Tuesday, July 29, 2008

 

Fw: URGENT: need your help - Impeachment Petition Deadline Midnight Wednesday



--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Dennis Kucinich <reply@kucinichforcongress.com> wrote:
From: Dennis Kucinich reply@kucinichforcongress.com

Dennis Kucinich - www.Kucinich.us

URGENT: need your help -
Impeachment Petition Deadline Midnight Wednesday

Dear Friends,

Because of your vigilance and support for democracy, last Friday was a day of singular importance in Washington. The House Judiciary Committee met to discuss the Bush Administration's abuse of executive power and for the first time the case for Impeachment was discussed in front of a Congressional committee, in depth, at length and with authority.

Twenty members of the Judiciary Committee attended the six hour hearing, during which twelve witnesses, including myself and four members of Congress testified. In this hearing I called for the Impeachment of the President for misrepresenting a case for war.

This week I will present members of Congress with Impeachment petitions submitted by those of you who have signed the on-line impeachment form.

I need your help. In the next few days we must redouble our efforts to get more signatures on the online petition at kucinich.us. I'm asking each of you to please contact at least ten of your friends to go to www.Kucinich.us now and sign the Impeachment petition that will be delivered by me. Wednesday night is the deadline.

Please send out an email to all your friends and family, post this link, http://kucinich.us to your blogs and make this effort count as this is the only petition that I will deliver.

Sign the petitionThank you so very much.

signiture - Dennis J Kucinich

Dennis


Paid for by the Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee

PO Box 110475 | Cleveland | OH | 44111 | 216-252-9000


Forward email

Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to jnash67@yahoo.com by reply@kucinichforcongress.com.

Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee | PO Box 110475 | Cleveland | OH | 44111


Thursday, July 17, 2008

 

NYT: Iraq City Has Brittle Calm and War Scars

Tmssa080714

"The litany of ruin is hard to fathom: 73 schools and many government buildings have been destroyed, and Baquba's health center was bombed. About 65 villages have been completely emptied, Mr. Bachilan said."


---

Moises Saman for The New York Times

Iraqi police officers stood guard at a checkpoint in June in war-ravaged Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province. Until recently the city was a stronghold for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.




July 7, 2008

Iraq City Has Brittle Calm and War Scars

BAQUBA, Iraq — Less than an hour east and north of Baghdad sprawls Diyala Province, once the garden of Iraq, known for its date and orange orchards, its rice and its barley farms. More recently it has been known as one of Iraq's worst killing fields.

The religious and ethnic diversity that made it a microcosm of the country also meant that every lethal division played out within its borders. Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds and Arabs live in close quarters here. By 2006, whole villages were burning. There were months last year when kidnappings were daily occurrences and headless bodies routinely showed up in the fields and floated down the rivers. Intermarriage, once a way of life in the province, was forbidden by many families.

The province became the headquarters of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the extremist Sunni insurgent group most associated with suicide bombings and beheadings. The danger was great enough that Western reporters could visit Diyala only while embedded with American troops.

But in late June, a New York Times reporter and photographer traveled to the provincial capital, driving in old Iraqi cars with an interpreter to see how much had changed.

Military operations here over the past 12 months have curbed the worst of the province's violence, but the situation defines the word "fragile" — a description often pressed into service by American generals and diplomats to describe all of Iraq.

Not many people come to Baquba from Baghdad these days unless they have to. Before the war, many Baghdad families had small farms in Diyala; the sales from the annual fruit crop helped them to make ends meet, and they used it as an escape from the unrelenting heat and dirt of summer in the city. Now, to the north, the road is mostly empty, and miles of drought-parched farmland stretch on each side.

A few cargo trucks could be seen carrying supplies. And a handful of cars, packed with the occupants' earthly possessions, appeared to be returning home, tables and chairs strapped to the roofs.

"At least 25,000 families left," said the provincial council chairman, Ibrahim Bachilan, a Kurd. "Some are beginning to come back. But whole villages are empty."

Families are generally counted as six people, so that means at least 150,000 people left Diyala. But foreign diplomats in the province say the number is probably two to three times that.

The litany of ruin is hard to fathom: 73 schools and many government buildings have been destroyed, and Baquba's health center was bombed. About 65 villages have been completely emptied, Mr. Bachilan said.

He spoke in the government center, a heavily fortified building in the middle of the city. Three cordons of police officers search visitors to his office. Inside, a small crowd demanded his attention. An extended family of two widows with their children were asking him for aid; a group of contractors came looking for approval for plans to rebuild a school.

Last year at this time, a major military operation led by the Americans had just got under way to free the city from the grip of insurgents. Before that, people in Baquba had been all but stranded, sometimes unable to get food for days. Shops were closed; residents were unable to leave their homes even to buy food for fear of being caught in a cross-fire. There were fake checkpoints all over the city run by insurgents.

Now the first checkpoint, a few miles south of the city, is run by the Iraqi Army. The soldiers stop every car, inspect the trunk, and question the driver about the destination.

Beyond the checkpoint lies Al Mufraq, a neighborhood where vicious battles between Sunni extremists and American soldiers have taken place over the past two years. On both sides of the road, the houses were so pitted by machine-gun fire that they looked as if someone had taken a giant ice cream scoop and removed gobs of the walls. The windows were shattered, the upper floors vacant. In some cases, bombs or mortar shells had blasted out large chunks, exposing the rooms within.

Yet shops were open again on the ground floors, and children played in the refuse. Shepherds let their flocks graze in the garbage, which smelled as if it had been rotting for months.

Traffic was heavy — a good sign in this city where for months few people had wanted to drive for fear of roadside bombs. The mood was almost heady, as if people were still amazed and excited that they could walk the streets. A little boy smiled broadly as he offered his wares, boxes of tissues, to cars stuck in traffic.

But Baquba's relative calm barely reaches the city's borders. Nearby, outside the town of Jalawla, eight people were killed Sunday when a roadside bomb exploded near a Kurdish official's car, killing him, his family of five and two bodyguards.

Barely 20 miles northeast of Baquba, American troops are still fighting battle-hardened gunmen loyal to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia who are hiding in the palm groves.

