The DNC Emails … And Russian Involvement in American Politics

My personal Twitter troll has asked (demanded? challenged?) me to comment on the revelation that the staffers at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) engaged in email discussions regarding the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders that included strategizing against his campaign. While I ordinarily like to follow a “don’t feed the trolls” approach, I thought that this issue was at least worth discussing (and, hey, it’s pretty cool that I have my own Twitter troll, isn’t it?). Before diving into the issues, let me offer one major caveat: I haven’t read the emails. I’ve read a few news stories and brief excerpts, but I’m sure that I don’t know all of the facts and, as always, I’m willing to reconsider my views as additional facts are learned or as mistakes that I make (as if!) are identified.

So, on to the emails…

It is my understanding that, at the heart of the matter, were discussions or even actions by some DNC staffers to either help Hillary Clinton’s campaign and/or hinder Bernie Sanders’ campaign together with some … er … less than generous descriptions of Sanders. Now, there is a part of me that says, “Gee, that’s not fair” and I certainly would like to think that the DNC would always play fair. But then there is the part of me that remembers that this is the Democratic National Committee and that, until he needed the ballot access that the Democratic Party had, Sen. Sanders was not a Democrat. Or, to phrase it differently, why shouldn’t the DNC work to help its own members to the detriment of an outsider? That point is even more compelling given the work that Hillary Clinton has done over the years both for the Democratic Party and for other Democrats. (And let’s not forget that Sanders endorsed the primary challenger for the House seat held by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, so I think she can be forgiven at least a bit of pique directed toward Sanders.)

As to the notion that the primary system was rigged, the only answer is “bullshit”. The primary system was in place long before Sanders announced his candidacy. He knew what the system was; he didn’t have to run and he didn’t have to run as a Democrat. But he did. He could have sought the nomination of the Green Party or run as an independent, but that wouldn’t have given him the ballot access he needed or the ability to get the sort of news coverage that helped propel his campaign. And let’s not forget the allegations from several months ago that the Sanders campaign was, itself, hacking into the DNC database to obtain information improperly. I guess that was OK, right? Look, I’m not saying that the democratic primary system is a good system or that it shouldn’t be modified. But the system was the same for Martin O’Malley, Lawrence Lessig, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and others, and I don’t recall hearing their supporters whining about the system or booing the party’s leaders at its convention.

I also find it interesting that so many of the people who are almost giddy about the disclosure of these emails from the DNC seem to so quickly gloss over the apparent source. The emails were released by WikiLeaks. Now, first, we should think back to what people had to say about WikiLeaks when it was responsible for other document dumps; I recall hearing plenty of people call for criminal prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (and accusations that he was a “traitor” even though he isn’t American). I wrote about the massive WikiLeaks disclosure of US diplomatic cables in December 2010 (Wikileaks? I’m Not Sure). Yet apparently, if the information WikiLeaks discloses harms those who you oppose on political grounds then that disclosure is peachy keen. if would be interesting to see how people would react if WikiLeaks were able to obtain and disclose Donald Trump’s tax returns (especially if they included something damaging). But I digress.

More important is the source from which WikiLeaks itself apparently received the emails in the first place. WikiLeaks doesn’t do the hacking; rather WikiLeaks discloses documents obtained by hackers. And in this case, there is apparently ample evidence that the hackers who took the emails from the DNC are part of the Russian intelligence services, in particular the FSB (the successor to the KGB) and the GRU (military intelligence), both under the control of Vladimir Putin … you know, the same man to whom Donald Trump, just a few days ago, gave a green light to invade our NATO allies (Did Trump Just Give Putin Carte Blanche to Invade Eastern Europe?). As Arsenio Hall once said, “Things that make you go ‘Hmm.’” Don’t forget the extent to which Trump has praised Putin, so much so that the phrase “bromance” has been used to describe Trump’s relationship with Putin (or maybe it’s just a mancrush). So was the release of the emails to WikiLeaks the quo for Trump’s quid suggestion that he might abandon NATO and the Baltic states?

Think back to when Edward Snowden stole data from the NSA before fleeing, eventually to Russia. How many of you called him a traitor? How many of you worried about Russia having access to the information he obtained? Yet now, some people (mostly those opposed to Democrats in general or Hillary Clinton in particular) are practically cheering over Russia hacking into data belonging to a political party (including, donor data, opposition research, and the personal email accounts of Democratic staffers)? Really? I seem to recall that the last time criminal activity was aimed at obtaining private information from one of the political parties, things didn’t end so well. For those of you who aren’t sure what I’m talking about, here is a hint: The data one party tried to steal was located in an office located at the Watergate hotel. Ring any bells?

One thing, however, that really troubles me about the information in the emails is the apparent discussion about using Sanders’ religion (or atheism, perhaps) as a weapon against him. That sort of conduct is reprehensible. Period. The saving grace, I suppose, is that it doesn’t appear that this discussion evolved into actual action; rather, from what I’ve read, it appears to have been a suggestion made as part of a strategy discussion that was not followed up. But to even discuss using a person’s religion against them (or their lack of faith, as the case may be), is simply un-American and wrong.

A critical thing that must be recognized about this entire mess is that the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned. And then the interim chairwoman of the DNC, Donna Brazile apologized. Publicly and sincerely. While people cannot go back and change what happened, they can take responsibility, apologize, and learn from mistakes. So far, that appears to be what the DNC is doing in the wake of these disclosures.

Of course, noting that the chair of the DNC resigned and that the DNC’s new chair apologized does make me wonder when we’ll see similar actions from Republicans in regard to the xenophobia, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, and so forth being spewed by the Republican Party’s candidate and his supporters. I’m not holding my breath.

I do hope that over the next days and weeks we will learn more detail about possible Russian involvement in the hack of the DNC servers. Perhaps more importantly, I hope that we’ll learn more about whether the Trump campaign had any knowledge about that hacking or any involvement in the decision to disclose the emails (I certainly hope that not even Trump would stoop that low…). But even if the Republicans and the Trump campaign were completely in the dark and innocent, we should have a serious national discussion about why Russia might want to harm Democrats or Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. What did Russia hope to gain by hacking the DNC servers and what did Russia hope to gain by releasing the stolen emails to WikiLeaks for public dissemination. And ask yourself if you’re comfortable knowing that another country, and especially Russia, is inserting itself, via its intelligence agencies, into the American political system and presidential election. Does that scare you as much as it scares me?

Is Brexit the Beginning of the End of the UK … or of Other Countries?

So citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Good or bad? Right or wrong? I’m not sure and I’m not sure that I really know enough to make an informed judgment. That being said, my instinct is to view the decision to leave the European Union as a bad decision (and the fact that both Donald Trump and Sarah Palin think that Brexit is good is almost enough reason for me to believe that it isn’t). I must admit that I find interesting the exit polling that showed apparent strong correlations between both age and education and the choice of whether to remain or leave (more education and younger voters tended to vote to stay, while older and less educated voters tended to vote to leave). But what the long term effects will be for the UK economy, for the European economy, for the global economy … I have no clue.

