Posted on 04/28/2003 2:46:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
In its National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Feb. 2003) the White House outlined a policy that calls for "direct and continuous actions against terrorist groups, the cumulative effect of which will initially disrupt, over time degrade, and ultimately destroy the terrorist organizations." The plan also recognizes that "the more frequently and relentlessly we strike the terrorists across all fronts, using all the tools of statecraft, the more effective we will be."
If this is to be the measure of an effective counter-terror policy, then the Bush Administration must begin to apply its tenets more aggressively against the increasing number of terrorist organizations—either indigenous groups with global reach or international entities such as Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, or al-Qaeda – that have begun to operate in the Western Hemisphere with the acquiescence of various anti-U.S. regimes.
The current governments of Brazil (da Silva), Cuba (Castro), and Venezuela (Chavez) are each home to the sort of anti-American fervor that forms the foundation for most terrorist safehavens. Even more worrisome, they stand poised to remake South America in their image through a well-organized strategy that brings to power -- via legitimate means (i.e. elections) -- other leftist leaders whose political agendas and support for terrorist organizations will undermine U.S. interests and the overall security of the Western Hemisphere. There will be serious long-term implications if the U.S. does not develop a more efficacious strategic policy to deal with the growing influence of these communist devotees.
On 7 August 2002 Former National Security Council member and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr. Constantine Menges wrote in the Washington Times that a "Castro-Chavez-da Silva" axis could directly threaten the security of the United States. Among other points, he argued that this axis would link "43 years of Fidel Castro’s political warfare against the [U.S.] with the oil wealth of Venezuela and the nuclear weapons/ballistic missile and economic potential of Brazil."
Dr. Menges has identified the Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva as a key player in the axis and he has warned that Lula’s stewardship of the Forum of Sao Paolo – the progeny of Castro’s "Tricontinental Congress" which helped transnational terrorist organizations synchronize their efforts during the late 1960’s to undermine U.S. national security– will help pro-Castro candidates mount strong political campaigns throughout South America. Furthermore, he notes in a 10 December 2002 Washington Times article that the Forum of Sao Paulo includes "all the communist and radical political parties and armed communist terrorist organizations of Latin America together with terrorist groups from Europe (IRA, ETA) and the Middle East (PFLP-GC), as well as participants from Iraq, Libya, Cuba and other state sponsors of terrorism."
Similarly, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee Henry Hyde, in a letter to President Bush dated 24 October 2002, described Lula da Silva as a "pro-Castro radical" and cautioned that a new "axis of evil in the Americas" could be afoot. Congressman Hyde also detailed Brazil’s experiment with a nuclear weapons program (1965-1994) and its success in creating a "30 kiloton nuclear bomb, which could be quickly tested if the program were revived." In all likelihood this will occur if Lula’s stated intention to withdraw Brazil from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not contravened sharply by the United States.
President da Silva’s involvement with the Forum of Sao Paolo may also explain his refusal to classify the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) – a communist insurgency whose goal it is to destroy the democratically elected government of President Alvaro Uribe – a terrorist organization. Instead, on 4 March 2003 the Latin American Weekly Report noted that Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim felt that labeling the FARC a terrorist organization was more about "semantics" than terrorism. Not so for Colombia’s embattled President, who could not disagree more with the Brazilian government’s position. He told United Press International on 7 March 2003 that it is more than appropriate to designate as "terrorists" those groups that detonate car bombs. "It is not a value judgment," he argued, "it is terrorism."
As for Fidel Castro, it is important to mention his trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran in May 2001 where, according to Agence France Presse, he declared that "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees." Could this portend the formation of a terrorist-WMD nexus in the Western Hemisphere?