Other areas are just as troubled. "In northern Diyala near the Hamrin mountains there are gunmen and militia and Al Qaeda," said Mr. Bachilan, the provincial council chairman. "They have planted the road with improvised explosive devices. The road is closed."

"We have asked the government to support military operations and more police for the province," he said.

"There are many smugglers, and they move weapons through the border and their weapons are more effective than our weapons," he said. "We just have Kalashnikovs. They have rockets, mines, rocket-propelled grenades. But the government has not answered our request."

Across the road, behind concentric rings of concrete barriers, stands the provincial police headquarters, where the police chief, Ghanem al-Khoreishi, has his office. An imposing figure in his uniform, Mr. Khoreishi, who is well over six feet tall, conveyed resolve, but also frustration.

A native of the province, he bounced between boasting about the improvements and worrying about the areas where the militants remain strong. He has little patience for politicians in Baghdad whom he sees as oblivious to the sacrifices being made by people on the ground.

"We lost 1,585 policemen and had 1,650 wounded," he said. "Maybe you wonder how I know these numbers: I know because we pay funeral compensation to the families," he said. "You will not find another police force that has lost so many," he said with bitter pride.

For Mr. Khoreishi the fight is personal. His home was bombed. For four months he could not leave the police headquarters to visit his family. Then the militants went after his relatives.

"They killed my brother last year and my brother-in-law. He was a teacher and he taught in the middle school. He hadn't done anything except he was related to me," he said. "Most of the politicians don't deal with reality. They do not appreciate the price we pay."

The Ameen district on the north side of the city had some of the worst fighting last year and still feels tense, though it has been controlled by the Iraqi government for more than five months. About 100 policemen still fan out there around the clock. They want to be sure Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia does not come back, one police officer said.

Even now, more than six months after the last major military operation, the streets are mostly empty. Many shops are shuttered.

At the heart of the neighborhood, a former school now bombed to rubble was most recently the local headquarters for the insurgents. The square in front of the building was where gunmen carried out executions, following their own version of Shariah law.

An elderly man carrying a straw bag with blocks of ice for refrigeration walked along the desolate street with his two young grandsons. Asked how things were, he shook his head. "I am too tired to talk," he said softly.

Further on, three young men lounged outside a storefront machine shop where two of them repaired motors for electrical appliances. "The situation is very good now," said one, Ammar Khalid. "Before, no one could leave their house; all the shops were closed. Now business is good for us because there are not many shops open, but we open at 6 a.m. and stay open until evening. But there's no electricity, no water."

Is it normal yet? The three young men did not respond. When will it be normal? "I don't know how long it will take," said Muath Abbas, 21, a university student who is studying English, although he is not sure where he will use the language. "It will take time."

This year? Next year? Abu Mohamed, a 21-year-old taxi driver, shook his head. "It is in the hands of God," he said.

Ten minutes after the conversation, a bomb exploded less than 100 feet away. It destroyed the building and checkpoint of a Sunni citizen group paid by the Americans to watch the neighborhood. In an illustration of the convoluted world of Iraq, the police said that the citizen group was not the target. Rather, the group itself set the bomb to destroy its building rather than give it back to returning Shiites who had renewed their claim to it, the police said.

As the afternoon wore on, a dust storm descended on the city, the fine sand coating every brick in the piles of rubble. From the bridge crossing the Diyala River, which cars use as they leave town, dust as thick as fog obscured the city skyline of mosques and low-slung buildings.



Moises Saman for The New York Times

Iraqi police officers in Baquba. Military operations here over the past 12 months have curbed the worst of the violence in Diyala Province, but the destruction from the war is extensive.


Sunday, July 13, 2008

 

NYT: Suicide Car Blast Kills 41 in Afghan Capital

Db080622
 



Pajhwok News Agency, via Agence France-Presse

Afghan security officials aided the wounded on Monday at the gates of the Indian Embassy in a heavily guarded area of Kabul.



Pajhwok News Agency, via Reuters

A wounded Afghan police officer standing among the dead and wounded near the Indian Embassy after an attacker rammed a car bomb into the embassy gates.


Pajwak News Agency, via Reuters

Locals ran from the scene of a suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Monday.



July 8, 2008

Suicide Car Blast Kills 41 in Afghan Capital

KABUL, Afghanistan — A huge blast from a suicide car bomb at the gates of the Indian Embassy in Kabul killed 41 people and wounded more than 130 on Monday in the latest sign of a sharp deterioration in Afghanistan, where combat deaths have surpassed Iraq's in the past two months.

It was the deadliest suicide car bombing in Kabul since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan ousted the Taliban in 2001. It comes as Afghan and Western officials have noted with alarm both the weakness of the government of President Hamid Karzai and the growing strength of Pakistani militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Among the victims of the attack, the first in seven years on an embassy in Kabul, were at least four Indian citizens: the Indian defense attaché, a political counselor and two other Indian officials. Six Afghan police officers were also killed. Many of the rest appeared to be civilians.

The fact that the Indian Embassy was attacked raised suspicions among Afghan officials that Pakistani operatives allied with the Taliban had used the bombing to pursue Pakistan's long power struggle with India.

India said it would investigate what the Indian Foreign Ministry called "this cowardly terrorist attack."

Afghan and Western officials have said a recent spate of sophisticated, deadly attacks shows the growing influence of Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists over Pakistani militants in the tribal areas, and possibly alliances between them. Part of the insurgent strategy has been to carry out suicide bomb attacks in the cities.

Suicide bombers attacked the five-star Serena Hotel in Kabul in January and mounted an elaborate assassination attempt on Mr. Karzai during a military parade in April, an attack that Afghan intelligence linked directly to Pakistan's premier intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.

Pakistani intelligence has long supported militant groups fighting in Kashmir and Afghanistan as a means to influence regions on its borders and, according to some Western diplomats and military officials, it maintains those links today, including with some elements of the Taliban. While Pakistani militants with links to the Taliban have bolstered their strength in the border areas, the Taliban in Afghanistan have clashed with international troops in the worst summer fighting since the Taliban fell seven years ago. The Taliban have resurfaced strongly in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

In a statement on Monday, Mr. Karzai said the "enemies of peace in Afghanistan" wanted to hurt Kabul's international relationships, "particularly with India."

