.”Since then, the Army has

added staff, improved trainingfor counselors and lawyers,and ensured every soldier hassomeone overseeing his or herprogress through the system.

And Building 18 —Walter Reed’s dilapidatedsymbol of the breakdown inthe system — no longer houseswounded soldiers.

“I’ve been fortunate to beable to see the frustrations andbring them up to this level,”Pierce said. “It’s been verysatisfying to be in thisposition.”

Increase in medicallyretired

While the number ofsoldiers medically retired —meaning they received adisability rating of 30 percentor higher or had at least 18years of service when theywent through the disabilityprocess — declined from 2005to 2006, it increased by severalhundred in 2007, according tofigures provide by Col. CarltonBuchanan, deputy commanderof the Army’s PhysicalDisability Agency.

Moreover, Buchanan said,while 270 fewer soldiers weremedically retired in 2006 thanin 2005, the percentage ofthose completing theevaluation process who weremedically retired went up overthat time, and has continued torise in 2007:

*In 2005, 13,048 soldierswent through the process and2,232 were medically retired,about 17.1 percent.

*In 2006, 10,460 soldierswent through the process and1,956 were medically retired,about 18.7 percent.

*And in 2007, 10,400soldiers went through theprocess and 2,397 weremedically retired — about 23percent.

The 8,003 soldiers whoweren’t medically retired in2007 either were found fit andremained in the Army, wereawarded a lump-sum severancepayment based on rank andyears of service, or wereseparated without benefits if

their condition was found to bepre-existing and they hadn’tbeen in the military for at leastseven years.

Pierce said about 8,900soldiers remain in the WarriorTransition Unit waiting fortheir final disability evaluationboard.

Tracking individualsThings still aren’t perfect;

Pierce said it’s hard to judgehow soldiers feel about theimprovements because theyweren’t in the system a yearago. And there are still casestaking longer than they shouldto go through the process.

But now, rather thanjustifying a months-longquagmire, as had been done byother officials in the past,Pierce said his office tracks, byname, every soldier whosetransition takes longer than 60days. Prior to the 60-day mark,soldiers’ squad leaders in theWarrior Transition Units areresponsible for making suresoldiers move through asquickly as possible.

The GAO reported in thefall that some transition unitsare only at half staffing, butPierce said the necessary ratioof staff to injured soldiers is atthe right levels. In some cases,he said, the GAO report calledfor staffing for 100 injuredsoldiers when there may haveonly been 25 soldiers in theunit.

The Marine Corps alsostood up a Wounded Warriorsregiment last spring to keeptrack of Marines and sailorsgoing through the disabilityretirement system. Though theNavy and the Marine Corpshave a better track record forgetting service membersthrough the process, there havebeen worries about the equityof their ratings system.

An Army Timesinvestigation last spring foundthat enlisted Marines lag farbehind enlisted sailors andairmen in the size of theaverage disability paymentsthey are awarded.

Soldiers, Marines still lagThe 2006 data released by

the Defense Department’s

Office of the Actuary showMarines and soldiers continueto lag, even though they havehigher injury rates and couldbe expected to have a greaterproportion of serious injuriesbecause of the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan than do sailors orairmen. Their ranks and timesin service were alsocomparable.

The average monthlydisability payments for allenlisted members receivingdisability pay from the militaryin 2006: Air Force: $963;Navy: $845; Army: $792;Marine Corps: $774

Officers had similardiscrepancies:Air Force:$2,668; Navy: $2,392; MarineCorps: $2,336; Army: $2,067

According to the Office ofthe Actuary, the number ofMarines medically retired in2006 went up by about 200compared with the previousyear — far more than any otherservice. The Marine Corps didnot comment on the figures bypress time.

The Air Force and Navyalso saw increases inpermanent disabilityretirements from 2005 to 2006of 125 airmen and 36 sailors.

Buchanan said part of thereason for the Army’s increaseof more than 400 disabilityretirements in 2007 was thatcombat-related injuries rose to18 percent from about 15percent the year before.

Among soldiers goingthrough the military disabilityevaluation process, more thanhalf of those withcombat-related injuries areretired, Buchanan said.

Another reason for theincrease, he said, is “increasedtraining of physicians andadjudicators, coupled withgreater precision in describinginjuries, such as scars, muscleand nerve injuries, as well asmental disorders.”

That gives medical boardsbetter information to determineproper disability percentages,he said.

Newport News Daily Press

page 16

January 6, 2008Pg. 116. Why Have FortMonroe Costs Soared?By David Lerman

WASHINGTON -- Twolocal members of Congress arepressing the Pentagon toexplain why the cost of closingHampton's Fort Monroe hasincreased 298 percent.

Reps. Robert C. "Bobby"Scott, D-Newport News, andThelma Drake, R-Norfolk,have sent a letter to theDefense Department. They aredemanding to know why costshave increased to an estimated$288 million and whether theinitial estimate considered theexpense of environmentalcleanup.

The historic post,headquarters for the Army'sTraining and DoctrineCommand, is scheduled toclose by 2011, part of a largestreamlining approved byCongress that will shutterabout 22 major basesnationwide.

Cleaning up Monroe isexpected to be costly becausethe moat-encircled fort isthought to be littered withunexploded munitions.

The GovernmentAccountability Office, theinvestigative arm of Congress,issued a report last monthshowing the cost of closing theArmy fort has risen from a2005 estimate of $72.4 millionto a 2008 budget estimate of$288.1 million. The GAOreport didn't make clear whythe cost increased.

"How can the currentestimated cost increase beexplained?" Scott and Drakeasked in a letter to AlexBeehler, acting deputyundersecretary of defense forinstallations and environment.

The letter said, "In light ofthe recent reports, we herebyrequest that you provide uswith the cost estimates thatwere used to justify theclosure, the source of thoseestimates and the amount ofprojected savings which wouldjustify the closure."

Fort Monroe was cited asone of about 33 base closuresor realignments that now facesignificant cost increases fromprojections made in 2005,when Congress approved theclosure round.

The Defense Department,in response to the GAO,acknowledged the costincreases. It attributed them toeverything from inflation tonew construction costs,changes in building needs anddecisions to enhance trainingsites or military quality of life.It didn't respond specifically tothe case of Monroe.

Despite the cost increases,the Pentagon defended the baseclosure effort, saying it willstill save taxpayers $4 billion ayear when completed.

A Scott aide said Fridaythat the congressman hadn'treceived a response from thePentagon yet to his letter,which was dated Dec. 20.

Fort Monroe had beentargeted for closure for abouttwo decades before Congressapproved the move two yearsago. In the past, lawmakerssaved the fort by arguing thatthe high cost of environmentalcleanup made closureimpractical and a net cost drainon the Pentagon.

In recommending theclosure of Monroe, the DefenseDepartment issued a report in2005 that acknowledged theneed for environmentalcleanup. But it said it didn'tconsider that expense to betriggered by a closure of thefort.

"Because the Departmenthas a legal obligation toperform environmentalrestoration, regardless ofwhether an installation isclosed, realigned or remainsopen, no cost forenvironmental remediate (sic)was included in the paybackcalculation," the report said.

In a report issued a yearago, the GAO reported thecleanup cost of Monroe as$201 million.

Washington Post

January 7, 2008Pg. 15Fine Print17. The Long AndWinding RoadBy Walter Pincus

In 1996, the Marine CorpsCombat DevelopmentCommand determined that itsexpeditionary forces needed anagile and mobile weapon tofire over the enemy's frontlines, a concept quickly dubbedDragon Fire.