It is a well established fact that Iran funds, trains, and provides safehaven for notorious terrorist organizations Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad – an entity that Attorney General John Ashcroft has described separately as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world." It is also recognized that Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. The Washington Post reported on 10 March 2003 that by 2005 Iran could "be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs each year." Therefore, any affiliation between Cuba and Iran should be treated as a direct threat to the security of the United States. It may also forewarn of the likelihood that pro-Castro leaders – some of whom already show a tolerance for terrorist organizations and a penchant for nuclear weaponry – will join with other state sponsors of terrorism around the world to threaten the security of the United States.
Finally, the rule of Venezuela’s current President Hugo Chavez is even more problematic now that he has, for all intents and purposes, an ally in ‘Lula’ da Silva. In the same aforesaid October 2002 letter to President Bush, Congressman Henry Hyde also warned that Chavez’s rule threatens "the well-being and security of people in neighboring democratic countries as well as to the United States." He charged that Hugo Chavez "forged public alliances with states sponsors of terrorism including Cuba, Iraq, and Iran…" and "supported terrorist organizations" including the FARC in Colombia.
There is a larger point to make regarding the subject of state-sponsorship of terrorism. Many Western Hemispheric states employ condemnatory language to distance themselves from specific acts of terror while the groups that are responsible for such ignoble behavior escape serious rebuke. It has become an internationally accepted practice to exploit vacuous rhetoric in such a manner that a state can appear "with" the United States while acting "against" its struggle to root out terrorists. The United States must insist that opposition to terrorism begin with a denouncement of those who carry out such acts. Without taking this basic first step any subsequent action to combat international terrorism will be disingenuous.
For instance, the Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States met on 21 September 2001 to reaffirm "the absolute rejection by the people and governments of the Americas of terrorists acts and activities, which endanger democracy and the security of the states of the Hemisphere."
Almost one month later, on 15 October 2001, the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) promulgated a declaration that expressed its "most vigorous condemnation of the terrorist acts that occurred on the United States territory" on 11 September 2001.
The Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism (adopted on 3 June 2002) reaffirms two interesting points. It says that the parties (including Brazil and Venezuela) recognize "the need to adopt effective steps in the inter-American system to prevent, punish, and eliminate terrorism through the broadest cooperation." Furthermore, its expresses the "commitment of the states to prevent, combat, punish and eliminate terrorism."
The aforementioned examples constitute a counter-terror paradigm that is weak and illusory. No state can be permitted to focus the majority of its attention and resources on the symptoms rather than the sources of the terrorist problem. Moreover, there is a dearth of anti-terror phraseology to address the problem of regimes that support terrorist groups in other countries. The Convention only exhorts each state to deny sanction to terrorist groups "within their territories" (read: "within their [respective] territories").
The United States is now at a crossroads.
First, the United States must buck what is becoming a trend in the Western Hemisphere; namely, that democratic means are being manipulated by leftist leaders to preclude the United States from affecting or supporting "regime change," lest it appear to subvert the democratic process. To this end, the removal of Fidel Castro from power could provide a benchmark against which all pro-Castro leaders can judge their future behavior.
Moreover, a congressionally approved regime change in Cuba could at this moment accomplish three other important tasks: One, Fidel Castro’s absence would have a detumescent effect on those leftists who exhibit a penchant for Castro-ism. Two, a positive regime change would eliminate Fidel Castro’s ideational inspiration, which serves as the greatest source of intellectual, ideological, and political anti-Americanism in the region. Three, the United States would destroy one of the most powerful logistical infrastructures for supporting terrorist movements. Cuba’s military and intelligence advisors would no longer be able to assist anti-U.S. regimes or terrorist organizations.
Second, The United States must demand that Brazil abandon any material attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Any evidence to the contrary should result in devastating consequences. On the terror front, the United States can test the veracity of Brazil’s numerous pledges to fight terrorism by requesting an unequivocal denunciation of the FARC and an exhibition of the appropriate legal measures to support this rhetorical decision.