"Such attacks will not hamper Afghanistan's relations with other nations," he said.

The Indian Embassy is on a leafy thoroughfare close to the Afghan Interior Ministry, in what is supposed to be one of the best-guarded neighborhoods of the city, protected by police roadblocks. But the bomber managed to get through, and rammed a car laden with explosives into the embassy gates.

Witnesses said the bomber struck as two diplomatic vehicles were approaching the gates. Nearby, people were standing in line for visas and shopping in a market. The explosion left body parts and bloodstained clothing strewn in the rubble. Ambulance sirens wailed as residents peered at the wreckage of a dozen vehicles.

Hajji Khial Muhammad, 45, one of those in line for an Indian visa, said he saw more than a dozen people who appeared to be dead. "I was shocked and could not hear anything after the attack," he said. "But I saw at least 10 men and three women in the queue who were probably killed."

Muhammad Ajmal, 26, a shopkeeper in the market, said the explosion had sent goods from his shelves spilling out. "I could barely stand up," he said.

A spokesman for the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahed, denied responsibility. "The suicide bomb attack was not carried out by Taliban," he said by telephone. "We strongly reject that accusation. We don't know who carried it out."

The Taliban frequently disavow knowledge of attacks that cause heavy civilian casualties.

Pakistani intelligence, which regards Afghanistan as its backyard, fiercely resents India's growing influence here, Afghan officials said. The Afghan Interior Ministry said it believed that the attack was carried out in collaboration with "an active intelligence service in the region."

The ministry did not elaborate on the identity of that service. But relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have become so strained after a series of attacks that Mr. Karzai has threatened to send troops across the border to attack militants operating from bases in Pakistan.

India, meanwhile, is a close ally of Afghanistan. It is spending $750 million on building roads and power lines here in what has become India's biggest bilateral aid program ever. It has opened consulates in several parts of the country and promoted initiatives to offer scholarships for Afghan students, while Afghan television has shown Indian soap operas.

But there have been some challenges to India's influence. Several Indian workers have been killed in recent months, and Indian television shows have been restricted because of religious objections. Senior Indian Foreign Ministry officials have said for months that they were worried about the safety of Indian personnel in Afghanistan.

Abdul Waheed Wafa reported from Kabul, and Alan Cowell from Paris. Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting from Kabul, Somini Sengupta from New Delhi, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Abdul Waheed Wafa reported from Kabul, and Alan Cowell from Paris. Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting from Kabul, Somini Sengupta from New Delhi, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.


Saturday, July 12, 2008

 

NYT: Ex-Prosecutor’s Book Accuses Bush of Murder

Crmlu080710


Ex-Prosecutor's Book Accuses Bush of Murder

Jamie Rector for The New York Times

Vincent Bugliosi, a former Los Angeles prosecutor with a perfect record in murder convictions, and a respected crime author, builds a case for murder against President Bush for the deaths of Americans in Iraq.


Published: July 7, 2008

Correction Appended

As a Los Angeles county prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi batted a thousand in murder cases: 21 trials, 21 convictions, including the Charles Manson case in 1971.


Fernando Ariza/The New York Times

As an author, Mr. Bugliosi has written three No. 1 best sellers and won three Edgar Allan Poe awards, the top honor for crime writers. More than 30 years ago he co-wrote the best seller "Helter Skelter," about the Manson case.

So Mr. Bugliosi could be forgiven for perhaps thinking that a new book would generate considerable interest, among reviewers and on the broadcast talk-show circuit.

But if he thought that, he would have been mistaken: his latest, a polemic with the provocative title "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," has risen to best-seller status with nary a peep from the usual outlets that help sell books: cable television and book reviews in major daily newspapers.

Internet advertising has been abundant, but ABC Radio refused to accept an advertisement for the book during the Don Imus show, said Roger Cooper, the publisher of Vanguard Press, which put out the book.

ABC Radio did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Bugliosi, in a recent telephone interview from his home in Los Angeles, said he had expected some resistance from the mainstream media because of the subject matter — the book lays a legal case for holding President Bush "criminally responsible" for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq — but not a virtual blackout.

His publisher and publicist said they had expected that Mr. Bugliosi's credentials would ensure coverage — he is, after all, fairly mainstream. His last book, a 1,612-page volume on the Kennedy assassination, "Reclaiming History," which was published last year, sought to debunk the conspiracy theorists. It is being made into a 10-hour miniseries by HBO and the actor Tom Hanks.

Mr. Bugliosi said bookers for cable television, where he has made regular appearances to promote books, have ignored his latest offering. MSNBC and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" were two outlets Mr. Bugliosi had thought would show interest, but neither did.

"They are not responding at all," he said. "I think it all goes back to fear. If the liberal media would put me on national television, I think they'd fear that they would be savaged by the right wing. The left wing fears the right, but the right does not fear the left."

A spokeswoman for Comedy Central said the staff of "The Daily Show" was on vacation and unavailable for comment. A representative for MSNBC said: "We get many pitches to interview authors and very few end up on our programs."

The editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, said he had not read the manuscript, but he offered a reason why the media might be silent: "I think there's a kind of Bush-bashing fatigue out there."

"If it's selling well," Mr. Meacham said, "it's another sign that the traditional channels of commerce have been blown up. If a dedicated part of the Internet community wants to move something, it doesn't need a benediction from the mainstream media and might benefit from not having one."

The book was published in late May by Vanguard Press, a division of the Perseus Books Group — which also owns PublicAffairs, the publisher of the recent memoir by a former White House spokesman, Scott McClellan — and has sold about 130,000 copies. On Sunday it was No. 14 on the New York Times best-seller list. (The Times published a lengthy review of Mr. Bugliosi's Kennedy book last year by the writer Bryan Burrough of Vanity Fair; his latest book is under consideration for review, said Robert R. Harris, the deputy editor of The New York Times Book Review.)

For the Bush book, the equation for success seems to be this: Mr. Bugliosi's reputation plus talk radio plus the viral nature of the Internet.

Sara Nelson, the editor in chief of Publisher's Weekly, said, "130,000 copies is an enormous number of copies of anything."