More than 11 years later,full production of the systemthat officials chose still has notbeen approved and the decisionhas been delayed yet again,until spring. In the interveningyears, its cost has risenmodestly but could increasemuch more.

The tale of the project,officially named theExpeditionary Fire SupportSystem (EFSS), provides ashort course on how new andcostly weapons systemsevolve. Its journey through thebureaucracy is described in aDec. 21, 2007, GovernmentAccountability Office reportprepared for Sen. Carl M.Levin (D-Mich.), chairman ofthe Armed ServicesCommittee.

In 1999, the Marinesconceived of the EFSS as onevehicle towing a 120mmmortar and another towing anammunition trailer. Both wouldbe transportable aboard theCH53E helicopter, as well asthe V-22 Osprey vertical liftaircraft, which itself was beingdeveloped.

The idea was that with itsfour- to 12-mile range, the120mm mortar would give amobile Marine expeditionaryforce the ability to fly deep intoenemy territory and carry onfighting without long-rangeartillery support.

After years of study anddesign competitions, theMarine Corps SystemsCommand authorized a plan in2003 to acquire test models ofthe EFSS. The Pentagonsought contactors who couldprovide a single vehicle

capable of towing the mortar orits ammunition carrier andfitting inside the CH53E or theOsprey.

In 2004, the Marinesapproved initial cost andschedule estimates -- roughly$670 million for the systemand a 2006 operationalcapability -- and a $12 millioninitial contract for test modelswas signed with thecompetition winner, GeneralDynamics Ordnance andTactical Systems.

Delays and cost increasesbegan shortly thereafter,according to the GAO. Delaysoccurred because "the MarineCorps was optimistic in itsbelief that using commercialoff-the-shelf systems withsome modifications couldprovide a solution to meet theneed for an internallytransportable system."

Marine Corps officials hadasked for a quick productionschedule because they wantedthe EFSS ready for deploymentwith the first MarineExpeditionary Unit that got theOsprey. But the Osprey itselfran behind schedule.

Design changes requiredto fit the vehicle inside theOsprey at the correct weighttook place at the same time thefirst models were beingdelivered to the Marines. Theadditional developmental workrequired the Marines to takemore risk and change from afixed-price contract to one thatpromised reimbursement of thecontractor's costs, the GAOsaid.

In addition, what the GAOcalled "noncritical" changes inrequirements were made. Theyincluded reducing the trailers'basic ammunition load fromthe original 50 to 100 rounds to34 rounds. The Marines toldthe GAO that the initial loadwas "a concept," not a"requirement." Another costlychange was raising thevehicle's on-road speed to 35miles per hour.

In 2007, the EFSSreceived flight certification forboth aircraft, and by Julyoperational testing was

page 17

completed. Although thesystem met its keyperformance parameters and 13of 14 critical requirements, italso "experienced severalsafety, performance andreliability problems duringtesting," the GAO reported.

The GAO noted that afterthe contract was awarded, theMarines reduced the requiredsustained rate of fire "fromfour rounds per minute to tworounds per minute." TheMarine program office saidthat change was due "to atypographical error found inthe requirementsdocumentation," according tothe GAO. But during testing,"it did not meet the criticalrequirement related tomaximum rate of fire," theGAO added.

The GAO also noted thatEFSS vehicles carried allrequired equipment, "but notsecurely." Three incidentsoccurred during testing thatinvolved potential risk ofinjury to a crew member ridingin the rear seat of theammunition trailer, the GAOsaid. The vehicle's coolingsystem did not work well andno extreme cold weathertesting was conducted.

As a result of thedeficiencies, the director of theMarine Corps Operational Testand Examination Activitytermed the EFSS "a 'niche'capability." He recommendedthat the deficiencies beaddressed and more testing bedone before deploying thesystem.

The initial cost of theEFSS has so far increased just$15.5 million, to $691.2million in 2007. But as theGAO noted, the final costs arenot in. Under the currentcontract, the government is atrisk because there is littleincentive for the "contractor tocontrol costs until the terms ofthe work are finalized,"according to the GAO.

The cost of 20 years ofammunition is projected atmore than $501.7 million,making the EFSS a programcosting more than $1 billion.

The need for furthertesting will delay initialoperational deployment tospring, according to the GAO.If all goes well, the EFSS willstill be deployed with the firstMarine Expeditionary Unit tohave the Osprey, becauseinitial deployment of theaircraft "is currently projectedto take place in the fall of2008," according to the GAO.

National security andintelligence reporter WalterPincus pores over thespeeches, reports, transcriptsand other documents that floodWashington and every weekuncovers the fine print thatrarely makes headlines -- butshould.

Tacoma News TribuneJanuary 6, 200818. C-17 MissionCompletedBy Scott Fontaine

Near the bottom of theglobe, an American crew tookoff from a New Zealandrunway to help a strandedBritish ship. And after a dropabove one of the mosttreacherous reaches of theEarth, airmen from McChordAir Force Base were theheroes.

The Argos Georgia, aBritish fishing trawler, hasbeen stuck since Christmas Eveamid floes near the Ross IceShelf deep below the AntarcticCircle. A broken engine pistonleft the ship without mainpower for six days. Dangerousicebergs weren’t far off. Twolow-pressure systems wereapproaching the area, and Lt.Col. Jim McGann, thecommander of Operation DeepFreeze, didn’t need Dopplerradar to know that the trawler’s25-person crew was in trouble.

“You could see two bigsets of dark clouds coming in,”he said Saturday by phonefrom Christchurch, NewZealand. “And once that getsrocking, those icebergs lookeven more dangerous. Thoseguys were going to be in a lotof trouble if they didn’t get anyhelp.”

Other options to save thestranded crew would take atleast 10 days, so on Fridaynight, a C-17 Globemaster IIIwith an Air Force crewcomprised of units fromMcChord Air Force Base tookoff from Christchurch, anddropped the engine parts to thetrawler.

McGann received a callFriday from the New ZealandRescue Coordination Centerasking for help. The requestfrom the owner of the ship’scompany went through severallayers of bureaucracy –submitted through the BritishEmbassy, and then approvedby Pacific Command,Transportation Command andthe Air Mobility Command –before the situation wasdesignated an emergency andapproved.

This time, the machineworked quickly.

“They approved it in 18hours,” he said. “That’s prettyspectacular.”

The airmen bought theengine parts from aChristchurch marine store andpicked up parachutes fromMcMurdo Station inAntarctica. Crews put theequipment on a pallet andattached buoys to it. The C-17flew at about 135 mph and aslow as 300 feet above thesurface as it approached theship, and it dropped the15-by-71/2-foot pallet at justafter 10 p.m. New Zealandtime. The Argos Georgia crewrecovered the shipment inabout five minutes. Themission took about 10 hours.

“I’ve flown more than 50missions down here, andyesterday’s mission was one ofthe most spectacular I’ve everflown,” McGann said.

The 118-foot vessel,registered in the Britishoverseas territory of St. Helenain the South Atlantic, was on along-haul fishing expedition.

Operation Deep Freeze is ajoint mission with crews fromthe 62nd and 446th airliftwings based at McChord AirForce Base assisting theNational Science Foundation

and the U.S. AntarcticProgram. They’re there sixmonths a year to fly supplies toresearch stations in Antarctica.

“We have a motto: ‘GlobalReach,’” McGann said. “Andyesterday’s missiondemonstrates that we can beanywhere in the world inhours. It demonstrated we cando it, and that we do do it.”