I do, however, have some concerns about what Brexit may mean both with regard to the stability of nation-states and to relations between them.

Let me address the latter of those two points first. One of the principal motivations for the original formation of what eventually evolved into the European Union was the notion of finding ways to avoid future conflicts within Europe and by and among European countries. The European Union has been largely successful in that ambition. But consider how things might look once the United Kingdom is fully divorced from those European nations that remain a part of the European Union. For example, what sort of hard feelings may exist by and between Britons and Europeans? If Europe’s economy stagnates and the United Kingdom’s flourishes (I have my doubts…), won’t many Europeans have a sense of … well, anger, I suppose, toward the United Kingdom? Similarly, if the UK’s economy stagnates and Europe grows, then how will Britons feel when they look across the Channel?

Perhaps more importantly, what sort of cooperation existing today might become strained or even cease? For example, think of the large migrant camps in northern France, populated by refugees and immigrants seeking to make their way to England. France has worked hard to try to keep those migrant camps stable and to help the UK keep mass waves of immigrants and refugees from making their way across the Channel. Part of the reason for that is good relations between the UK and France and part of the reason for that was the pan-European approach to dealing with immigration and refugees. But if the UK is no longer part of the European Community, what, if any, duty to does France have (let alone Italy or Spain or Greece) to help the United Kingdom deal with “unwanted” immigrants and refugees? Likely, none. Given that a motivating factor for many Britons who voted to leave the European Union was the desire to deal with immigration without interference from the European Union, then how ironic will it be if France chooses to cease its efforts to prevent immigrants and refugees from embarking on journeys across the Channel to England? (And it seems just as likely that those countries might actually opt to find ways to help immigrants transit their territory for Britain, in order to try to lessen their own refugee and immigrant burdens.)

I can also see other possibilities for European countries to sort of lash out in petty revenge against the United Kingdom if Brexit is viewed as damaging those countries. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised to see countries adopt tariffs or other fees on British goods or even travel by Britons within Europe (which could come as a real shock to Britons who have purchased vacation properties in Spain). Or, just imagine if FIFA (the world body governing soccer … er … football) were to decide that because the United Kingdom no longer views itself as being a part of Europe, that soccer clubs from the United Kingdom would not be eligible to play in the European Champions League or the UEFA Euro Cup?

Based on the last millennia or so, anything that gives one European country a reason to act in anger against another European country is … um … not good.

I also worry that the Brexit vote may, over time, begin a slide into the fracturing of stability within Europe and elsewhere.

In September 2014, Scotland voted, 55% to 45%, to remain a part of the United Kingdom. There were many factors at play in that vote, but one that appeared to play prominently was the role an independent Scotland would be able (or perhaps unable) to play within the European economy and global markets. It was pointed out that an independent Scotland would not be a part of the European Union and would, thus, not be able to avail itself of free trade and the other benefits of membership in the European Union (at least until going through the difficult and multi-year process of joining the EU). Thus is probably isn’t surprising that last week Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. Each of Scotland’s voting districts voted to remain and the results weren’t terribly close (62-38 to remain, compared to 53-47 in England). But the United Kingdom voted to leave. So where does that leave Scotland?

The leader of Scotland’s Parliament (the “First Minister”, I believe) has already called for a second Scottish referendum on independence. I suspect that such a referendum will be held and I also suspect that in a post-Brexit vote, Scots will, indeed, vote to make their own way.

Is that good or bad? I don’t know.

But if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom, what then of Northern Ireland? Like Scotland, Northern Ireland also voted to remain a part of the European Union (56-44 to stay). So, were Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, might Northern Ireland contemplate doing the same and, perhaps, even seeking to unify with Ireland which is a part of the European Union and with which many Irish have a closer bond that the government in London?

Those actions would, quite obviously, have a significant impact on the United Kingdom, reducing it down to just England and Wales (and who knows how long Wales would want to stick around…). But how might the democratic dissolution of the United Kingdom impact independence movements elsewhere in Europe? Consider Belgium which is essentially divided into two distinct communities (roughly dividing the country in half geographically, south and north), one French-speaking (Walloons) and the other Dutch-speaking (Flemish). The divide between the French and Flemish within Belgium has risen to near-crisis levels in the past. Query whether watching the disintegration of the United Kingdom might, once again, prompt calls for Flemish independence.

Or consider Catalonia, the northeastern part of Spain, with its capital in Barcelona. Catalans speak a different language from the rest of Spain, they don’t permit bullfighting, and, perhaps even more importantly, find themselves in a much different economic condition than the rest of the country. Might the rending of the United Kingdom give further impetus and strength to the already quite vocal and popular Catalan independence movement?

Of course if Catalonia were to become independent, that might reinvigorate the independence desires of the neighboring Basque region of Spain and France. Or, just to the southeast, perhaps the independence movements of Corsica and Sardinia (from France and Italy, respectively) would find succor in the example of Scotland.

In fact, the number of independence movements across Europe is almost too numerous to count and includes both large areas (Bavaria in Germany, South Tyrol in Italy) and tiny (Faroe Islands in Denmark, Venice in Italy); I even came across a reference to a independence movement for the Åland Islands, a tiny chain of islands between Sweden and Finland that presently belongs to Finland, but whose 28,000 inhabitants speak Swedish (but an acquaintance of mine who lives in Åland assures me that it is merely a “romantic protest”).

In any event, I think that the concern (or hope, I suppose, depending on your perspective) of the tearing asunder of European countries and the reformation into something … well … different, is worth contemplating. The goal of the European Union was a form of European unity, but that is splintering and it is quite likely the first breach of the unity of the European Union may also lead to the splintering of the United Kingdom. And as people across Europe — or even the world — watch Scotland and perhaps Northern Island pressing for independence, then it seems quite likely that independence movements will be strengthened and, quite possibly, the political structures of the world will see dramatic changes.

One commonly used phrase to describe the breaking apart of countries into smaller nations is “Balkanization” and that word is used for a reason. However, consider if you will, the history of the Balkans and whether that worked out for the best or not.

I don’t know what the results of Brexit will be for the United Kingdom, Scotland, Europe, or the world. But I have concerns that this will be the first act in a drama that may result in a period of chaos and contention.

But please, don’t get me started on the discussion of Texit (Texas exiting the United States). Just … don’t.

Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians? Let’s Have a Discussion

Let’s step past the current violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Let’s instead talk about what comes next. That is, how can Israel and the Palestinians find a way to live together in peace? If there is to be an eventual peace agreement, what will it look like?

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had numerous discussions about the conflict with people all across the spectrum in their views towards Israel and the Palestinians. I hear the refrain “we want peace” from all across this spectrum; however, rarely do those who claim to be either pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel (or anti-Zionist) offer much when I ask them to tell me what a peaceful resolution will look like. And I’m not talking wishful thinking. We live in a (hopefully) reality-based world and must therefore premise any sort of peace plan within the realm of reality. Outside the box is fine, but the box still must be based in reality. Thus, if your answer is that Jews should “go back” to wherever they came from, then you’re not talking about a reality-based solution. Similarly, if you support a one-state solution in which a majority Muslim population could simply vote to ban Judaism or expel Jews, then you’re not talking about a reality-based solution. I don’t expect Israel to agree to commit national suicide; nor do I expect Israel’s Jewish population to agree to simply give up their aspirations for a homeland. Thus, the question is: How do we craft a lasting and meaningful peace?