"You should never underestimate the power of a brand name author to circumvent the normal publicity and marketing channels," Ms. Nelson said. "Somebody was very smart to see that something subversive like this is best marketed on the anonymous and youthful medium of the Internet."

Ms. Nelson said that if the book becomes successful, "the same people who didn't want to give him publicity in advance would give him publicity after the fact."

Mr. Cooper of Vanguard Press said, "We publish books on all sides of the political fence and all kinds of political thought." The company's sibling, PublicAffairs, has also published one of President Bush's favorite writers: Natan Sharansky, the onetime Soviet dissident whose book "The Case for Democracy" is said to have influenced Mr. Bush's foreign policy agenda.

On Mr. Bugliosi's book, Mr. Cooper said, "I expected there would be people who would choose not to talk about it. But I thought some would."

Mr. Bugliosi has had more than 100 radio interviews about the book, and Vanguard was behind an aggressive Internet campaign that included ads on liberal blogs. "It's been frustrating on one hand but exhilarating on the other," Mr. Cooper said. "Using the Internet has been an integral fact in the success of this book. I feel terrific about the sales of this book."

While Mr. Bugliosi's Kennedy book got the star treatment from Hollywood in Mr. Hanks, he had to look outside the United States to find money for a film on his Bush polemic. Jim Shaban, a theater owner in Windsor, Ontario, financed a documentary on the book that is almost complete. The movie, directed by David Burke, does not yet have a distributor. But it will not carry the same name as the book. "Mad as Hell" is one name under consideration, according to Peter Miller, of the PMA Literary and Film Agency, who has represented Mr. Bugliosi for about 25 years.

"We may not be able to work with a mainstream company," Mr. Miller said.

An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed the publication of books by Scott McClellan and Natan Sharansky.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 9, 2008
An article on Monday about "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," by Vincent Bugliosi, and published by Vanguard Press, misidentified the publisher of a memoir by Scott McClellan , a former White House spokesman, and another book by Natan Sharansky , a onetime Soviet dissident. They were published by PublicAffairs, not by Vanguard Press. (PublicAffairs and Vanguard Press are both imprints of the Perseus Books Group.)


Friday, July 11, 2008

 

NYT: Occupation Plan for Iraq Faulted in Army History

Db080709

----

Pool photo by Karen Ballard

Gen. Tommy R. Franks walked past the ruins of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces near Baghdad in April 2003. A new Army report assesses his planning for bringing Iraq under control



June 29, 2008

Occupation Plan for Iraq Faulted in Army History

WASHINGTON — Soon after American forces toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, Gen. Tommy R. Franks surprised senior Army officers by revamping the Baghdad-based military command.

The decision reflected the assumption by General Franks, the top American commander for the Iraq invasion, that the major fighting was over. But according to a new Army history, the move put the military effort in the hands of a short-staffed headquarters led by a newly promoted three-star general, and was made over the objections of the Army's vice chief of staff.

"The move was sudden and caught most of the senior commanders in Iraq unaware," states the history, which adds that the staff for the new headquarters was not initially "configured for the types of responsibilities it received."

The story of the American occupation of Iraq has been the subject of numerous books, studies and memoirs. But now the Army has waded into the highly charged debate with its own nearly 700-page account: "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign."

The unclassified study, the second volume in a continuing history of the Iraq conflict, is as noteworthy for who prepared it as for what it says. In essence, the study is an attempt by the Army to tell the story of one of the most contentious periods in its history to military experts — and to itself.

It adds to a growing body of literature about the problems the United States encountered in Iraq, not all of which has been embraced by Army leaders.

Lt. Col. Paul Yingling of the Army ignited a debate when he wrote a magazine article that criticized American generals for failing to prepare a coherent plan to stabilize postwar Iraq.

In 2005, the RAND Corporation submitted a report to the Army, called "Rebuilding Iraq," that identified problems with virtually every government agency that played a role in planning the postwar phase. After a long delay, the report is scheduled to be made public on Monday.

But the "On Point" report carries the imprimatur of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth. The study is based on 200 interviews conducted by military historians and includes long quotations from active or recently retired officers.

Publication was delayed six months so that Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the current Army chief of staff and former top commander in Iraq, could be interviewed and senior Army leaders could review a draft.

The study's authors were instructed not to shy away from controversy while withholding a final verdict on whether senior officials had made mistakes that decisively altered the course of the war, said Col. Timothy R. Reese, the director of the Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who, along with Donald Wright, a civilian historian at the institute, oversaw the volume's preparation.

Even so, the study documents a number of problems that hampered the Army's ability to stabilize the country during Phase IV, as the postwar stage was called.

"The Army, as the service primarily responsible for ground operations, should have insisted on better Phase IV planning and preparations through its voice on the Joint Chiefs of Staff," the study noted. "The military means employed were sufficient to destroy the Saddam regime; they were not sufficient to replace it with the type of nation-state the United States wished to see in its place."

For his part, General Franks said through an aide that he had covered Iraq decisions in his book and had not seen the forthcoming report.

The report focuses on the 18 months after President Bush's May 2003 announcement that major combat operations in Iraq were over. It was a period when the Army took on unanticipated occupation duties and was forced to develop new intelligence-gathering techniques, armor its Humvees, revise its tactics and, after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, review its detention practices.

A big problem, the study says, was the lack of detailed plans before the war for the postwar phase, a deficiency that reflected the general optimism in the White House and in the Pentagon, led by then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, about Iraq's future, and an assumption that civilian agencies would assume much of the burden.

"I can remember asking the question during our war gaming and the development of our plan, 'O.K., we are in Baghdad, what next?' No real good answers came forth," Col. Thomas G. Torrance, the commander of the Third Infantry Division's artillery, told Army historians.

The allied land war command, which was led by Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan and which reported to General Franks, did additional work on the postwar phase, but its plan was not formally distributed to the troops until April 2003, when the ground invasion was under way.

Inadequate training was also a factor. Lt. Col. Troy Perry, the operations officer of the First Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, told Army historians that his unit trained extensively, but not for the sort of problems that it would encounter in setting up "stability operations" for securing Iraq once Mr. Hussein's government fell.

A fundamental assumption that hobbled the military's planning was that Iraq's ministries and institutions would continue to function after Mr. Hussein's government was toppled.