Washington PostJanuary 7, 2008Pg. D1Federal Diary19. The Many FactorsBehind 2008's BiggerRaise For FederalWorkersBy Stephen Barr

What a difference a yearmakes.

At the start of 2007,federal employees received anaverage raise of 2.2 percent,with about half receiving a 1.8percent raise.

This year, federalemployees will see their payrise by an average of 3.5percent. About half will get a2.99 percent raise.

The differences in theraises largely can be attributedto the political process onCapitol Hill. At the end of2006, Congress had notcompleted most of the annualappropriations bill and left it toPresident Bush to set the 2007raise. Last month, Congress puttogether a consolidatedspending bill and got Bush'ssignature before the yearended.

To be sure, the 2008 raise,ratified by Bush in anexecutive order Friday, wasshaped by other considerations.

Those factors includeddata on wage growth in theprivate sector, a desire inCongress to give a solid raiseto the armed forces during awar and efforts by Washingtonarea members of Congress torenew support for the civilservice, where baby-boomretirements are on the rise andagencies are finding it tougherto compete with the private

page 18

sector for top talent."I know from having

advocated for federalemployees since I came toCongress that it's easier to railagainst 'Washingtonbureaucrats' than to recognizethe invaluable contributionsthese dedicated public servantsmake," Rep. Thomas M. DavisIII (R-Va.) said in a writtenstatement.

Federal employees, hesaid, "protect the homeland,fight crime, battle disease,ensure the wide variety ofgovernment functions onwhich we all depend operateproperly and support our troopsabroad."

House Majority LeaderSteny H. Hoyer (D-Md.)played a pivotal role in movingthis year's raise throughCongress and said he waspleased that Bush took the finalstep to put the raise in place."This adjustment will reapsignificant dividends both interms of the morale of ourfederal workforce and in ourefforts to recruit and retainvital government personnel,"Hoyer said.

Washington area Housemembers and senators "foughthard to secure a fair payadjustment this year, and wewill continue to do so in thefuture because we believefederal employees deservecompensation equal to that ofthe great contributions theymake in service to this nation,"he said.

The government's methodof allocating the annual raise --a 2.5 percent across-the-boardincrease and ageographic-based adjustment --is helping federal employees inthe Washington region. Thegovernment gives higher raisesto certain metropolitan areaswhere officials think there is asizable "pay gap" between thefederal and private sectors.

As a result, federalemployees here will receive a4.49 percent increase this year.In the Washington area, theprojected median federal salarywill be $90,698. Last year,Washington area federal

employees received a 2.64percent raise.

The annual raise haspushed the top of the GeneralSchedule scale, which coversmost federal workers, to$149,000 in the Washingtonarea. By law, General Schedulepay cannot exceed that ofassistant secretaries andgeneral counsels ofdepartments and heads ofsmaller agencies, known asExecutive Schedule Level IV.

Washington joins 11 otherareas with federal employees atthe upper end of the GeneralSchedule scale who have hitthe statutory cap on salaries.The other cities includeBoston; Chicago; Denver;Houston; New York; and keyparts of California, includingLos Angeles, San Franciscoand San Diego. Because theirpay is linked to the ExecutiveSchedule, the pay of theseemployees will increase by asmaller percentage than that ofmost other federal employeesor remain flat.

Increasingly, rank-and-fileemployees are bumping intothe executive pay scale becauseof their annual geographicadjustments, known as localitypay. Cabinet officials andothers paid on the ExecutiveSchedule do not receivelocality pay, and the increasesin that pay scale have not keptpace with General Scheduleraises in recent years.

Members of the SeniorExecutive Service, a group ofabout 6,000 senior managers inthe government, also do notreceive locality pay and are notguaranteed an annual raise.Bush's executive order raisesthe minimum salary of afederal executive by 2.5percent, allowing executives toearn $114,468 to $172,200.

With more rank-and-fileemployees being offered thepotential to earn up to$149,000 in big cities, someofficials are concerned thatsome talented employees willpass up a chance to competefor an executive position, sincethey do not come withguaranteed raises and do not

have as many job protectionsas a regular federal position.

J. David Cox,secretary-treasurer of theAmerican Federation ofGovernment Employees,applauded the step by Congressto increase federal pay overBush's initial proposal.Employees at the departmentsof Defense and VeteransAffairs will face a challengingyear because of the Iraq war,and Social SecurityAdministration employees arestretched thin in field officeswhere workloads areexpanding, he said.

"Federal employeesdeserve it," Cox said.

Washington TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 120. Kenya 'Critical' ToU.S. MilitaryInstability hits anti-terror allyBy Rowan Scarborough,Washington Times

A destabilized Kenyawould deprive the UnitedStates of one of its staunchestallies in Africa, becauseNairobi since September 11has provided military bases,communications networks andintelligence-sharing to prevental Qaeda from making inroadson the continent.

"For the eastern portion ofAfrica, Kenya is critical," saidretired Marine Lt. Gen.Michael DeLong, a formerdeputy commander of U.S.Central Command, whichoversees U.S. militaryoperations on the Horn ofAfrica.

"They are strategicallylocated in the area borderingSomalia," he said. "They werecritical for us in Somalia in theearly 1990s. Without them, wecould not have operated. Theyallowed us to use their baseswhile we were conductingoperations in and out ofSomalia, and they still allow usto use those bases today."

A failed state in Kenya, asexists in Somalia, would erase"one of the top friendlymilitaries to the United States

in Africa," the retired three-stargeneral said.

The prospect of adestabilized Kenya arose inrecent weeks in the aftermathof a contested Dec. 27 electionthat kept President MwaiKibaki in power. Internationalobservers reportedballot-counting irregularities.Street violence broke out in thecapital of Nairobi, killing morethan 300.

Alarmed, Secretary ofState Condoleezza Ricedispatched her top Africandiplomat to Kenya to urgereconciliation between theopposing parties. U.S. envoyJendayi E. Frazer met Saturdaywith Mr. Kibaki, whoannounced a power-sharingproposal in an effort to end thecrisis.

"What we have here is oneof the most promisingcountries in Africa on thebrink," said Michelle Gavin, ananalyst at the Council onForeign Relations.

"Kenya is not peripheral tothe struggle against terrorism,"she said. "Kenya has been areliable partner."

Ms. Gavin fears adestabilized Kenya would be"extending the failed statespace already occupied bySomalia that has appeal forterrorists."

The Bush administrationconsiders the Horn of Africaone of the criticalbattlegrounds in preventing alQaeda from extending its hubsof operation beyond theAfghanistan-Pakistan region.

One of the Pentagon's firstpost-September 11 moves wasto set up the 1,800-troopCombined Joint TaskForce-Horn of Africa in thesmall nation of Djibouti onSomalia's northern border. Ittrains area military and policeforces in counterterrorismtechniques. In one instance lastJanuary, it launched anAC-130 gunship attack onsuspected al Qaeda terrorists inSomalia.

Immediately afterSeptember 11, the StateDepartment dispatched its

page 19

then-top African diplomat,Walter Kansteiner, to Kenyaand other East African nations.His mission: poll leaders on theal Qaeda threat and on theirneeds to fight terrorism.

Nairobi had alreadysuffered one of al Qaeda's mostdaring and deadly attacks. TheAugust 1998 car bombing ofthe U.S. Embassy there killed212 persons and injured morethan 4,000, most of themAfricans. The attack underlinedal Qaeda's desire to topplegovernments in North and EastAfrica, and establish strictIslamist rule.