Third, without Fidel Castro’s intellectual, ideological, and political influence, Hugo Chavez would assume the status of an unimpressive despot akin to Saddam Hussein’s Yasser Arafat. At that point he might be more easily contained until a future date when the people of Venezuela can be encouraged to elect someone more competent to lead that great country.
Unless the United States government adopts a coherent Western Hemispheric strategy to counter the influence of the Castro- da Silva-Chavez tripartite, one can expect to witness the growth of this "axis" and a concomitant rise in terrorist related activity in the region. As an example of things to come the Washington Times reported on 7 April 2003 that Al Qaeda terrorists had plans to enter the United States illegally through Mexico to carry our attacks against various targets. It is wholly conceivable that these terrorists could one day commence operations from secure locations in the Western Hemisphere and given enough time they may even attain a nuclear weapons capability courtesy of an anti-U.S. regime.
To borrow a phrase from the Bush Doctrine: "…the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather."
Your lack of belief in the principles which make America the greatest nation in the world explains your Franco-Clintonian desire to see American power checked. When you see moral equivalence between the US and dictatorial mass-mudering Socialist regimes, it makes you unable to denounce, much less confront, even the most obviously evil tyrrany.
Please point to me in the Constitution, any of the Federalist papers, or any documents written by the Founding Fathers that states we have the right to determine how other nations are governed. Good grief!!! The British Empire tried that and our ancestors fought them for 6 years and now you're arguing for the right for us to do that?!?
If this is to be the measure of an effective counter-terror policy, then the Bush Administration must begin to apply its tenets more aggressively against the increasing number of terrorist organizations—either indigenous groups with global reach or international entities such as Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, or al-Qaeda – that have begun to operate in the Western Hemisphere with the acquiescence of various anti-U.S. regimes.
Terrorism isn't increasing. Two nations have been neutralized and according to the Bush Doctrine; the terrorist threat must be lower now.
The current governments of Brazil (da Silva), Cuba (Castro), and Venezuela (Chavez) are each home to the sort of anti-American fervor that forms the foundation for most terrorist safehavens. Even more worrisome, they stand poised to remake South America in their image through a well-organized strategy that brings to power -- via legitimate means (i.e. elections) -- other leftist leaders whose political agendas and support for terrorist organizations will undermine U.S. interests and the overall security of the Western Hemisphere. There will be serious long-term implications if the U.S. does not develop a more efficacious strategic policy to deal with the growing influence of these communist devotees.
Please, one war on ___ at a time. Now they want a war on communism! (something we've spent 50 years or more trying to avoid!)
On 7 August 2002 Former National Security Council member and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr. Constantine Menges wrote in the Washington Times that a "Castro-Chavez-da Silva" axis could directly threaten the security of the United States. Among other points, he argued that this axis would link "43 years of Fidel Castro’s political warfare against the [U.S.] with the oil wealth of Venezuela and the nuclear weapons/ballistic missile and economic potential of Brazil."
A man in his seventys and a beret wearing matching parrot donning lefty is not a threat to the United States. Unless of course you want them as a threat!
Dr. Menges has identified the Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva as a key player in the axis and he has warned that Lula’s stewardship of the Forum of Sao Paolo – the progeny of Castro’s "Tricontinental Congress" which helped transnational terrorist organizations synchronize their efforts during the late 1960’s to undermine U.S. national security– will help pro-Castro candidates mount strong political campaigns throughout South America. Furthermore, he notes in a 10 December 2002 Washington Times article that the Forum of Sao Paulo includes "all the communist and radical political parties and armed communist terrorist organizations of Latin America together with terrorist groups from Europe (IRA, ETA) and the Middle East (PFLP-GC), as well as participants from Iraq, Libya, Cuba and other state sponsors of terrorism."
Transnational terrorism by Castro 40 years ago? Can someone offer a hilite?