"We had the wrong assumptions and therefore we had the wrong plan to put into play," said Gen. William S. Wallace, who led the V Corps during the invasion and currently leads the Army's Training and Doctrine Command.

Faced with a brewing insurgency and occupation duties that they had not anticipated, Army units were forced to adapt. But organizational decisions made in May and June 2003 complicated that task.

L. Paul Bremer III, who replaced Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general, as the chief civilian administrator in Iraq, issued decrees to disband the Iraqi Army and ban thousands of former Baath Party members from working for the government, orders that the study asserts caught American field commanders "off guard" and, in their view, "created a pool of disaffected and unemployed Sunni Arabs" that the insurgency could draw on.

Some of General Franks's moves also appeared divorced from the growing problems in Iraq. Before the fall of Baghdad, Col. Kevin Benson, a planner at the land war command, developed a plan that called for using about 300,000 soldiers to secure postwar Iraq, about twice as many as were deployed.

But that was not what General Franks and the Bush administration had in mind. In an April 16 visit to Baghdad, General Franks instructed his officers to be prepared to reduce forces rapidly during an "an abbreviated period of stability operations," the study notes.

"In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq," the report says.

The next month, General Franks directed General McKiernan, then the senior officer in Baghdad, to leave Iraq, along with the staff of his land war command, which had helped plan the invasion and had overseen the push to Baghdad.

A new headquarters would be established to command the military forces in Iraq and was to be led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. He had led the First Armored Division into Iraq before being promoted and picked to succeed General Wallace as the head of the Army's V Corps, which was to serve as the nucleus of the newly established command.

When Gen. Jack Keane, the vice chief of staff of the Army, learned of the move, he was upset. General Keane had helped General McKiernan assemble his headquarters, which had long been focused on Iraq and had more high-ranking officers than V Corps, which had been deployed from Europe. General Keane assumed that General McKiernan's headquarters would oversee what was fast becoming a troubled occupation.

"I think we did not put the best experienced headquarters that we had in charge of that operation," General Keane said in an interview with Army historians. "It took us months, six or seven or eight months, to get some semblance of a headquarters together so Sanchez could at least begin to function effectively."

General Keane told the historians that he raised his concerns at the time with Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid, who had been picked to succeed General Franks as the head of Central Command.

"I said, 'Jesus Christ, John, this is a recipe for disaster,' " General Keane told Army historians. "I was upset about it to say the least, but the decision had been made and it was a done deal."

Asked about the decision to establish a new headquarters, General Franks told Army historians that he had told the Pentagon what was needed and that it was the Defense Department's responsibility to ensure that the headquarters was rapidly installed.

He said he told the Pentagon leadership that a new headquarters was needed and that it was up to them to "figure it out."

General Sanchez, who has retired from the Army and recently published a book about his time in Iraq, told historians that his new command was hampered by staff shortages and by the failure to coordinate the transfer of responsibilities to his new headquarters.

"There was not a single session that was held at the command level to hand off or transition anything," he said.

Summing up the episode, General Wallace told historians that the shift to a new headquarters involved a complicated transfer of responsibilities at a critical time.

"You can't take a tactical headquarters and change it into an operational headquarters at the snap of your fingers," he said. "It just doesn't happen."





Saturday, July 05, 2008

 

NYT: Amid U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan

Bs080618


"But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world."

------

Pool photo by Farooq Naeem

Pakistani tribesmen danced in 2005 during a meeting in South Waziristan, in Pakistan's tribal regions.





Shifting Bases


June 30, 2008

Amid U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan

WASHINGTON — Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon's Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden's terrorism network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was intended to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave a smoother path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington's risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Mr. bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was "mounting frustration" in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a "war on terrorism" and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden's network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

A recent American airstrike killing Pakistani troops has only inflamed tensions along the mountain border and added to tensions between Washington and Pakistan's new government.

The story of how Al Qaeda, whose name is Arabic for "the base," has gained a new haven is in part a story of American accommodation to President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, whose advisers played down the terrorist threat. It is also a story of how the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.

Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.

Publicly, senior American and Pakistani officials have said that the creation of a Qaeda haven in the tribal areas was in many ways inevitable — that the lawless badlands where ethnic Pashtun tribes have resisted government control for centuries were a natural place for a dispirited terrorism network to find refuge. The American and Pakistani officials also blame a disastrous cease-fire brokered between the Pakistani government and militants in 2006.

But more than four dozen interviews in Washington and Pakistan tell another story. American intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the C.I.A. in 2006, was often undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush administration and within the C.I.A., including about whether American commandos should launch ground raids inside the tribal areas.

Inside the C.I.A., the fights included clashes between the agency's outposts in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Islamabad. There were also battles between field officers and the Counterterrorist Center at C.I.A. headquarters, whose preference for carrying out raids remotely, via Predator missile strikes, was derided by officers in the Islamabad station as the work of "boys with toys."

An early arrangement that allowed American commandos to join Pakistani units on raids inside the tribal areas was halted in 2003 after protests in Pakistan. Another combat mission that came within hours of being launched in 2005 was scuttled because some C.I.A. officials in Pakistan questioned the accuracy of the intelligence, and because aides to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld believed that the mission force had become too large.

Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.

Some former officials say Mr. Bush should have done more to confront Mr. Musharraf, by aggressively demanding that he acknowledge the scale of the militant threat.

Western military officials say Mr. Musharraf was instead often distracted by his own political problems, and effectively allowed militants to regroup by brokering peace agreements with them.

Even critics of the White House agree that there was no foolproof solution to gaining control of the tribal areas. But by most accounts the administration failed to develop a comprehensive plan to address the militant problem there, and never resolved the disagreements between warring agencies that undermined efforts to fashion any coherent strategy.

"We're just kind of drifting," said Richard L. Armitage, who as deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005 was the administration's point person for Pakistan.

Fleeing U.S. Air Power

In March 2002, several hundred bedraggled foreign fighters — Uzbeks, Pakistanis and a handful of Arabs — fled the towering mountains of eastern Afghanistan and crossed into Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area.

Savaged by American air power in the battles of Tora Bora and the Shah-i-Kot valley, some were trying to make their way to the Arab states in the Persian Gulf. Some were simply looking for a haven.