Three years later, Mr.Kansteiner heard Kenyanofficials say their chief fearwas not necessarily disease orpoverty, but a growing Islamistmovement that could wreck thecountry. U.S. economic andmilitary aid soon startedflowing in.

"Kenya had already beenlooked on as one of the key,large, stable nations of Africa,"said Mr. Kansteiner, now anadviser at the Scowcroft Groupin Washington. "Fromindependence [in 1963],through the Cold War, throughpost-9/11, Kenya has alwaysbeen a very good ally. Kenyahas been a regional anchor ofstability. It has providedinfrastructure, everything fromcommunications, totransportation, to medicalfacilities."

President Bush in 2003announced a $100 million aidprogram — the East AfricanCounterterrorism Initiative —for Kenya, as well as Djibouti,Ethiopia, Eritrea and Tanzania.U.S. military and civilianofficials began arriving inKenya to teach basicoperations to counter al Qaeda,such as how to watch over thecountry's long Indian Oceancoastline and how to find anddisarm truck bombs. Kenyahad no official "watch list" toweed out terrorism suspectstraveling through the country'sseaports and airports. Now itdoes.

In return, Kenya hashelped Washington by sharing

intelligence and military bases,and by providing troops forvarious peacekeeping missions.

"In that region, they are avery competent army," Lt.Gen. DeLong said.

Kenya has stood as arelatively vibrant democracyand free-market economy on acontinent plagued by despots,disease and violence. Mr.Kansteiner said Nairobi doesmore than help the U.S.militarily. It promotesdemocracy in surroundingnations and sponsors talksaimed at reconciliation amongvarious warring factions inSomalia.

"They have been veryattuned to private-sectorgrowth," he said. "They havedone a good job of trying toreach out to the region and notonly make Kenyaeconomically strong, but alsoto integrate the region'seconomies and private sectors."

Mr. Kansteiner, whiletroubled by events in Kenya,does not expect it to deteriorateinto a failed state.

"I think what we arelooking at is some turbulentdays until a new structure isput in place," he said. "Thatnew structure could be newelections. It could be a properrecount."

Washington PostJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 1221. As Bush Heads ToMideast, RenewedQuestions On IranIsraeli, Arab Leaders DoubtU.S. ResolveBy Michael Abramowitz andEllen Knickmeyer, WashingtonPost Staff Writers

President Bush intends touse his first extended tour ofthe Middle East to rallysupport for internationalpressure against Iran, even as arecent U.S. intelligence reportplaying down Tehran's nuclearambitions has left Israeli andArab leaders rethinking theirown approach toward Iran andquestioning Washington's

resolve, according to seniorU.S. officials, diplomats andregional experts.

Bush is to leave Tuesdayfor Israel, where he hopes tojump-start theIsraeli-Palestinian peacenegotiations he launched inAnnapolis late last year. But inJerusalem and some of theArab countries Bush plans tovisit, Iran's growing regionalinfluence looms larger than thepeace process or the Iraq war.Leaders in the region aregauging whether the lame-duckadministration has the interestand ability to cope with Iran, orwhether they should pursuetheir own military anddiplomatic solutions.

"Part of the reason I'mgoing to the Middle East is tomake it abundantly clear tonations in that part of the worldthat we view Iran as a threat,and that the [NationalIntelligence Estimate] in noway lessens that threat, but infact clarifies the threat," Bushsaid in an interview with theIsraeli newspaper YediotAhronot released Friday.

Administration officialshave been alarmed by whatthey see as Iran's efforts todevelop a nuclear weapon andintimidate its Sunni neighbors.But their efforts to buildsupport for sanctions and otherpressure on Tehran took aserious hit last month when aNational Intelligence Estimate-- representing the shared viewof U.S. intelligence agencies --concluded that Iran halted itsnuclear arms program in 2003.

Administration officialsinsist that the estimate showedIran remains capable of, andinterested in, developing anuclear weapon. But Israel,which is believed to havenuclear weapons, saw thereport as a sign thatWashington is flagging in itszeal to confront Iran, whichthey regard as a threat to itsexistence. And in Arab Sunnicountries such as Saudi Arabia,which feel threatened by therising Shiite power that Iranrepresents, the NIE reneweddoubts over whether the United

States might be seeking anaccommodation with Tehran.

In an interview yesterday,Arab League Secretary GeneralAmr Moussa cited recentovertures between Iran andArab countries and said Arabnations are exercising aprerogative to set their owncourse on Iran. "As long asthey have no nuclear program... why should we isolate Iran?Why punish Iran, now?" heasked.

One senior administrationofficial who spoke oncondition of anonymitybecause he is not authorized tospeak publicly about the tripsaid many Middle Easterngovernments were "confused"by the NIE. "No Arab regimeunderstands why the UnitedStates would publish anintelligence estimate." Theofficial said Iran will be animportant focus of Bush'sconversations with regionalleaders, with the presidentseeking to reassure them ofU.S. staying power in theMiddle East.

"Iran, for Israel, is topicNumber One," said MeirJavedanfar, an Iranianexpatriate living in Israel whoruns an economic and politicalanalysis company, and haswritten a book about Iran'snuclear program. "Most of theIsraeli politicians andpopulation see Iran as a greaterthreat than Hamas," he said,comparing Iran to the Islamicmovement that controls Gaza."And the Israeli governmentwill be eager for Bush to showthem that he is still committedto stopping Iran."

In Tehran yesterday, anIranian government spokesmansaid Bush had failed to createan anti-Iran coalition. "The aimof these repeated trips is tocompensate for the failedpolicies of America in theregion," said Foreign Ministryspokesman Mohammad AliHosseini, according to wirereports.

Bush is planning stops inIsrael, the Palestinianterritories, Egypt, Saudi Arabiaand several smaller Gulf

page 20

countries during his eight-daytrip. While in Kuwait, Bushwill meet for the first time infour months with Gen. DavidH. Petraeus, the top U.S.commander in Iraq, and U.S.Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker,to discuss Iraq.

In Israel, which he isvisiting for the first time aspresident, Bush is likely to begreeted as one of the country'sgreatest friends. But in theArab world, his presidency hasbeen perceived as damaging tothe region and to U.S. prestige.

The overthrow of SaddamHussein's Sunni Arab regime inIraq, which long served as acounterweight to ShiiteMuslim Iran, has allowed Iran'sinfluence to grow. At the sametime, Arab leaders blame thebreakdown, until recently, ofIsraeli-Palestinian talks onBush's refusal to assume theU.S. president's traditionalhands-on role in Middle Eastpeace negotiations.

Arab dissidents wereelated and then devastatedwhen Bush called fordemocracy in the region in2005, only to appear to backaway after election victories inIraq and the Palestinianterritories by religious blocs --the only groups that had builtpopular support underautocratic governments. Bushplans to offer something of areport card on his Middle East"freedom agenda" when hestops in the United ArabEmirates' capital, Abu Dhabi,next week.

In Arab streets, manyblame Washington for theplight of Iraqis andPalestinians. Bush's presidencyhas been "disastrous," saidHisham Kassem, an Egyptianjournalist who received aNational Endowment forDemocracy award from himlast fall. "America's neitherfeared nor loved. It's neitherfeared by the regimes anymore,and it's hated by the people ofthe Middle East... . That's theBush legacy."