Similarly, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee Henry Hyde, in a letter to President Bush dated 24 October 2002, described Lula da Silva as a "pro-Castro radical" and cautioned that a new "axis of evil TM in the Americas" could be afoot. Congressman Hyde also detailed Brazil’s experiment with a nuclear weapons program (1965-1994) and its success in creating a "30 kiloton nuclear bomb, which could be quickly tested if the program were revived." In all likelihood this will occur if Lula’s stated intention to withdraw Brazil from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not contravened sharply by the United States.
President da Silva’s involvement with the Forum of Sao Paolo may also explain his refusal to classify the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) – a communist insurgency whose goal it is to destroy the democratically elected government of President Alvaro Uribe – a terrorist organization. Instead, on 4 March 2003 the Latin American Weekly Report noted that Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim felt that labeling the FARC a terrorist organization was more about "semantics" than terrorism. Not so for Colombia’s embattled President, who could not disagree more with the Brazilian government’s position. He told United Press International on 7 March 2003 that it is more than appropriate to designate as "terrorists" those groups that detonate car bombs. "It is not a value judgment," he argued, "it is terrorism."
That looks like Brazil's problem to me.
As for Fidel Castro, it is important to mention his trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran in May 2001 where, according to Agence France Presse, he declared that "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees." Could this portend the formation of a terrorist-WMD nexus in the Western Hemisphere?
Do pork rinds turn into pigs if you sprinkle water on them?
It is a well established fact that Iran funds, trains, and provides safehaven for notorious terrorist organizations Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad – an entity that Attorney General John Ashcroft has described separately as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world." It is also recognized that Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. The Washington Post reported on 10 March 2003 that by 2005 Iran could "be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs each year." Therefore, any affiliation between Cuba and Iran should be treated as a direct threat to the security of the United States. It may also forewarn of the likelihood that pro-Castro leaders – some of whom already show a tolerance for terrorist organizations and a penchant for nuclear weaponry – will join with other state sponsors of terrorism around the world to threaten the security of the United States.
[Undistributed Middle]
Finally, the rule of Venezuela’s current President Hugo Chavez is even more problematic now that he has, for all intents and purposes, an ally in ‘Lula’ da Silva. In the same aforesaid October 2002 letter to President Bush, Congressman Henry Hyde also warned that Chavez’s rule threatens "the well-being and security of people in neighboring democratic countries as well as to the United States." He charged that Hugo Chavez "forged public alliances with states sponsors of terrorism including Cuba, Iraq, and Iran…" and "supported terrorist organizations" including the FARC in Colombia.
There is a larger point to make regarding the subject of state-sponsorship of terrorism. Many Western Hemispheric states employ condemnatory language to distance themselves from specific acts of terror while the groups that are responsible for such ignoble behavior escape serious rebuke. It has become an internationally accepted practice to exploit vacuous rhetoric in such a manner that a state can appear "with" the United States while acting "against" its struggle to root out terrorists. The United States must insist that opposition to terrorism begin with a denouncement of those who carry out such acts. Without taking this basic first step any subsequent action to combat international terrorism will be disingenuous.
We did this "first step" long ago.
For instance, the Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States met on 21 September 2001 to reaffirm "the absolute rejection by the people and governments of the Americas of terrorists acts and activities, which endanger democracy and the security of the states of the Hemisphere."
Almost one month later, on 15 October 2001, the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) promulgated a declaration that expressed its "most vigorous condemnation of the terrorist acts that occurred on the United States territory" on 11 September 2001.
The Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism (adopted on 3 June 2002) reaffirms two interesting points. It says that the parties (including Brazil and Venezuela) recognize "the need to adopt effective steps in the inter-American system to prevent, punish, and eliminate terrorism through the broadest cooperation." Furthermore, its expresses the "commitment of the states to prevent, combat, punish and eliminate terrorism."
Anyone else paranoid when good things are said?