They soon arrived at Shakai, a remote region in South Waziristan of tree-covered mountains and valleys. Venturing into nearby farming villages, they asked local tribesmen if they could rent some of the area's walled family compounds, paying two to three times the impoverished area's normal rates as the militants began to lay new roots.

"They slowly, steadily from the mountainside tried to establish communication," recalled Mahmood Shah, the chief civilian administrator of the tribal areas from 2001 to 2005.

In many ways, the foreigners were returning to their home base. In the 1980s, Mr. bin Laden and hundreds of Arab and foreign fighters backed by the United States and Pakistan used the tribal areas as a staging area for cross-border attacks on Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

The militants' flight did not go unnoticed by American intelligence agencies, which began to report beginning in the spring of 2002 that large numbers of foreigners appeared to be hiding in South Waziristan and neighboring North Waziristan.

But Gen. Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai, the commander of Pakistani forces in northwestern Pakistan, was skeptical. In an interview this year, General Aurakzai recalled that he regarded the warnings as "guesswork," and said that his soldiers "found nothing," even when they pushed into dozens of square miles of territory that neither Pakistani nor British forces had ever entered.

The general, a tall, commanding figure who was born in the tribal areas, was Mr. Musharraf's main adviser on the border areas, according to former Pakistani officials. For years, he would argue that American officials exaggerated the threat in the tribal areas and that the Pakistani Army should avoid causing a tribal rebellion at all costs.

Former American intelligence officials said General Aurakzai's sweeps were slow-moving and easily avoided by militants. Robert L. Grenier, the C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad from 1999 to 2002, said that General Aurakzai was dismissive of the reports because he and other Pakistani officials feared the kind of tribal uprising that could have been touched off by more intrusive military operations. "Aurakzai and others didn't want to believe it because it would have been an inconvenient fact," Mr. Grenier recalled.

Signs of Militants Regrouping

Until recent elections pushed Mr. Musharraf off center stage in Pakistan, senior Bush administration officials consistently praised his cooperation in the Qaeda hunt.

Beginning shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Musharraf had allowed American forces to use Pakistani bases to support the American invasion of Afghanistan, while Pakistani intelligence services worked closely with the C.I.A. in tracking down Qaeda operatives. But from their vantage point in Afghanistan, the picture looked different to American Special Operations forces who saw signs that the militants whom the Americans had driven out of Afghanistan were effectively regrouping on the Pakistani side of the border.

When American military officials proposed in 2002 that Special Operations forces be allowed to establish bases in the tribal areas, Pakistan flatly refused. Instead, a small number of "black" Special Operations forces — Army Delta Force and Navy Seal units — were allowed to accompany Pakistani forces on raids in the tribal areas in 2002 and early 2003.

That arrangement only angered both sides. American forces used to operating on their own felt that the Pakistanis were limiting their movements. And while Pakistani officials publicly denied the presence of Americans, local tribesmen spotted the Americans and protested.

Under pressure from Pakistan, the Bush administration decided in 2003 to end the American military presence on the ground. In a recent interview, Mr. Armitage said he had supported the pullback in recognition of the political risks that Mr. Musharraf had already taken. "We were pushing them almost to the breaking point," Mr. Armitage said.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 added another complicating factor, by cementing a view among Pakistanis that American forces in the tribal areas would be a prelude to an eventual American occupation.

To have insisted that American forces be allowed to cross from Afghanistan into Pakistan, Mr. Armitage added, "might have been a bridge too far."

Dealing With Musharraf

Mr. Bush's re-election in 2004 brought with it another problem once the president overhauled his national security team. By early 2005, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Mr. Armitage had resigned, joining George J. Tenet, who had stepped down earlier as director of central intelligence. Their departures left the administration with no senior officials with close personal relationships with Mr. Musharraf.

In order to keep pressure on the Pakistanis about the tribal areas, officials decided to have Mr. Bush raise the issue in personal phone calls with Mr. Musharraf.

The conversations backfired. Two former United States government officials say they were surprised and frustrated when instead of demanding action from Mr. Musharraf, Mr. Bush repeatedly thanked him for his contributions to the war on terrorism. "He never pounded his fist on the table and said, 'Pervez you have to do this,' " said a former senior intelligence official who saw transcripts of the phone conversations. But another senior administration official defended the president, saying Mr. Bush had not gone easy on the Pakistani leader.

"I would say the president pushes quite hard," said the official, who would speak about the confidential conversations only on condition of anonymity. At the same time, the official said Mr. Bush was keenly aware of the "unique burden" that rested on any head of state, and had the ability to determine "what the traffic will bear" when applying pressure to foreign leaders.

Tensions Within the C.I.A.

As attacks into Afghanistan by militants based in the tribal areas continued, tensions escalated between the C.I.A. stations in Kabul and Islamabad, whose lines of responsibility for battling terrorism were blurred by the porous border that divides Afghanistan and Pakistan, and whose disagreements reflected animosities between the countries.

Along with the Afghan government, the C.I.A. officers in Afghanistan expressed alarm at what they saw as a growing threat from the tribal areas. But the C.I.A. officers in Pakistan played down the problem, to the extent that some colleagues in Kabul said their colleagues in Islamabad were "drinking the Kool-Aid," as one former officer put it, by accepting Pakistani assurances that no one could control the tribal areas.

On several occasions, senior C.I.A. officials at agency headquarters had to intervene to dampen tensions between the dueling C.I.A. outposts. Other intragovernmental battles raged at higher altitudes, most notably over the plan in early 2005 for a Special Operations mission intended to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, Mr. bin Laden's top deputy, in what would have been the most aggressive use of American ground troops inside Pakistan. The New York Times disclosed the aborted operation in a 2007 article, but interviews since then have produced new details about the episode.

As described by current and former government officials, Mr. Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting at a compound in Bajaur, a tribal area, and the plan to send commandos to capture him had the support of Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, and the Special Operations commander, Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

But even as members of the Navy Seals and Army Rangers in parachute gear were boarding C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan, there were frenzied exchanges between officials at the Pentagon, Central Command and the C.I.A. about whether the mission was too risky. Some complained that the American commando force was too large, numbering more than 100, while others argued that the intelligence was from a single source and unreliable.