Complicating matters hasbeen the effort by IranianPresident Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad, buoyed bysoaring oil revenues, to expandTehran's clout. The UnitedStates also sees Iranianmeddling in Lebanon andPalestinian affairs through tiesto Hezbollah and Hamas. Butmany Arabs blame U.S. actionsfor Iran's influence. In Iraq,where the 2003 U.S. invasionled to a Shiite government,"Iran got the best help"possible from Washington,Moussa said.

In December,Ahmadinejad scored adiplomatic trifecta: He spokebefore the Gulf CooperationCouncil, an Arab bloc formedto counter Iran, in the first suchappearance by an Iranianpresident. He also visitedMecca for the haj religiouspilgrimage at the invitation ofSaudi King Abdullah, anotherfirst for an Iranian president.

Ahmadinejad closed theyear by sending envoy AliLarijani to Egypt, a countrythat has frozen ties with Iranfor 28 years, offering to helpCairo develop nuclear energy.Talk of resuming diplomaticrelations followed.

The challenge for Bush,according to analysts inWashington and the MiddleEast, is to convince Arabcountries that their best hopefor minimizing the Iranianthreat is to stick with theUnited States -- whiledissuading Israel from aunilateral, preemptive strike onTehran's nuclear facilities.

"The real question is whatcan the president say or do toreassure them about Iranianpower?" said Richard N.Haass, a former senior StateDepartment official andpresident of the Council onForeign Relations.

Bush's key stop may be inRiyadh, where Bush will hold arare face-to-face meeting withKing Abdullah, who has beenalternately critical andsupportive of U.S. efforts onIraq, Israeli-Palestinian talksand the rest of the Middle East.The Saudi royal family, whichrules in alliance with hard-lineSunni clerics, is concerned

about the spread of Iranianinfluence and is unhappy withthe new Shiite dominance ofIraq.

But Abdullah prefers toco-opt enemies, not confrontthem, and appears to beseeking a deal withAhmadinejad, said BruceRiedel, who worked on MiddleEast affairs in the Clinton andBush administrations. "I thinkthere is a great effort on bothRiyadh and Washington's partto obscure that because they donot want the public spat," hesaid.

The senior U.S. officialwas skeptical, saying that theSaudis do not invite the Iranianpresident to their meetings --"he invites himself."

"They are going to have arelationship with Iran," thisofficial said. "Saudi diplomacyis traditionally quite cautiousand conservative, but don'tmistake caution andconservatism for sympathy."

But some Arabs suspectthe Bush administration maydecide it has to work with Iranto preserve security gains inIraq. Khalid al-Dakheel, apolitical scientist at King SaudUniversity in Riyadh, said"some people here think, orhave the jitters, that thisadministration or the nextadministration ... might findthemselves in a position toreconcile themselves with theIranians."

Knickmeyer reported fromCairo. CorrespondentJonathan Finer in Jerusalemcontributed to this report.

Washington PostJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 1422. Egypt To BolsterGaza BorderU.S. Aid Will Help in DetectingTunnels, Congressman SaysBy Ellen Knickmeyer,Washington Post ForeignService

CAIRO, Jan. 6 -- Egypthas agreed to spend $23million in U.S. military aid onrobots and other advancedtechnology to detect smuggling

tunnels along its border withthe Gaza Strip, a U.S.congressman said Sunday.

Egypt also has accepted aU.S. offer to send experts fromthe Army Corps of Engineersto train Egyptian border guardsin the technology, said Rep.Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

The United States offeredthe technology and training inan effort to defuse tensionsbetween Egypt and Israel overEgypt's control of its Sinaiborder with Gaza. Congressvoted last month to withhold$100 million in U.S. militaryaid to Egypt until the countryintensifies policing of theborder.

Israeli officials accuseEgypt of allowing smugglers toferry arms and other goods tothe Palestinian movementHamas, which has controlledthe Gaza Strip since June.

Egyptians deny that largeamounts of weapons are beingmoved through the tunnels andplace much of the blame forthe smuggling onIsraeli-Egyptian accordslimiting the number of securitypersonnel Egypt can keep onthe border. Egypt has urgedIsrael to reopen negotiations onthat limit.

The New Yorkcongressman, in Egypt as partof a Middle East tour, said theequipment includes unmannedground vehicles and acousticsensors.

Another official, whospoke on condition ofanonymity, described theunmanned vehicles as robots.

Specialists from the ArmyCorps of Engineers areexpected to spend about twomonths training Egyptianborder workers, thecongressman said.

"With the Army Corpsequipment, with the sustainedU.S. technical advice, thisshould make a big difference inclosing these tunnels, and takethe tunnels off the table infuture appropriations debates,"Israel said by telephone.

An Egyptian official,speaking on condition ofanonymity, said late Sunday

page 21

that "there is an endeavor ofthe sort. It hasn't reallymaterialized yet."

The official acknowledgedthat the congressman had urgedEgypt to allow the Army Corpsto help it monitor the borderlong-term. "That's an issue of atentative nature," the officialsaid.

Accusations oversmuggling have raised tensionsbetween Israel and Egypt asPresident Bush is due to arrivein the region this week on thefirst extended Middle East tourof his presidency.

Israeli Foreign MinisterTzipi Livni outraged EgyptianPresident Hosni Mubarak lastmonth when she declared thatEgypt was doing a "terrible"job of controlling its borderwith Gaza. Mubarak saidafterward that Livni "hascrossed a line with me."

Israel, the New Yorkcongressman, spoke Sundayafter a three-hour meeting withMubarak.

"There's a lot of tensionhere," he said. "I'm hopeful thatthe volume will be turneddown."

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 623. Poland SignalsDoubts About PlannedU.S. Missile-DefenseBases On Its TerritoryBy Judy Dempsey

BERLIN — Signaling atougher position innegotiations with the UnitedStates on a Europeanantiballistic-missile shieldsystem, Poland’s foreignminister says his country’s newgovernment is not prepared toaccept American plans todeploy missile-defense bases inPoland until all costs and risksare considered.

“This is an American, nota Polish project,” ForeignMinister Radek Sikorski said inan interview published in theweekend edition of thenewspaper Gazeta Wyborcza.

The previous Polish

government had consented inprinciple to acceptmissile-interceptor bases aspart of a larger system thatwould include a radar station inthe Czech Republic, but noformal agreement has beensigned. Now Mr. Sikorski issaying that the terms underwhich the shield would bedeployed were unclear and thatthe new government wants therisks to be explained, thefinancial costs to be set out andclarification on how Poland’sinterests would be defended ifthe bases were put on itsterritory.

“We feel no threat fromIran,” he said, challengingBush administration assertionsthat some of the biggest threatsfacing the security of Europeand the United States are from“rogue states” in the MiddleEast.

Still, Mr. Sikorski said, “ifan important ally such as theUnited States has a request ofsuch an important nature, wetake it very seriously.”

He added: “It is not onlythe benefits but the risks of thesystem that have to bediscussed fully. It cannot bethat we alone carry the costs.”

There was no officialresponse from the UnitedStates. Bogdan Klich, Poland’snew defense minister, isexpected to make his firstofficial visit to Washington thismonth to explain hisgovernment’s position.

NATO said Sunday thatthe missile defense issue wasessentially a discussion forPoland, the United States andRussia. “NATO is happy to bea forum for discussion, and it isa useful one,” said JamesAppathurai, a spokesman forthe alliance. “But it does notsubstitute for the bilateraltrack.”