If you were appointed to be the mediator in charge of trying to achieve that lasting and meaningful peace between Israel and the Palestinians (and the Arab and Muslim world, writ large), what would you do? Here are a few of the things that you’ll need to consider:

• What will the borders between Israel and Palestine be? If you say “the 1967 borders” please remember a few points:
  • The 1967 “borders” are really just the 1949 armistice lines, rather than an agreed upon international border and Israel has always (perhaps correctly) viewed these “borders” as indefensible, especially at the narrowest point, Israel is only about 9 miles wide.
  • Many Israelis live in the West Bank on the “Palestinian” side of the 1967 border (also referred to as the “Green Line”). Some of these Israelis live in “settlements” (see Are Israeli Settlements Really Such a Problem? A Primer for a further discussion of settlements) while others live in large communities that are essentially suburbs of Jerusalem. Are we going to force Israelis to move from their current homes back across the Green Line? Are we going to adjust the borders to conform to where people live now? Some combination of the two? And what happens to Israelis who don’t want to leave the communities that they’ve created in the West Bank? Will they be forcibly removed or can they remain as full citizens of the new Palestinian state with equal rights to others?
  • What, if anything, then becomes of the Arabs (Muslim or otherwise) who are presently Israeli citizens living on the Israeli side of the Green Line? Do they stay in Israel? Must they move to Palestine? Should the borders be adjusted so that Arab communities are part of the new Palestinian state? Some Arabs may want to be a part of Palestine; others may want to remain a part of Israel. How do we address this? And for those who choose to remain in Israel, would there be any kind of “loyalty” requirement? Would they have to publicly renounce any goal of a one state solution or of a Palestine “from the river to the sea”? Should they be required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces like most other Israeli citizens?
• With regard to whatever borders we settle upon, must they be open borders? That is, must Israel allow Palestinians to cross the border to work or attend college in Israel? Must Palestine allow Israelis to cross the border to work in Palestine? Can Israelis own land in Palestine? Can Palestinians own land in Israel? How will this cross-border movement work? How will each side protect citizens of the other country? How will each be sure that citizens of the other aren’t entering for nefarious purposes?
• With regard to movement and travel, how do we “connect” or allow movement and travel between Gaza and the West Bank? If we create some kind of “free passage” corridor, does Israel have a right to inspect people and goods moving through that corridor or close access during times of unrest?
• How do we make Israelis comfortable that neither Gaza nor the West Bank will become armed encampments or upon which a military is built up for the purpose of destroying Israel? How do we make Israelis comfortable that they won’t face a new wave of rockets fired across the new international border?
• How do we make Palestinians comfortable that Israel wants to live in peace without expansionist aspirations to the West Bank or Gaza?
• What do we do about Jerusalem? Israel claims it as its capital. The Palestinians want it as their capital. The holiest place in Judaism is in Jerusalem (on the Palestinian side of the Green Line) while the third holiest place in Islam is also in Jerusalem. Oh, and those two places are either adjacent to each other or one and the same, depending on your particular definition. Remember that from 1949-1967, Jews weren’t allowed at the Western Wall so will likely be reticent to give up any control of that site.
• Similarly, what do we do about other holy sites on either side of the border? How do we ensure that each religious group has reasonable and safe access to its holy sites but without the ability to use that access to try to harm the other? And how do we ensure that each side treats holy sites of the other with dignity and respect (again, from 1949-1967, numerous synagogues in Jerusalem were destroyed; similarly, at least one Jewish holy site in the West Bank is repeatedly vandalized by Palestinians).
• What do we do about Palestinian “refugees” and their descendants? (I put “refugees” in quotation marks because the issue of who is and isn’t or who should or shouldn’t be considered a refugee is a very complex issue, way beyond the scope of this post.) While considering this, we should also be sure to consider what to do about Jewish “refugees” (I’ll be consistent…) from Arab and Muslim countries (not to mention Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union). Are these simply population transfers? Are reparations appropriate? Both ways or just one way?
• What do we do about water resources in the Jordan River Valley?
• How do we resolve disputes when they arise? If Palestinians launch rockets from Palestine into Israel, what sort of response is “permitted” to Israel? If Israelis commit a “price tag” attack on a Palestinian car in Israel, what sort of response is “permitted” to Palestine?
• Should a peace deal address incitement? Should the Palestinians have to forego television programs that incite children to become suicide bombers or to hate Jews? Should Palestinian textbooks be required to recognize the existence of Israel and forego defining Palestine as including the portion “occupied” by Israel? Should Israeli textbooks stop referring to Judea and Samaria and instead be required to refer to that area as Palestine?
• Should any sort of peace deal include recognition and normalization of relations between Israel and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, or is that a wholly separate issue?
• Does Iran’s nuclear ambition factor into the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians?
• Finally, let me ask one following, sort of catch-all series of questions:
  • What concessions should Israel make to achieve peace?
  • What concessions should the Palestinians make to achieve peace?
  • Are the concessions that you’ve suggested reasonably equivalent in value or does one side have to give more (and why)?

I know that there are actually many, many more issues that would need to be on the table. And I know that some of the issues that I’ve included are actually far more nuanced and difficult than I’ve alluded to. But for the point of trying to get a good faith discussion started, these points seemed like a good starting point.

I suspect that some of these questions will draw criticism from one side or the other. Any regular reader of this blog will know that I am a supporter of Israel. Nevertheless, for the point of the discussion that I’d like to have, I hope that other supporters of Israel will try to think through these issues from the Palestinian viewpoint. I’ve tried to write these discussion points to address both sides, though at times that seems a bit ridiculous (how many Jewish suicide bombers have crossed into the West Bank to blow themselves up in Ramallah?). Nevertheless, I really hope that people of good faith, whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or simply pro-peace can make at least an effort to think through the issues. Instead of just criticizing and name-calling, let’s have a real discussion about the issues.

Finally, though I’m a huge fan of Twitter, the conversation that I’d like to have really is better handled via comments to this post than at 140 characters at a time (where it is often extremely difficult to make a nuanced point and where it’s often difficult to keep track of who is saying what to whom). I know that there are many of you out there who have thoughts about the current situation. Well, let’s take those concerns, agree to disagree where appropriate, and have a civil discussion about the way forward.

Oh, and one other point that I should make: If you want to make a historical or factual argument, that’s fine. But please, try to provide links to documents or other materials that support your position. And try to be sure that the documents and materials to which you link are from at least somewhat reputable sources.

(If you try to post a comment and have difficulty, please email me and let me know; I re-enabled the CAPTCHA system as I was getting massive amounts of spam, but I understand that some people have difficulty posting comments as a result.)