The aforementioned examples constitute a counter-terror paradigm that is weak and illusory. No state can be permitted to focus the majority of its attention and resources on the symptoms rather than the sources of the terrorist problem. Moreover, there is a dearth of anti-terror phraseology to address the problem of regimes that support terrorist groups in other countries. The Convention only exhorts each state to deny sanction to terrorist groups "within their territories" (read: "within their [respective] territories").
Oh whatever.
The United States is now at a crossroads.
What else is new.
First, the United States must buck what is becoming a trend in the Western Hemisphere; namely, that democratic means are being manipulated by leftist leaders to preclude the United States from affecting or supporting "regime change," lest it appear to subvert the democratic process. To this end, the removal of Fidel Castro from power could provide a benchmark against which all pro-Castro leaders can judge their future behavior.
But he said the democracy was legitimate. Make up yer mind!
Moreover, a congressionally approved regime change in Cuba could at this moment accomplish three other important tasks: One, Fidel Castro’s absence would have a detumescent effect on those leftists who exhibit a penchant for Castro-ism. Two, a positive regime change would eliminate Fidel Castro’s ideational inspiration, which serves as the greatest source of intellectual, ideological, and political anti-Americanism in the region. Three, the United States would destroy one of the most powerful logistical infrastructures for supporting terrorist movements. Cuba’s military and intelligence advisors would no longer be able to assist anti-U.S. regimes or terrorist organizations.
Whose congress?
Second, The United States must demand that Brazil abandon any material attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Any evidence to the contrary should result in devastating consequences. On the terror front, the United States can test the veracity of Brazil’s numerous pledges to fight terrorism by requesting an unequivocal denunciation of the FARC and an exhibition of the appropriate legal measures to support this rhetorical decision.
[argumentum ad baculum, (Appeal to Force) ]
Third, without Fidel Castro’s intellectual, ideological, and political influence, Hugo Chavez would assume the status of an unimpressive despot akin to Saddam Hussein’s Yasser Arafat. At that point he might be more easily contained until a future date when the people of Venezuela can be encouraged to elect someone more competent to lead that great country.
Let them decide what their self-interest is (if they can).
Unless the United States government adopts a coherent Western Hemispheric strategy to counter the influence of the Castro- da Silva-Chavez tripartite, one can expect to witness the growth of this "axis" and a concomitant rise in terrorist related activity in the region. As an example of things to come the Washington Times reported on 7 April 2003 that Al Qaeda terrorists had plans to enter the United States illegally through Mexico to carry our attacks against various targets. It is wholly conceivable that these terrorists could one day commence operations from secure locations in the Western Hemisphere and given enough time they may even attain a nuclear weapons capability courtesy of an anti-U.S. regime.
That is a border security problem.
To borrow a phrase from the Bush Doctrine: "…the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather."
[argumentum ad verecundiam, (Appeal to Authority)]
So, I guess we should just call it a day, huh? We solved that little terrorism problem good!
Now they want a war on communism! (something we've spent 50 years or more trying to avoid!)
Democrats tried to avoid it while Republicans fought it. Did you happen to miss Korea and VietNam? What do you think those wars were about?
Let them decide what their self-interest is
They have descided it's in their self interest to sponsor terrorism and be our enemies. Now we must decide what is in our best interests.
Now they want a war on communism! (something we've spent 50 years or more trying to avoid!)
Democrats tried to avoid it while Republicans fought it. Did you happen to miss Korea and VietNam? What do you think those wars were about?
That was before my time. Care to be the first person I have ever talked with to give a positive view about the result of VietNam? (I was thinking of nukes and the cold war in the root repy). NK is annother matter though..
Let them decide what their self-interest is
They have descided it's in their self interest to sponsor terrorism and be our enemies. Now we must decide what is in our best interests.
If you'd ask me I'd say: monitor the boarders, stop the invaders, and throw out all forigners carrying an expired VISA.
Why wait around for something to happen? Some of us would rather "stop the invaders" in their own countries before they attempt to deliver WMD to our friends and loved ones.