Mr. Sikorski also said hewas worried that the UnitedStates might abandon theproject after the Americanpresidential election inNovember. In that case, Polandwould nevertheless have tobear political costs, like thedeterioration of relations with

Russia, if it signed on to theshield prematurely.

The deployment of themissile defense system hasbecome such a contentiousissue between the United Statesand Russia — and alsobetween Poland and Russia —that President Vladimir V.Putin of Russia has warned of anew arms race if Washingtonproceeds with the plan inPoland and the CzechRepublic.

Having accusedWashington of threateningRussia’s national securityinterests, Mr. Putin last monthsuspended his nation’sparticipation in theConventional Forces in EuropeTreaty.

Under that treaty, one ofthe last major arms pactsbetween the former cold warfoes, countries stretching fromCanada across Europe to theeastern parts of the formerSoviet Union cut theirconventional forces and agreedto on-site inspections and anelaborate system of verificationand notifications. It took effectin 1992.

The Kremlin did not sayhow long it would suspend itsparticipation. But Russiandiplomats said it depended onnot only what kind ofconcessions the United Stateswas prepared to makeconcerning changes to thetreaty, but also on whetherPoland and the Czech Republicwould deploy components ofthe American antimissilesystem.

The approach on missiledefense taken by Poland’s newcenter-right coalitiongovernment, under PrimeMinister Donald Tusk, reflectsa different negotiating strategyfrom that of the previousnationalist-conservativegovernment led by JaroslawKaczynski.

Mr. Kaczynski, who wasmuch more pro-American,agreed in principle to deployseveral interceptors on Polishterritory without going intodetail over the costs, themaintenance and the risks to

Poland’s security, according toPolish officials.

The former prime ministerdid little to allay Russia’s fearsabout deploying the missileshield in Poland, or to drum upsupport in other EuropeanUnion member states. He left itup to the United States toexplain the issue to theKremlin and to Europeangovernments.

In contrast, Mr. Tusk andMr. Sikorski, while certainlyaware of Mr. Putin’s growingassertiveness in internationalaffairs, have repeatedly saidthey want to improve relationswith Russia.

New York TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 1124. Qaeda UrgesMeeting Bush WithBombs

CAIRO (AP) — AnAmerican member of Al Qaedaurged fighters to meetPresident Bush “with bombs”when he visits the Middle Eastthis week, according to a newvideotape posted on theInternet on Sunday.

Adam Gadahn, who hasappeared in several Qaedavideotapes, also tore up hisUnited States passport as asymbolic protest in the nearlyhourlong tape.

Mr. Bush is scheduled toarrive in Israel on Wednesdayas part of a weeklong tripthrough the region to push foran Israeli-Palestinian peaceagreement.

“Now we direct an urgentcall to our militant brothers,”Mr. Gadahn, 29, said inArabic, urging them “to beready to receive the Crusaderslayer Bush in his visit toMuslim Palestine and the Arabpeninsula in the beginning ofJanuary and to receive him notwith flowers or clapping butwith bombs and booby-trappedvehicles.”

In the rest of the tape, Mr.Gadahn, who was born inCalifornia, spoke mostly inEnglish, apparently to address

page 22

Americans. He said Al Qaedafelt the need to release thestatement after Washington’s“defeat” in Iraq andAfghanistan and failedattempts by the Bushadministration to bring peaceto the Middle East.

“The first questionsAmericans might ask is, hasAmerica really been defeated?The answer is yes and on allfronts,” he said.

The authenticity of thevideo, which appeared on aWeb site used by Islamicmilitants and carrying the logoof Al Qaeda’s media wing,could not immediately beindependently verified.

Mr. Gadahn, also knownas Azzam al-Amriki, wascharged with treason in theUnited States in 2006 and iswanted by the F.B.I., which isoffering a $1 million rewardfor information leading to hisarrest or conviction.

Ben Venzke, the head ofIntelCenter, a Virginia-basedgroup that monitors andanalyzes militant messages,said much of the video shares atone similar to Mr. Gadahn’sprevious messages.

“It fits into Al Qaeda’snotion of providing warningand opportunity for people tocorrect their ways to avoid anattack,” he said.

NewsweekJanuary 14, 200825. Al Qaeda’s NewestTriggermanBaitullah Mehsud is beingblamed for most of the suicidebombings in Pakistan,including Benazir Bhutto'sassassination. The rise of amilitant leader.By Sami Yousafzai and RonMoreau

How do you track down afoe without a face? That is thechallenge posed by BaitullahMehsud, the man who couldwell be the newest Enemy No.1 in the War on Terror. Sincehe first emerged as a youngjihadist leader three years ago,the black-bearded andslow-talking tribal leader has

transformed his Mehsud clan'smountainous badlands in thenorthwest corner of Pakistaninto a safe haven for Al Qaeda,the Afghan Taliban andoutlawed Pakistani jihadists.Though uneducated, and onlyin his mid-30s, Baitullahsnookered Pakistani leaderPervez Musharraf into a fakepeace deal two years ago—andeven got him to hand over afew hundred thousand dollars.Just as important, Baitullah haslearned the hard lessons ofprevious jihadists who grewtoo enamored of the spotlightfor their own good. Accordingto Afghan Taliban who knowhim, he travels in a convoy ofpickups protected by twodozen heavily armed guards,he rarely sleeps in the samebed twice in a row, and his facehas never been photographed.They say his role model isMullah Mohammed Omar, theequally mysterious Talibanleader who disappeared fromview in 2001.

U.S. officials havedistanced themselvessomewhat from the Pakistanigovernment's swift—perhapstoo swift—conclusion thatBaitullah was behind the Dec.27 assassination of BenazirBhutto. The slain former primeminister's Pakistan PeoplesParty also disputed that claim,pointing the finger instead atfigures within the government.Even Musharraf toned downprevious statements from hisown officials definitivelyassigning blame to Baitullah,and late last week he invitedScotland Yard to help with theinvestigation.

Still, most U.S. expertsagree that Baitullah is the mostlikely culprit. Musharraf told apress conference last Fridaythat the tribal leader wasbehind most if not all of the 19suicide bombings in Pakistan,including the two aimed atBhutto, in the past threemonths. "He is the only onewho had the capacity," saysone Afghan Taliban with closeconnections to Mehsud, AlQaeda and Pakistani militants.(The source, who has proved

reliable in the past, wouldspeak only if his identity wereprotected.) Last week thePakistani government producedan intercept in which it claimsBaitullah was heard telling amilitant cleric after Bhutto'smurder: "Fantastic job. Verybrave boys, the ones who killedher." Pakistani and U.S.authorities now fear thatBaitullah, encouraged by thechaos that followed Bhutto'sassassination, will try to wreakmore havoc before therescheduled Feb. 18 nationalelections.

The Afghan Talibansource claims that Baitullahand his Qaeda allies had laidout remarkably intricate plansfor killing Bhutto, who was achampion of seculardemocracy and a declaredenemy of the jihadists. He saysBaitullah and Al Qaeda's No.2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri—alongwith Zawahiri's deputy,Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, AlQaeda's new commander ofmilitary operations inAfghanistan and Pakistan—haddispatched suicide-bombersquads to five cities: Karachi,Peshawar, Lahore, Islamabadand Rawalpindi, where she waskilled. Their orders were tofollow Bhutto with the aim ofassassinating her if anopportunity presented itself.(Two U.S. counterterrorismofficials, who asked foranonymity when discussing theinvestigation, say there aregrowing indications ofBaitullah's involvement in theassassination.) Baitullah andhis allies have even granderplans, the Afghan source says.Her assassination is only partof Zawahiri's long-nurturedplan to destabilize Pakistan andMusharraf's regime, wage warin Afghanistan, and thendestroy democracy in otherIslamic countries such asTurkey and Indonesia.