Syria: Some Queries

The question of what, if anything, to do about Syria is now front and center in the public consciousness. I’ve already indicated my support for limited strikes against Syria to degrade the ability to use chemical weapons. That said, I remain open to opposing viewpoints and I’m not adverse to changing my mind when facts merit or arguments are persuasive.

I’ve been listening to and reading much of the debate over the last week or so, and I’m struck with several questions. I’d love to get some feedback on what people think, both about these questions in particular, the proposal to strike Syria more generally, and, even more broadly, the use of military force.

So, for those who favor a limited strike against Syria:

1. Is your support based on the use of chemical weapons alone?
2. Would you support strikes had the Assad regime not used chemical weapons?
3. If the limited strikes are insufficient to substantially degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons, would you support broader military strikes, including either “boots on the ground” or strikes aimed at regime change?
4. What are your basic minimums before which you are willing to support the use of military power?
5. Do you (and have you) consistently applied your answer to question #4 to other conflicts?

For those of you opposed to a limited strike against Syria:

1. Would you support strikes if we had a better sense that the forces opposing the Assad regime were comprised primarily of “good guys” and didn’t have an al-Qaeda component?
2. Absent an imminent and direct threat to the United States, to American citizens, or to American allies, do you think that it is ever appropriate for the US to use military power?
3. (If your answer to question #2 was not an unqualified “no”) Absent an imminent and direct threat to the United States, to American citizens, or to American allies, do you think that it is ever appropriate for the US to use military power without sanction by the UN Security Council or NATO?
4. What are your basic minimums before you are willing to support the use of military power?
5. What actions by a government against its citizens, if any, do you believe are egregious enough to warrant the use of military power?
6. Do you (and have you) consistently applied your answer to questions #2-5 to other conflicts?

We know that there have been (and still are) worse conflicts than that raging in Syria (e.g. Congo, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan) where we (or, for that matter, most of the world) have done little or nothing. And we’ve entered conflicts with, perhaps, less of a toll than that in Syria and where human rights abuses occurred but without the use of chemical weapons (e.g., Kosovo). So what is our real “red line”? How do we (and by “we” I mean the American public, not the American government) make that determination?

I’m not certain that I have the “right” answer (or answers). I certainly have some thoughts. But I’m curious to know what others think.

Syria

Several people (including my wife!) have recently asked my opinion on Syria. My answer is almost as complicated as the actual situation. Well, not really, but it offers a nice entry to the subject. So I’m going to try to articulate my thoughts. Briefly.

But before I do, I want to offer one note and one caveat. The caveat is that I approach the issue of how to respond to the ongoing civil war in Syria (as well as unrest in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world) not only from an American viewpoint, but also from the point of view of someone who is a strong supporter of Israel. Thus, I take into account first what is in the best interests of America, but I also consider whether an action will be good for Israel. Second, I’ve been to the Golan Heights and looked across the border at Syrian guard posts and gun emplacements. No, that’s not really relevant to the issue, but when I think about the subject I can’t help but recall the time that I spent (brief as it was) in the Golan and then with a Druze family in northern Israel.

So, should we bomb Syria? In a word, yes.

But of course it’s not that simple.

I think that we should take efforts to seriously degrade if not eliminate Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against its own people or its neighbors. Chemical weapons are so horrendous, so beyond the norms of modern warfare, that their use cannot be condoned and must, instead, be severely punished. Possession of chemical weapons may not be overly problematic in and of itself, if only for an apparent deterrent effect. However, once a country uses chemical weapons, especially against civilians, then it becomes incumbent upon the international community to do something. Why?

Humanity.

At some point, atrocities become so bad that we, as humans, have a moral obligation to try to stop the atrocities and punish those responsible. Though we’ve spent the 60+ years since World War II saying “never again” with regard to genocide, we’ve allowed genocide to happen over and over and over. The use of chemical weapons against a civilian population isn’t genocide … but it’s not far down on the atrocity scale.

Now I don’t mean to suggest that we have an obligation to protect every civilian everywhere from every despot or act of cruelty. Far from it. And I don’t think that it is necessarily our obligation to invade a country to protect its civilian population from the acts of a tyrant. Nor should we be invading every country that has weapons of mass destruction. I’m not advocating war, though in the case of genocide I might make the case that war becomes just and appropriate.

But where, as in Syria, there is at least the possibility of preventing further atrocities and, at the same time, punishing those who carried out the atrocities, all without substantial risk of loss of life to those carrying out the mission, then I think an attack is justified. However, if we do attack Syria, we should do so with strength and seriousness of purpose, not just launch a few cruise missiles or airstrikes “for show”. If we choose to hit Syria, we should hit Syria hard.

A mere “show of force” sort of strike could, I fear, have the opposite effect of that intended. If Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons is not eliminated or at least severely degraded, then I fear that the Assad regime will choose to use what it left of its chemical stockpiles. Why not? What would they have to lose (especially if Assad can give the order to use chemical weapons from the safety of somewhere else, like say, Iran, where he is reported to be as of today)? I also worry that the use of chemical weapons wouldn’t be limited to Syria’s civilian population or even the rebel armies. No. I fear that Syria might launch chemical weapon attacks against Israel or even Turkey or the Sunni and Christian populations in Lebanon. Or, perhaps, Syria would try to transfer those chemical weapons to Hezbollah for use in Lebanon, against Israel, or for export abroad for use in terrorist attacks. Those are risks that we cannot take.

I don’t think that we should necessarily be aiming to kill Syrian President Assad; but we should make sure that our strikes are strong enough so that he isn’t in a position to lash out like a spoiled child, taking more of his population and the populations of his neighbors (or the world) down with him.

But…

I don’t think that we should be arming the rebels, at least not with any real heavy weaponry. Rifles and bullets? Fine. But we should not be giving them anti-tank rockets, anti-aircraft missiles, or the like. Why? First, as much as we may dislike Assad and his actions, I’m not sure that we’re necessarily that much more comfortable with the rebel groups, especially as it appears that some may be linked with al-Qaeda. We armed the Afghan muhajadeen against the USSR … and then those weapons were turned both on civilians and, eventually, Americans, as the Taliban took power. We need to be very careful that we’re not arming people who will first use them against Assad and then use them against America, Israel, and western democracies. We need to learn from past mistakes; giving people guns with which to fight a common enemy doesn’t necessarily make those people your friends.

Finally, I think that we need to strike Syria because we told them (and the world) that we would if they crossed a certain red line (the red line, in this case, being the use of chemical weapons). We need to “honor” our promise so that we are taken seriously when making ultimatums of this sort. We need our allies to know that when we say we’ll do something, we’ll honor our promise. More importantly, we need those to whom an ultimatum may be directed to know that we’ll do what we said. And in this, I’m looking directly at Iran. If we allow Syria to cross the red line of chemical weapons use without serious repercussions, then Iran will have no reason to think that we’re doing anything but bluffing if we threaten action over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran must understand that, must be made to understand that.