Mr. Goss urged the military to carry out the mission, and some C.I.A. officials in Washington even tried to give orders to execute the raid without informing Ryan C. Crocker, then the American ambassador in Islamabad. But other C.I.A. officials were opposed to the raid, including a former officer who said in an interview that he had "told the military guys that this thing was going to be the biggest folly since the Bay of Pigs."

In the end, the mission was aborted after Mr. Rumsfeld refused to give his approval for it. The decision remains controversial, with some former officials seeing the episode as a squandered opportunity to capture a figure who might have led the United States to Mr. bin Laden, while others dismiss its significance, saying that there had been previous false alarms and that there remained no solid evidence that Mr. Zawahri was present.

Bin Laden Hunt at Dead End

By late 2005, many inside the C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia had reached the conclusion that their hunt for Mr. bin Laden had made little progress since Tora Bora.

Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who at the time ran the C.I.A.'s clandestine operations branch, decided in late 2005 to make a series of swift changes to the agency's counterterrorism operations.

He replaced Mr. Grenier, the former Islamabad station chief who in late 2004 took over as head of the agency's Counterterrorist Center. The two men had barely spoken for months, and some inside the agency believed this personality clash was beginning to affect C.I.A. operations.

Mr. Grenier had worked to expand the agency's counterterrorism focus, reinforcing operations in places like the Horn of Africa, Southeast Asia and North Africa. He also reorganized and renamed Alec Station, the secret C.I.A. unit formed in the 1990s to hunt Al Qaeda.

Mr. Grenier believed that the Counterterrorist Center and Alec Station had both grown very rapidly since 2001 and needed to be restructured to eliminate overlap.

But Mr. Rodriguez believed that the Qaeda hunt had lost its focus on Mr. bin Laden and the militant threat in Pakistan.

So he appointed a new head of the Counterterrorist Center, who has not been publicly identified, and sent dozens more C.I.A. operatives to Pakistan. The new push was called Operation Cannonball, and Mr. Rodriguez demanded urgency, but the response had a makeshift air.

There was nowhere to house an expanding headquarters staff, so giant Quonset huts were erected outside the cafeteria on the C.I.A.'s leafy Virginia campus to house a new team assigned to the bin Laden mission. In Pakistan, the new operation was staffed not only with C.I.A. operatives drawn from around the world, but also with recent graduates of "the Farm," the agency's training center at Camp Peary in Virginia.

"We had to put people out in the field who had less than ideal levels of experience," one former senior C.I.A. official said. "But there wasn't much to choose from."

One reason for this, according to two former intelligence officials directly involved in the Qaeda hunt, was that by 2006 the Iraq war had drained away most of the C.I.A. officers with field experience in the Islamic world. "You had a very finite number" of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. "Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq."

Surge in Suicide Bombings

The increase had little impact in Pakistan, where militants only continued to gain strength. In the spring of 2006, Taliban leaders based in Pakistan launched an offensive in southern Afghanistan, increasing suicide bombings by sixfold and American and NATO casualty rates by 45 percent. At the same time, they assassinated tribal elders in Pakistan who were cooperating with the government.

Once again, Pakistani Army units launched a military campaign in the tribal areas. Once again, they suffered heavy casualties.

And once again, Mr. Musharraf turned to General Aurakzai to deal with the problem. Having retired from the Pakistani Army, General Aurakzai had become the governor of North-West Frontier Province, and he immediately began negotiating with the militants. On Sept. 5, 2006, General Aurakzai signed a truce with militants in North Waziristan, one in which the militants agreed to surrender to local tribes and carry out no further attacks in Afghanistan.

To help sell Washington on the deal, Mr. Musharraf brought General Aurakzai to the Oval Office several weeks later.

In a presentation to Mr. Bush, General Aurakzai advocated a strategy that would rely even more heavily on cease-fires, and said striking deals with the Taliban inside Afghanistan could allow American forces to withdraw from Afghanistan within seven years.

But the cease-fire in Waziristan had disastrous consequences. In the months after the agreement was signed, cross-border incursions from the tribal areas into Afghanistan rose by 300 percent. Some American officials began to refer to General Aurakzai as a "snake oil salesman."

A Rising Terror Threat

By the fall of 2006, the top American commander in Afghanistan had had enough.

Intelligence reports were painting an increasingly dark picture of the terrorism threat in the tribal areas. But with senior Bush administration officials consumed for much of that year with the spiraling violence in Iraq, the Qaeda threat in Pakistan was not at the top of the White House agenda.

Mr. Bush had declared in a White House news conference that fall that Al Qaeda was "on the run."

To get Washington's attention, the commander, Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, ordered military officers, Special Operations forces and C.I.A. operatives to assemble a dossier showing Pakistan's role in allowing militants to establish a haven.

Behind the general's order was a broader feeling of outrage within the military — at a terrorist war that had been outsourced to an unreliable ally, and at the grim fact that America's most deadly enemy had become stronger.

For months, military officers inside a walled-off compound at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where a branch of the military's classified Joint Special Operations Command is based, had grown increasingly frustrated at what they saw as missed opportunities in the tribal areas.

American commanders had been pressing for much of 2006 to get approval from Mr. Rumsfeld for an operation to capture Sheik Saiid al-Masri, a top Qaeda operator and paymaster whom American intelligence had been tracking in the Pakistani mountains.

Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff were reluctant to approve the mission, worried about possible American military casualties and a popular backlash in Pakistan.

Finally, in November 2006, Mr. Rumsfeld approved a plan for Navy Seal and Army Delta Force commandos to move into Pakistan and capture Mr. Masri. But the operation was put on hold days later, after Mr. Rumsfeld was pushed out of the Pentagon, a casualty of the Democratic sweep of the 2006 election.

When General Eikenberry presented his dossier to several members of Mr. Bush's cabinet, some inside the State Department and the C.I.A. dismissed the briefing as exaggerated and simplistic. But the White House took note of his warnings, and decided to send Vice President Dick Cheney to Islamabad in March 2007, along with Stephen R. Kappes, the deputy C.I.A. director, to register American concern.