Baitullah's allegedemergence as the triggerman inthis grand scheme illustratesthe mutability of the jihadistenemy since 9/11. As recentlyas June 2004, Iraq was said tobe Al Qaeda's main

battleground, and Abu Mussabal-Zarqawi was the terrorchieftain whom U.S.authorities worried about most.Baitullah was then a largelyunknown subcommander inSouth Waziristan. But thatsame month, a U.S. Hellfiremissile fired from a Predatordrone killed Nek Mohammad,the young, dashing andpublicity-hungry tribal leaderin Waziristan. Al Qaeda andtribal militants promoted theyoung Baitullah to a commandposition. His equally youngMehsud clansman, AbdullahMehsud—a one-legged jihadistwho had recently been releasedfrom two years of detention inGuant?namo—also seemed tobe a rising star. But after thebotched kidnapping of twoChinese engineers working ona dam in the tribal area, a localcouncil backed by Al Qaedaremoved Abdullah andreplaced him with thelittle-known Baitullah, whowas seen as being morelevelheaded. (Abdullah waslater killed in a shoot-out.)

Since then, Zarqawi hasbeen killed by U.S. forces, Iraqhas receded as a haven for AlQaeda, and Baitullah has comeinto his own as a terroristleader in newly unstablePakistan. Last month a councilof militant leaders from thetribal agencies and neighboringareas named Baitullah the headof the newly formed TalibanMovement in Pakistan, a loosealliance of jihadistorganizations in the tribalagencies. Taliban sources whowould speak only on conditionof anonymity describeBaitullah as a key middlemanin the jihadist network: histribesmen provide security forAl Qaeda's rough-hewntraining compounds in thetribal area as well as footsoldiers for Qaeda-designedattacks. With a long traditionas smugglers, the tribals (mostof whom, like Baitullah, takeMehsud as their surname) runan extensive nationwidetrucking and transport networkthat reaches from theborderlands into teeming cities

page 23

like Karachi, allowingBaitullah to easily move menand weapons throughoutPakistan.

Baitullah has clearlyoutsmarted the unpopularMusharraf, whom PresidentGeorge W. Bush praised againlast week as an "ally" who"understands clearly the risksof dealing with extremists andterrorists." In February 2005,with his military gettingbloodied in the tribal areas, thePakistani president decided tostrike a peace deal withBaitullah and other militantleaders and their frontmen.Under the terms of the deal themilitants agreed not to provideassistance or shelter to foreignfighters, not to attackgovernment forces, and not tosupport the Taliban or launchcross-border operations intoAfghanistan. As part of thedeal, Baitullah coaxed thegovernment into giving himand the other leaders $540,000that they supposedly owed toAl Qaeda. The large cashinfusion bolstered the jihadistforces, and under cover of theceasefire Baitullah's territorybecame an even more securesafe haven. He and othermilitant leaders haveassassinated some 200 tribalelders who dared to opposethem. The Pakistanigovernment struck a similarpeace agreement with militantsin North Waziristan inSeptember 2006, transformingmuch of that tribal area into amilitant camp as well.

One of Baitullah's biggestsuccesses came in August,when his men captured morethan 250 Pakistani soldiers andparamilitary troops, whosurrendered without firing ashot. Mehsud demanded therelease of 30 jailed militantsand the end of Pakistanimilitary operations in theMehsud tribal area as the pricefor the men's release. To showhe meant business, he orderedthe beheading of three of hishostages. Once again,Musharraf gave in. On the dayafter Musharraf declared a stateof emergency—which he

claimed was aimed at givinghim a stronger hand to fightmilitants like Baitullah—thePakistani president released 25jailed insurgents includingseveral failed suicide bombers.Last week Mehsud's forcescaptured four more Pakistaniparamilitary troops in severalbrazen operations that mayhave led to the death of 25 ofhis men.

In his few statements tothe press, Baitullah has madehis agenda frighteningly clear.He vowed, in a January 2007interview, to continue waging ajihad against "the infidel forcesof American and Britain," andto "continue our struggle untilforeign troops are thrown out"of neighboring Afghanistan.He knows he's a marked man:"The Angel of Death is flyingover our heads all the time," hetold the now deceased Talibanleader Mullah AkhundDadullah at a dinner, accordingto one senior Taliban source.But from his secure corner ofPakistan—a country run by awidely despised autocrat who,after Bhutto, has few realdemocraticsuccessors—Baitullah maywell wage that fight for a longtime to come.

U.S. News & World ReportJanuary 14, 2008Washington Whispers26. Helping Hand ForHurt Bomb SquadsBy Paul Bedard

It has never been a greatjob, but in the Iraq war, whereimprovised explosive devicesare a leading cause of injuryand death, being a member ofthe military bomb squad ismore dangerous than ever. Fewknow that better than KennethFalke, a former NavyExplosive Ordnance Deviceboss, and Sherri Beck, wife ofan EOD veteran. They'vehelped to create a group toassist wounded EOD teammembers. The Virginia-basedWounded EOD WarriorFoundation raises money toprovide $2,500 to those injuredand their families "no questions

asked," says Beck. Most use itto travel to the hospitals to visittheir injured relatives, she says.

Washington PostJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 15At the White House27. In A Shorter War,The Numbers MightHave Added UpBy Michael Abramowitz

About six months beforethe United States invaded Iraq,then-White House economicadviser Lawrence B. Lindseyfamously estimated that thewar would cost between $100billion and $200 billion. Theprediction ended up being waytoo low: As of Sept. 30,congressional analysts recentlyestimated, the war had cost$449 billion, and the number isstill rising.

The episode helped getLindsey ousted from a WhiteHouse intent on imposingmessage discipline and furiousabout an estimate that, evenwhile low, was the first to hintat the larger budgetaryconsequences of the invasion.

In the years since, Lindseyhas studiously avoidedcomment about thecircumstances surrounding thatestimate.

But in a book beingpublished this week -- "What aPresident Should Know ... ButMost Learn Too Late" --Lindsey offers for the first timewhat he terms "the true story"behind his estimate, includingwhat he sees as a mistakenWhite House strategy to playdown the costs of war tomaintain public support for aninvasion.

Putting "out only abest-case scenario withoutpreparing the public for someworse eventuality was thewrong strategy to follow,"Lindsey writes. "It may havehelped at the margin in thevery short run by making thewar sound attractive.

"But this came at theexpense of undermining thepresident's political capital in

the long run."As Lindsey tells it, the

estimate grew out of aconversation in his office withWall Street Journal reporterBob Davis in September 2002about the economicconsequences of the "war onterror." During theconversation, Lindseyprojected the "upper bound" ofspending on athen-hypothetical Iraq war at 1to 2 percent of gross domesticproduct, or between $100billion and $200 billion.

In his book, Lindseysuggests that he came up withthat range by looking at somehistorical comparisons andcontemporary rules of thumbregarding force commitments.Based on those calculations, hesays, the "most plausiblenumber" for the cost of the warwas going to be between 0.5and 1 percent of GDP for eachyear of the conflict. A year atthe high end of that estimateand up to two years offollow-up at a lower endproduce Lindsey's estimate ofbetween 1 and 2 percent ofGDP. (Lindsey says the war isactually running at about 0.7percent of GDP annually.)