So, yes. I think that we should strike Syria. I think we should hit them hard. We should degrade Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons against its own civilian population or against others. But we should not use those strikes as an chance to tip the scales of the civil war itself.

Oh, and to those who want to compare surgical strikes against Syria to the invasion of Iraq? Please just shut up and go away. The use of surgical strikes to eliminate known and used weapons of mass destruction bears no similarity whatsoever to invading a country on the basis of lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Wikileaks? I’m Not Sure

I still can’t quite decide what I think of the whole Wikileaks document dump. On one hand, something about it simply seems wrong. On the other hand, I do wonder if governments (not just ours) keep too many things secret and whether disclosure enables citizens to better understand and monitor what their country is doing. So think of this post as a sort of thought exercise that I ran through with myself; as I started writing, I had no real destination or final conclusion in mind other than to try to tease out some of the issues.

First, I note that many people have compared the disclosures by Wikileaks to the Pentagon Papers disclosures by Daniel Ellsberg. But I don’t think that analogy is applicable. The disclosure of the Pentagon Papers showed that the government had been systematically lying about what was happening in Vietnam, including (if I remember my history correctly), the actual events in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the dramatic increase in US involvement in Vietnam. Thus, to be comparable, the Wikileaks documents would, for example, need to have been about the lies told by the Bush administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. And while that sort of disclosure might anger us, it might also be critical to our understanding of the war and its aftermath and costs.

I’m not sure that I’m willing to accept the notion offered by some that citizens have a right to know everything that their country is doing, either. Let’s look at that from a slightly different perspective. If you’re a shareholder in Apple, do you have a right to know every new product that the company is researching or even readying for sale? Does your answer change if you’re told that disclosure of what the company is working on will put it at a competitive disadvantage with other companies? Similarly, do you have the right to know what a doctor tells another patient or what a lawyer tells another client?

In other words, I think that most of us would agree that there are some secrets that are OK, and there are lots of things that I think a government probably should keep secret. Certainly, a government should not disclose military battle plans (and probably not contingency plans, either) or ongoing intelligence operations. A government should not disclose information that could directly lead to the death of a citizen (but what about the deaths of non-citizens?). We don’t need to know about cutting-edge research in military technology. And a government should probably be able to keep secret things that will put that country or its citizens at a competitive disadvantage with other countries or harm that country’s ability to work in the international community. When two diplomats talk about the best approach to a particular negotiation or what the various results of possible actions might be, shouldn’t that be kept secret, if not from us, then from those on the other side?

Ask yourself whether and how the ability of a diplomat to represent and advance the interests of our country is hindered if those with whom the diplomat is speaking decide to guard their words out of fear that what they might candidly say could be publicly revealed. Consider that situation with regard to a country with whom we are not friendly or with a country that has a fragile government that we are seeking to help change or stabilize. Sometimes what is said in a negotiation needs to remain secret.  Think, for a moment, about buying a car. If the car salesman was privy to the discussion that you and your spouse had on the way to the dealer in which you decided how much you could afford to pay, then how might that impact the negotiations? Or consider whether you want your lawyer to be able to provide you the right advice rather than the advice that might be best for public consumption just in case the discussion were to be leaked.

One other thing to keep in mind, is who should decide what information should remain secret and which information should be disclosed? It is probably too easy for a government to simply err on the side of secrecy; keeping the secret doesn’t harm anyone, but disclosing it might. The obvious distrust that many have in government may come from governments keeping too many secrets (or it may come from any of a number of other things, like torturing civilians, waging wars, denying rights, etc.). But as much as we may distrust governments to make a proper balancing determination with regard to what should or should not be kept secret, do we really think that the decision should be left to one or a few individuals who may have their own personal agendas (I’m pissed because I didn’t get promoted; my boss didn’t adopt my idea; I don’t like Secretary of State Clinton…) or, worse yet, to a foreigner? Would you feel any differently if Julian Assange was an American instead of an Australian?* I understand that Wikileaks purports to review the documents before deciding what to release, but I must admit that I’m troubled at that decision being made by a foreigner (not to mention the foreigner having access to the documents in the first place).

Yet with all that being said, query the extent to which any of the disclosures have actually harmed American interests. Sure our diplomats may have said unkind things about their counterparts. Do you think for a moment that the fact that diplomats say candid things to their superiors comes as a surprise? More importantly, do you think that the content of those candid descriptions comes as a surprise in many cases? And do you think that the diplomats for other countries aren’t making equally derogatory statements about our own diplomats? Do you think that diplomats for other countries aren’t trying to acquire information about our diplomats? Please. To get worked up over that kind of disclosure seems to be much ado about nothing.

Moreover, given certain aspects of our own history, it seems like we don’t do a good job of watching over our government to be sure that only things that really need to be secret are classified as such and that our government doesn’t lie to us. We were lied to about Vietnam; we were lied to about Watergate; we were lied to about Iran-Contra; and we were lied to about WMDs in Iraq. How different would the last forty-five years have been without those lies? And what might our government still be lying about? We should be able to trust that our government doesn’t keep secrets that aren’t necessary and that our government doesn’t lie to us about matters that should be the subject of political discussion and debate. When we’re lied to, we can’t make good, informed decisions. So it may be that disclosures, like Wikileaks, however distasteful they may be, are essential to keep our government on the proverbial “straight and narrow” path.

So I guess, if I had to sum up my feelings about Wikileaks, I’d say that I’m against the disclosures to the extent that they could actually harm American interests, but that the releases point out the need that we, as citizens in a democracy, have to be ever-vigilant watchdogs on what our government says (or doesn’t say) and does. But at the end of the day, I’d prefer that the determination of what is or is not a secret and what should or should not be disclosed be made by a body of informed Americans, acting in the best interests of America and Americans, and not by random individuals or foreigners.

To the extent that we think that the Wikileaks disclosures do harm our national interest, then I have no problem with our government seeking to prevent future disclosures or to make it more difficult for the existing disclosures to be accessed. If we think that another country intends to do us harm, we have the right to defend ourselves, so why should that be any different in the case of an individual? That said, I’m not sure that trying to kill Assange is the right approach…

What do you think? Write me a comment!

-----

*And for those who keep saying that Julian Assange is a “traitor” or “anti-American”, please remember that he can’t be a traitor, because he isn’t American and that he has no obligation to be pro-American. We don’t have to like him or agree with him, but he’s not a traitor. And as to the suggestion (thanks, Sarah Palin, you blathering idiot!) that we should go after Assange the same way that we’ve gone after the Taliban and al-Quaeda, it shouldn’t even need to be mentioned that the act of intentionally murdering thousands of innocent civilians is vastly different from releasing documents. But then why should we expect people who make that assertion to understand the difference; after all, many of them are the same people who equate President Obama’s quest for universal health care with Hitler.

Analysis of a (Real) Spy Movie

Let me preface this analysis with two preliminary points.