That visit was the beginning of a more aggressive effort by the administration to pressure Pakistan's government into stepping up its fight. The decision last year to draw up the Pentagon order authorizing for a Special Operations campaign in the tribal areas was part of that effort.

But the fact that the order remains unsigned reflects the infighting that persists. Administration lawyers and State Department officials are concerned about any new authorities that would allow military missions to be launched without the approval of the American ambassador in Islamabad. With Qaeda operatives now described in intelligence reports as deeply entrenched in the tribal areas and immersed in the civilian population, there is also a view among some military and C.I.A. officials that the opportunity for decisive American action against the militants may have been lost.

Pakistani military officials, meanwhile, express growing frustration with the American pressure, and point out that Pakistan has lost more than 1,000 members of its security forces in the tribal areas since 2001, nearly double the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan.

Some architects of America's efforts in Pakistan defend the Bush administration's record in the tribal areas, and vigorously deny that Washington took its eye off the terrorist threat as it focused on Iraq policy. Some also question whether Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri, Al Qaeda's top two leaders, are really still able to orchestrate large-scale attacks.

"I do wonder if it's in fact the case that Al Qaeda has really reconstituted itself to a pre-9/11 capability, and in fact I would say I seriously doubt that," said Mr. Crocker, the American ambassador to Pakistan between 2004 and 2006 and currently the ambassador to Iraq.

"Their top-level leadership is still out there, but they're not communicating and they're not moving around. I think they're symbolic more than operationally effective," Mr. Crocker said.

But while Mr. Bush vowed early on that Mr. bin Laden would be captured "dead or alive," the moment in late 2001 when Mr. bin Laden and his followers escaped at Tora Bora was almost certainly the last time the Qaeda leader was in American sights, current and former intelligence officials say. Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil.

"The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001," said Seth Jones, a Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation.

"The base of operations has moved only a short distance, roughly the difference from New York to Philadelphia."

Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and David Rohde from Washington and Islamabad, Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.




Tariq Mahmood/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

FATAL STRIKE Near the Afghan border, Pakistanis earlier this month investigated damage from an American airstrike that killed 11 paramilitary soldiers, causing tensions between the governments of Pakistan and the United States.


Friday, July 04, 2008

 

NYT: Communist China Inspired Interrogations at Guantanamo


Tt080622


July 2, 2008

China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of "coercive management techniques" for possible use on prisoners, including "sleep deprivation," "prolonged constraint," and "exposure."

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Some methods were used against a small number of prisoners at Guantánamo before 2005, when Congress banned the use of coercion by the military. The C.I.A. is still authorized by President Bush to use a number of secret "alternative" interrogation methods.

Several Guantánamo documents, including the chart outlining coercive methods, were made public at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing June 17 that examined how such tactics came to be employed.

But committee investigators were not aware of the chart's source in the half-century-old journal article, a connection pointed out to The New York Times by an independent expert on interrogation who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War" and written by Albert D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.

Those orchestrated confessions led to allegations that the American prisoners had been "brainwashed," and provoked the military to revamp its training to give some military personnel a taste of the enemies' harsh methods to inoculate them against quick capitulation if captured.

In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after reviewing the 1957 article that "every American would be shocked" by the origin of the training document.

"What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions," Mr. Levin said. "People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don't need false intelligence."

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col Patrick Ryder, said he could not comment on the Guantánamo training chart. "I can't speculate on previous decisions that may have been made prior to current D.O.D. policy on interrogations," Colonel Ryder said. "I can tell you that current D.O.D. policy is clear — we treat all detainees humanely."

Mr. Biderman's 1957 article described "one form of torture" used by the Chinese as forcing American prisoners to stand "for exceedingly long periods," sometimes in conditions of "extreme cold." Such passive methods, he wrote, were more common than outright physical violence. Prolonged standing and exposure to cold have both been used by American military and C.I.A. interrogators against terrorist suspects.

The chart also listed other techniques used by the Chinese, including "Semi-Starvation," "Exploitation of Wounds," and "Filthy, Infested Surroundings," and with their effects: "Makes Victim Dependent on Interrogator," "Weakens Mental and Physical Ability to Resist," and "Reduces Prisoner to 'Animal Level' Concerns."

The only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: "Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance."

The documents released last month include an e-mail message from two SERE trainers reporting on a trip to Guantánamo from Dec. 29, 2002, to Jan. 4, 2003. Their purpose, the message said, was to present to interrogators "the theory and application of the physical pressures utilized during our training."

The sessions included "an in-depth class on Biderman's Principles," the message said, referring to the chart from Mr. Biderman's 1957 article. Versions of the same chart, often identified as "Biderman's Chart of Coercion," have circulated on anti-cult sites on the Web, where the methods are used to describe how cults control their members.

Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist who also studied the returning prisoners of war and wrote an accompanying article in the same 1957 issue of The Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, said in an interview that he was disturbed to learn that the Chinese methods had been recycled and taught at Guantánamo.

"It saddens me," said Dr. Lifton, who wrote a 1961 book on what the Chinese called "thought reform" and became known in popular American parlance as brainwashing. He called the use of the Chinese techniques by American interrogators at Guantánamo a "180-degree turn."

The harshest known interrogation at Guantánamo was that of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a member of Al Qaeda suspected of being the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Qahtani's interrogation involved sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold and other methods also used by the Chinese.

Terror charges against Mr. Qahtani were dropped unexpectedly in May. Officials said the charges could be reinstated later and declined to say whether the decision was influenced by concern about Mr. Qahtani's treatment.

Mr. Bush has defended the use the interrogation methods, saying they helped provide critical intelligence and prevented new terrorist attacks. But the issue continues to complicate the long-delayed prosecutions now proceeding at Guantánamo.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Qaeda member accused of playing a major role in the bombing of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000, was charged with murder and other crimes on Monday. In previous hearings, Mr. Nashiri, who was subjected to waterboarding, has said he confessed to participating in the bombing falsely only because he was tortured.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 3, 2008
An article on Wednesday about coercive interrogation methods taught at Guantánamo Bay that were copied from a 1957 journal article about Chinese techniques misstated the given name of the author of the article. He was Albert D. Biderman, not Alfred.


Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From the Air Force Prisoners of War (pdf)

Documents Released at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on SERE Tactics(pdf)



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?