Where he went wrong, ofcourse, is his estimate of howlong the war would last. "WhenI look back, did I do an honestjob in coming up with thisestimate? I think the answer isyes," Lindsey said in aninterview last week. "You haveto make assumptions at acertain point, and thatassumption turned out to bewrong."

Lindsey writes that, evenin hindsight, he does notbelieve that his basic messageto Davis was inappropriate orcontrary to administrationthinking: Even if the UnitedStates went to war in Iraq, itwould not derail the economy.But it was simply the fact ofthe interview that appears tohave angered his (unnamed)White House colleagues.

At the time, Lindseywrites, "the entire country wastalking about everythingrelated to the Iraq War except

page 24

the White House. If there was abreak in message discipline, itwas not that the actual wordsof the message were wrong:rather, it was that there was amessage at all. At that time,message discipline on Iraq wasthe functional equivalent ofradio silence."

Lindsey's comments camein a book written with the helpof former White Housecolleague Marc Sumerlin, apartner with him in aconsulting group that offersadvice on economic trends tobig corporations. The bookprovides an "insider's view" onhow to succeed in the WhiteHouse, in the form of memosto the next president on how toorganize his or heradministration, consider bigquestions such as going to warand handle complex issues.

Among Lindsey's moreprovocative recommendationsis that the next president takeoffice planning to serve onlyone term, to ensure a focus"solely on the things thatmotivated you to run in thefirst place." Lindsey, who isadvising GOP presidentialhopeful Fred D. Thompson,came to this conclusion afterappraising the problematicsecond terms of many recentpresidents, including the onehe served most recently.

Lindsey said in theinterview that he believes thefirst term went reasonably wellfor President Bush, especiallyon domestic policy, because hehad a clear agenda -- tax cuts,education reform, rebuildingthe military, a prescriptiondrug plan and Social Security-- and achieved much of it."The first term pretty much ranaccording to book," he said."The second term--they didn'tdo that. If you don't have ascript, you don't havesomething to stick to."

Honolulu AdvertiserJanuary 6, 200828. 2008 Full OfChallenges For AsiaLeaders

By Richard HalloranThe year 2008 will

confront many leaders in Asia,especially those in Beijing andIslamabad, Pakistan, withexceptionally difficult tests.For the U.S., stuck with alame-duck president and atedious election campaign, thetests will not come until a newpresident enters the WhiteHouse in January 2009.

The authoritarian leadersin Beijing, who are promotingthe Olympic Games they willhost in August as an emblem ofChina's arrival as a greatpower, will be tested by theirhandling of the hordes ofathletes, spectators andjournalists who will descend onthe capital.

Chinese political activistsare almost certain to drawattention to China's violationsof human rights while religiousactivists, such as Falun Gong,will most likely find ways toprotest the regime's repressionof freedom of worship.

It may be 1989 all overagain. Advocates of democracycamped in Tiananmen Squarein central Beijing attractedforeign press and TV coveragefrom news teams that hadjourneyed to China to report onthe visit of Soviet leaderMikhail Gorbachev. Whendemonstrations erupted andwere put down brutally, thenews flashed around the world.

Moreover, China's leadersmay find it hard to concealtheir nation's economicshortcomings that wererecently outlined in a WorldBank report, or its corruption,civil unrest, censorship,pollution and otherenvironmental problems.

Across the continent,President Pervez Musharraf ofPakistan, or his successor if hedoes not survive in office, willbe tasked to hold together acountry threatening to splitapart after the assassination offormer Prime Minister BenazirBhutto. At the very least, thePakistani leader will need toestablish some semblance oforder in that stricken nation.

The test that much of the

rest of the world is watching iswhether Pakistan's stash ofnuclear weapons, reported tonumber 60, can be kept awayfrom terrorists such as those ofal-Qaida, the Taliban, or otherswho may be operating inPakistan. Pakistani militaryofficers say they have controlof the weapons — but theallegiance of some officersmay be in doubt.

Back in East Asia, a newpresident in Taiwan isscheduled to be elected inMarch and to take office inMay. A critical task will be todecide whether to rebuildrelations with the U.S., theultimate guarantor of Taiwan'sde facto separation from Chinaand, if so, to figure out how togo about it.

The incumbent, PresidentChen Shui-bian, has showncalculated disregard forWashington's efforts tomaintain a balance betweenChina and Taiwan. Moreover,both his political party and theopposition party have, in theeyes of many U.S. officials,been lax in preparing to defendTaiwan from a China that hasrepeatedly threatened to usemilitary force to conquer theisland.

In Seoul, South Korea,similar tasks will confrontPresident-elect Lee Myung-bakwhen he takes office inFebruary. The currentpresident, Roh Moo-hyun, isregarded by U.S. officials ashaving been anti-Americanthroughout his term. He hasdisparaged South Korea'salliance with the U.S. andadopted a policy toward NorthKorea that borders onappeasement.

North of the demilitarizedzone that divides the KoreanPeninsula, the leader of theregime in Pyongyang, KimJong Il, will continue to beconfronted with at least twodifficult decisions. One iswhether to give up his nuclearweapons, which he has givenlittle sign he is ready to do.

The other is to survive inpower and to name a successor.Whiffs of civil unrest due to

near starvation and hints ofdissent, including from thearmy that assures Kim's power,occasionally waft out of thatdark and isolated land but theyare so fleeting that no onegives them much credence. Hisfather, Kim Il Sung, assuredKim Jong Il's rise to power byappointing him successor longbefore he passed away.

In Southeast Asia, Islamicterrorists in the Philippines,Thailand, Malaysia andIndonesia promise to keepleaders awake at night. If thepast is any indication, thosewho hold office in theAssociation of Southeast AsianNations, or ASEAN, won't beof much help in defeating theterrorists.

Americans, preoccupiedwith their own politics, mayhave little to say about how thepressing issues of Asia are metduring this year. Indeed, thenew U.S. president will mostlikely find himself or herselfhaving to plunge into a thicketof changes in Asia over whichthe U.S. has had little or noinfluence.

Richard Halloran is aHonolulu-based journalist andformer New York Timescorrespondent in Asia.

Washington TimesJanuary 7, 2008Pg. 1429. Biased AgainstHomosexuals

I am a combat veteran ofthe war in Iraq. I served mycountry honorably and chose tostay in Iraq to have minorsurgery rather than beingevacuated. My team wasfrequently deployed in forwardpositions, and I was in combat.I am also a woman. I wassexually harassed at times —as I have been in the civilianworld. However, during actualcombat, my gender wasmeaningless compared to myability to do my job andaccomplish the mission.

There were homosexualsin my unit. While we weredeployed, their sexualpreference was meaningless

page 25

compared to their tactical andtechnical proficiency.

I found the two-part pieceby Elaine Donnelly ("Gays andthe military," Op-Ed.Wednesday and Thursday) tobe offensive, biased and full ofunfounded allegations aboutwomen and homosexuals in themilitary.

The operations tempo ofthe military today makes everyservice member who iswell-qualified and hardworkinga valuable, necessary part ofthe team. Troops on the groundare aware of that. It isunfortunate that Ms. Donnellyplaces her political bias abovethis reality.

Kayla Williams,Ashburn, Va.

Editor's Note: The op-edsby Elaine Donnelly appeared inthe Current News Early Bird,January 2 and 3, 2008.

page 26