First, anybody who knows me knows that I read lots and lots of espionage novels (and even some intelligence and espionage-related non-fiction). Just take a look at my LibraryThing catalog and you’ll see that a large proportion of my reading is in the area of espionage fiction (and a favorite series by Daniel Silva involves Israeli assassin Gabriel Allon). And that’s been the case since my early teens. Thus, I think that it’s fair to say that I’ve read a lot of espionage novels (not to mention seen quite a few movies, too) and have, over the years, built up a casual knowledgebase (though no actual experience). For that matter, I’ve also tried my hand at writing espionage fiction (though with the exception of a short story written in college, most of my efforts have bogged down, much to my own disappointment).

Second, I’m a student of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In college, I studied extensively in the area (including writing my senior thesis on “Use of Israel as a Policy Surrogate for US Actions”; I got a very good grade from a very pro-Palestinian professor). In addition to the espionage books that I read, I also read a fair number of history or political science books on Israel and the conflict, and a far, far larger set of scholarly (and not-so-scholarly) articles on the subject. I’ve also used this blog to write quite a bit about Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. So, here too, I think that I can legitimately claim to have at least a decent working understanding of the issues, the players, and the objectives.

Anyway, by now you’ve probably seen (or at least heard about) the video posted by police authorities in Dubai that claims to show an 11-member assassination squad stalking and eventually killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a high-ranking member of Hamas, who had traveled to Dubai (on a false passport) allegedly to purchase arms from Iran. As I watched the video I thought back to my understanding of how operations like this are or should probably be carried out. I also thought about what the respective players had to gain from this particular assassination carried out in this particular way.

So get yourself some popcorn and watch the video (be aware that the video is 27 minutes; that’s why I suggested the popcorn). If nothing else, it is entertaining. As you watch, see if anything strikes you as odd or if there are any issues that you think are left curiously unresolved. Come back when you’re done and I’ll walk through an analysis of some of the more interesting parts of the video. [Update 2/24/2010: The video link from Gulf News TV that was embedded below and all across the web has, without apparent explanation, been shortened from 27 minutes to 1:46; it now consists just of a few “highlights”. I’m trying to find a new link to the full video. In the meantime, it may be worth asking why the full video has disappeared, especially given the attention that the original video and the assassination have garnered.]

Are you back? Good. Did you “enjoy” the video? Any quick thoughts on whether you agree with the analysis of Dubai’s police authorities? Any problems jump out at you?

One more thing before I jump into the analysis itself. Do I feel bad for al-Mabhouh? Nope. He was a known and wanted terrorist. If you play in that particular sand box, you should pretty much know that those whose wives and kids you try to kill probably don’t think real highly of you and might kick a little sand your way. Do I think that this kind of assassination is wrong? Again, nope. A clinical and clean operation like this is much better than dropping a bomb on al-Mabhouh’s house and risking harm to innocent civilians. Targeted assassinations have their place.

With that all having been said, let’s look at the video:

0:10: It is worth noting right away that the video uses the word “murder” throughout. Later in the video, we are told that there is “proof” that al-Mabhouh was murdered and did not die naturally (as was initially reported). However, that proof is not clearly identified (at least not in the video; other sources have since had more to say). Moreover, to the extent that al-Mabhouh was, in fact, a terrorist (or member of a terrorist organization), then might it not be more accurate to describe his death as a “killing” (in the military sense of the word) rather than ”murder”? If a solider shoots at another soldier and kills him, is that a murder? So if an intelligence organization (and we’ll presume for the moment that the “killers” are from an intelligence organization) kills a terrorist who is trying to buy arms to kill civilians, then why should that death be “worse” than the soldier killed in combat?

0:28: At least the Dubai police acknowledge that al-Mabhouh was a “senior Hamas military commander” and a founder of the al-Qassam Brigades (the charming chaps who launch rockets from Gaza into southern Israel). The claim is also made that there were failed attempts to assassinate al-Mabhouh in the past and the clear inference, without it being said outright, is that Israel was responsible for these failed attempts. Apparently, this information comes from al-Mabhouh himself in an interview with al-Jazeera (and if a terrorist said it, then it must be true, right…), though one wonders how exactly al-Mabhouh knew that it was Israel that had tried to kill him.

0:42: While the film does show quite a few interesting things, it is permeated with conjecture. For example, we are told that the “murder was carried out by a professional team that is highly skilled in these kinds of operations”. The basis for this allegation is the “fact” that “there were no traces left behind that could help uncover their identities”. Um, really? First, didn’t we just watch 27 minutes of video where we can see the faces of the members of this “highly skilled” team? And didn’t the Dubai authorities manage to track down their respective passports quite quickly? You’d think (and I’ll come back to this theme regularly) that if these assassins were so good at their job, that the Dubai police would never have been able to pick them out from the crowd in the first place. Plus, it is worth noting that just because a group is able to successfully accomplish a complicated plan, doesn’t necessarily mean that the group is either professional or highly skilled. All it means is that the plan worked.

0:50: We’re told the team used “special communications devices”. Like, what? Cellphones? Walkie talkies? How do the Dubai police know that the “devices” were in any way special and not just toys from Radio Shack? The fact that this claim is made repeatedly seems designed to lend credence to the “highly skilled” and “professional” allegation at the heart of the analysis of the Dubai police.

1:06: Remember about 20 seconds ago when we were told that the “professional team” that was “highly skilled” left no traces? Then how is it that Dubai’s police were able to “track the killers and identify them within 24 hours” (emphasis added)? That seems to call into question that whole “professional” and “highly skilled” allegation, not to mention the claim that no traces were left. Note too that this is being referred to as a “crime”.

2:00: Have you ever read any kind of espionage novel written in the last 10 years or so? One thing that you will almost always read about is the efforts that the protagonists (or antagonists, as the case may be) go through not to have their faces visible on cameras. They will wear a hat, or turn their head slightly, or raise a hand to cover a “cough” or raise a newspaper in front of their face; anything to avoid having their face clearly seen on camera (but while still managing to look natural). Watch Michael (or is it James?) right at the 2:00 mark. He almost looks right at the camera; he certainly does nothing to avoid the camera. Ah, but maybe he didn’t know the camera was there, you say. Well, if this team was as “professional” and “highly skilled” as Dubai wants us to think they were, then shouldn’t they have known where the cameras were? If they were so professional “in these kinds of operations” don’t you suppose that they would have done a “dry run” to try to learn about the type of security (including cameras) that would need to be avoided? It seems to me that one of the distinctions between highly skilled and … um … amateurish? … is the advanced knowledge and planning put into the operation to be sure that simple mistakes like being seen by a camera are minimized.

2:03: Gail allows her face to be clearly seen by the video camera at the airport not once but twice.

2:12: Michael and James again allow their faces to be seen by the video camera. They make small efforts not to look right at the camera, but it would have been easy for them to simply turn their backs to the camera so as not to be so easily seen. I don’t suppose that some of the members of this team actually want to be identified, do they?

2:33: It would have been hard for Gail to do a better job of looking at the camera without being obvious about it. So, at 2:38, she does it again, just in case.