2) 9/11 proves that waiting for the bad guys to show up at your door step doesn't work by itself.
3) How many of the 19 were here legally? Waiting for visas to expire is not doing something.
4) The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We're just getting started. Our enemies better get used to it.
5) War is disruptive? If you are referring to those who threaten our existance, lets hope so.
My advise to you is "take the blue pill..."
1. Searching for suspects on a foreign turf is harder than watching out for people illegally crossing the boarder (who are suspect by default). If the teleporter was a reality, I think I'd opine with you.
9/11 proves that waiting for the bad guys to show up at your door step doesn't work by itself.
They had already been here for months. We were all caught off guard that day and that is the only thing that 9/11 proved. Many of the terrorists had a history of 'evil doing' and should not have been let into the country in the first place. The replacement for the INS, the BCIS, seems to be making serious progress. Intelligence is the key to stopping terrorism; not brute force. It is my opinion that relational databases, satellite imagery, border listening posts, data mining and collection, interception and apprehension, are better tools than uprooting an entire foreign government on vague suspicions.
2. 9/11 and acts of similar intention were performed with common consumer objects. Is a passenger jet or fertilizer a WMD? Obviously it depends on who, why, what, where, AND when.
BCIS and HLS are addressing this, no?
3. Throwing out all foreigners on expired visas is doing something.
How many of the 19 were here legally? Waiting for visas to expire is not doing something.
#3 is only a piece of the solution. The government realizes this.
"All 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks arrived in the U.S. legally, with visas. Three had invalid visas by Sept. 11. " source
They entered the US on valid VISAs but the government was not prepared to intercept 3 of these individuals for many reasons. HLS and BCIS are the answer as long as it is accountable to us.
4. Current maintenance on 2 countries, and a war on 5 or more other countries will spread our military resources thinly. That could make us vulnerable to opportunistic superpowers to be.
Difficult but not impossible. No one said asymmetric warfare was "easy".
War against Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba while pacifying Afghanistan and Iraq will spread our resources thinly and it will make us vulnerable to more credible powers like China, the EU, and Russia. It isn't easy and it isn't wise to engage open war on 4 or more continents and subcontinents especially when there are alternatives.
5. War is damn serious business. We are the best at doing it with the fewest casualties but it doesn't change how disruptive it is. I wish to conserve the good image of the USA.
War is disruptive? If you are referring to those who threaten our existence, lets hope so.
Fighting on 3 - 7 fronts will be a burden to our economy. Friendly trade routes will be disrupted. Lives are put into peril (i.e.. our warriors, friendly, neutral, and the enemy). that is 3-1, not something to scoff at.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We're just getting started. Our enemies better get used to it.
I don't disagree at all with that.
My advise to you is "take the blue pill.."
I am the blue pill. ; )
Then for you the story ends. Thanks for playing Mr. Anderson...
BRAZIL SOURCE OF SADDAM'S URANIUM? BLOCKING A NEW AXIS OF EVIL LA NUEVA CUBA | 10/25/2022 | Constantine C. Menges - Between 1965 and 1994, the military actively worked to develop nuclear weapons, it successfully designed two atomic bombs and was reportedly on the verge of testing one nuclear device when a newly elected democratic government and a Brazilian congressional investigation caused the program to be shut down.
That investigation revealed, however, that the military had sold eight tons of uranium to Iraq in 1981. It is also reported that after Brazil's successful ballistic missile program was ended, the general and 24 of the scientists working on it went to work for Iraq. There are reports that with financing from Iraq, a nuclear weapons capability has been covertly maintained contrary to directives from the civilian democratic leaders.
Mr. da Silva has said Brazil should have nuclear weapons and move closer to China, which has been actively courting the Brazilian military. China has sold Brazil enriched uranium and has invested in the Brazilian aerospace industry, resulting in a joint imagery/reconnaissance satellite.
And wide open borders with mexico and now welcome mats...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.