3:01: What made the phone calls “suspicious”? The mere fact that they went to Austria? Note that Dubai’s police only speculate as to what those numbers were. Given the other detail presented, it seems somewhat strange that no more information about those telephone numbers was readily available. In addition, if the team were so “professional” and “highly skilled” why would they make numerous calls to different numbers in the same country? If it was to some kind of command center, couldn’t the destination of those calls be traced? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the calls to have been placed to vastly different destinations from which they were routed to their actual destinations? Dubai’s police also tell us that it is “probable that highly encrypted systems were used to communicate” but no explanation regarding this statement of probability is provided. I wonder if this statement was designed simply to make us wonder about the ability of Dubai’s police to monitory regular communications in the emirate.

3:19: This is the first time that we’re shown Gail’s passport photo. Does that look like Gail to you?

3:55: When Peter arrives, we’re told he is carrying a “suspicious bag”. What about the bag was suspicious?

4:33: We’re shown Peter returning to the airport and we’re told that he “meets with a team member”. Look closely at what you see on the video. Peter indeed returns to the airport (though it is impossible to read the time stamp to know for sure that this clip of Peter in the airport indeed follows the previous clip). But note that at 4:41 (when we first see Peter again) he appears to be reading a piece of paper in his hand and the other man (identified simply as a “team member”) seems to stop and point at the paper. I suppose that one interpretation of this could be that Peter met with a team member; then again, it is just as likely that Peter was looking at the paper for information about, say maybe, the name of his hotel, and a helpful passerby stopped to aid Peter. Who knows? But it is important not to read operational activities into every single movement of every single person, especially as that can lead to snaring people who may not even be related to the operation. Does is seem likely that two operatives would meet in plain view of a camera, especially a rotating camera that would have missed their meeting had they waited just a few seconds more (unless that is they wanted to be seen together)? It is also worth noting that we’re next told that the suspects left in different directions; wouldn’t that also be consistent with unrelated people leaving the airport?

5:11: Here we see a photo of Peter entering a hotel. One thing jumped out at me in this photo. Notice that sweater tied around his shoulders? I went back and looked at the video of Peter in the airport where he is also wearing the sweater. If an agent was trying to look inconspicuous, would tying a brown sweater around a white shirt in a desert country accomplish that goal? In fact, Peter’s outfit makes it quite easy to spot him. I wonder why? At least he appears to look a little bit away from the camera as he enters the hotel (and at 5:24 he does a good job of looking down as the camera takes his picture).

5:28: Next we see Peter  leaving the hotel and going shopping. Boy that striped shirt is inconspicuous, too. I will say that Peter does a pretty good job of keeping his face away from the cameras.

5:48: “Three suspects” arrive at the shopping center. I do find it interesting that some of the subjects are named (and later 11 passport photos are shown) but several times we’re simply referred to subjects. How do they link these random people to the 11 passports? And note that none of the 3 seems to do anything to avoid the camera, especially the “suspect” on the right in the blue shirt who almost looks right at the camera.

5:53: Next Kevin and Gail arrive at the shopping center. This seems like a good place for another quick aside: Would you have been able to identify that woman as Gail if you hadn’t been told it was her? She seems to be wearing a scarf (as Gail was when she checked into the hotel) but her pants are now white, her hair is now loose, and it appears lighter (maybe). The real issue to take note of is the quality (or lack thereof) of the facial recognition software being used by the Dubai police. Clearly the police could not (certainly not in 24 hours, and probably not even in a month) have looked at every second of every piece of CCTV (closed circuit TV) footage from throughout Dubai. So either the police had information of which camera feeds to look at or relied upon facial recognition software to help identify suspects on different video feeds. Of course the question then becomes how good that software is and how many false positives (or negatives) are generated? Is that really Gail? Who knows?

6:01: Gail leaves the shopping center. Again, is that Gail? How do we know? We don’t see her face. And to me it looks like her hair is slightly different again and the color of her top seems to have shifted slightly (though her purse looks like it might be the same). Maybe it’s just the light; maybe that isn’t Gail at all.

6:10: Kevin leaves with a suspect. But all we really see is two men leaving the shopping center at the same time. Are they together? And is the fact that the guy in the blue shirt leaves at the same time as Kevin the reason he was targeted as a suspect in the first place? If so, doesn’t that call into question whether the two men he walked in with are actually suspects themselves? Note that the video clip stops before we see where Kevin and the other man go. Do they both get in that cab? Do they walk different directions? We’re not shown that piece of information.

6:15: Two suspects leave. I note that when these two leave, we do see their faces, but we didn’t see the faces of Gail, Kevin, or Mr. Blue Shirt. Whys is that? One more question: Why did five alleged suspects go to the mall? Remember, they supposedly have “special communications devices” that are probably “highly encrypted”; so why would they need to meet up in the first place? Unless, of course, the goal was to be seen together.

6:23: When Kevin checks out of the hotel, note the inconspicuous shopping bag that he carries. Yep, if I’m off to do dirty spy stuff, I’d carry around a big white shopping bag with a bright stripe on the side. One other thing to take note of and this is a pretty good time to do so. We see quite a lot of interaction between the “suspects” and hotel staff members. What language did the suspects speak? Did they have accents? Those seem like pretty important bits of information and nothing is said about any of that. Hmm.

6:52: We’re shown “before and after” photos of Kevin. Is the dark-haired man actually Kevin? It’s hard to tell. I mean a light blue shirt and blue blazer are pretty unusual clothing choices, right? How many of you reading this have a blue shirt and a blue blazer? If Kevin really wanted to change his appearance, don’t you think it likely that he’d change shirts? Or lose the jacket (or even have a reversible jacket)? Is this “disguise” really the best these “highly skilled” “professionals” can do?

6:58: At least these guys manage to avoid looking right at the camera.

7:15: “Two of the suspects” … again with the unnamed suspects whose faces we can’t see. But hey, they did walk into a hotel that Kevin walked into, right? I mean, that is suspicious…

7:18: This is one of those little jumps in logic that we’re expected to simply accept: “A suspect from the surveillance team [how do they know he’s a suspect or part of the surveillance team] arrives at another location [um, isn’t this the same guy that just walked into the hotel that Kevin walked into? same blue hat…] anticipating the arrival of the victim [note: not terrorist, but “victim”], as he was known to frequent this hotel [how and why was he known to frequent this hotel; for that matter, why was Dubai allowing a known terrorist to “frequent” anywhere in Dubai?]. He leaves after it is confirmed to him that the victim has checked into another hotel.” OK, wait one minute. How do the Dubai police know that he left “after it is confirmed”? And how do they even know that “it is confirmed” in the first place? This is one of those places where Dubai’s police have made guesses — perhaps educated and perhaps correct — but guesses nevertheless for which no evidence is offered.

7:55: Now this is interesting. Gail checks out of her hotel room. OK. But note that her hair has now been pulled back again and she’s apparently changed from the brown top and white pants she wore to the mall back to the pantsuit that she wore when she arrived. Odd? It also seems like somewhat unusual behavior for people to be checking in and out of hotels so quickly. That seems like the kind of thing that authorities might actually be monitoring (especially for foreigners who have to show their passports).

8:05: Another of those mysterious, unnamed suspects whose face is not seen.

8:08: Peter arrives in a rented car with a driver. First, why hire a driver? Doesn’t that add another person with whom the operative would have come in contact with? Did the Dubai police interview the driver? What did he tell them about Peter?

8:30: Let’s go with the presumption that this is a surveillance team at the airport. But if my job is to surveil, shouldn’t I be inconspicuous instead of wearing a colorful shirt and (at 8:48) kicking my legs in a way bound to draw attention to me? This guy couldn’t possibly be just another bored person waiting at an airport…?

9:15: Gail’s “disguise” is even worse than Kevin’s. All she did was put on a black wig. Same clothing, same bags. Ooh, I’m so confused. Go read an espionage novel. Read about agents doing all sorts of subtle things to change appearance (from cotton in their gums, to slightly different walks, to holding their shoulders differently, and the list goes on). And if the Dubai police were able to figure out these disguises so quickly, one might wonder what the point of the disguise was in the first place. And why is it that only Kevin and Gail use disguises?

10:00: This is one of the more interesting segments of the film and one of the few that really does look like surveillance of al-Mabhouh. It is hard to identify any other purpose for what these two tennis players are doing wandering around the second floor elevator lobby. But note that at 10:30 we can only presume that the blue-shirted tennis player walked past al-Mabhouh’s room to try to find the room number. That seems like a good guess, but still. The Dubai police have interestingly not told us that these two tennis players were staying in another hotel or another floor of this hotel. If they were staying at this hotel (especially on the second floor), might the entire sequence here be viewed differently? And note that the video skips when blue-shirt he walks out of sight. How long was he gone? You’re analysis might be different depending on whether he spent 10 seconds or 10 minutes further down that hallway. How long does white-shirt spend in the elevator lobby waiting for blue-shirt to return?

10:36: The surveillance team uses “special communications devices”. OK, first, what makes the device special? To me, presuming white-shirt guy is holding a communications device, it looks like a light-colored cell phone. Or maybe it was an asthma inhaler. It looked like he held it up to his face, not his ear. Maybe. And if he is a “highly skilled” “professional” why would he ever use that “special communications device” in any place where it could be seen on video?

11:15: Wait a minute! Are the tennis courts or athletic facilities on the same floor as al-Mabhouh’s room? Did the Dubai police do an investigation of whether white-shirt and blue-shirt played tennis at the hotel or whether they had even reserved a court? Again, those are the kinds of little facts that a “highly skilled” team would have thought through and which a thorough investigation would have examined.

11:18: “The room number and the one opposite is communicated to the rest of the team.” And we know this how? I thought that it was probable that those special communications devices were highly encrypted.

11:25: OK. So blue-shirt hangs out while white shirt goes outside and back in. Once again, look how inconspicuous that blue shirt is (not to mention the really ugly socks).

11:42: Um. If this is a surveillance team, why are they leaving?

12:39: Peter makes some phone calls from a hotel business center. I’m having a bit of trouble with this one. First, why use a hotel business center? If any phone is likely to be bugged by Dubai’s police, I’d rank that one pretty high on the list. And why use the same phone to make two calls that can then obviously be linked together? And what happened to throw away cellphones or those special communications devices? Furthermore, does anybody else find it odd that with CCTV virtually everywhere, there doesn’t appear to be a camera in the business center? Finally, I note (from the time stamp in the bottom left) that it only took Peter 8 minutes to make a hotel reservation (for a specific room; how did the team know it would be unoccupied?) and airline reservations including a stop. Have you ever tried to make a hotel reservation by phone? How about an airline reservation? How long did it take? 8 minutes for both?

13:04: I can’t think of a more inconspicuous set of outfits for a surveillance team to wear when standing around a luxury hotel lobby. That bright blue shirt and bright red shirt with great big bags would never be noticed by anybody. One of the basic concepts is to blend in, but it’s more than just blending in. The agent has to be so plain looking that if you were to see him (or her) now and again in 15 minutes, you wouldn’t recognize that you’d seen the person before. Now, would you recall seeing two guys hanging out in bright blue and bright red shirts?

13:45: Here is one of the most interesting (though very subtle) moments in the entire video. Kevin gets into a taxi. OK. Fine. But look at the guy who walks out of the hotel behind Kevin (in a black jacket and blue shirt). Why is his face blurred? The face of the doorman isn’t blurred. We’ve seen lots of “man on the street faces” so far, but why is this particular guy’s face blurred? As Arsenio used to say, “Hmm”.

13:48: Gail leaves with the “other suspects”. Are we convinced that these “other suspects” are people that we’ve seen before?

14:29: “The description of the victim’s car is communicated to the rest of the team.” Again, we know this how? First, there is nothing in the video to indicate time so we have no idea how long after al-Mabhouh left the hotel that red-shirt walked out the front door. Yes, red-shirt uses a cellphone (what happened to the special devices?), but in and of itself, I don’t think that tells us much.

14:36: We’re told that red-shirt “returns to his original position”. Again, how do we know? What was his “original position”? How do we know that is where he went? At least he does a decent job of keeping his hat low enough to obscure his face.

15:22: So how did the team make sure that the room opposite al-Mabhouh’s would be vacant? And would anybody really be so bold as to make a request for a particular, apparently non-descript, room? Wouldn’t that set of all sorts of red flags? “Um, gee, Mr. X, why is it that you want room 237”? And what would have happened if that room was occupied?

15:36: We’re told that Peter gives the room key to Kevin. But we don’t actually see this, do we?

15:54: Gail arrives with two big (inconspicuous) shopping bags. But she didn’t appear to have those bags when she got in the cab at 13:48. So are we sure these are the same person?

16:21: A “suspect” walks into the hotel with a blue hat. We’re told that he goes up to the room wearing a wig. On what basis do we know that he’s wearing a wig? Are we even sure it’s the same guy?

16:50: Gail leaves the hotel. OK, I can see that. But we’re told that she leaves to deliver bags to other team members in the parking lot. Again, we know this how? All we see is that she walks down the sidewalk and then returns without the bags. Sure, it’s a good presumption, but without additional video I’m not quite sure that all other possibilities are eliminated.

17:23: Oooh, the first “execution team”. You know the question to ask. By the way, note how casual these guys look but they do seem careful to keep their heads turned away from the camera.

17:45: Here’s team two! Again, watch how they keep their faces away from the camera (one guy even raises his hand to briefly cover his face). They look a lot more professional that the rest of the “highly skilled” team.

18:05: A new surveillance team arrives. One thing interesting about this is the fact that one member of this team appears to be a woman, yet the passports and information released by Dubai keep referring to an eleven member team with one woman. She manages to keep well hidden with that hat, but her “partner” is quite recognizable.

18:26: Those special communications devices are back. Do you see anything special? Go back and look in the woman’s hand when she walks through the revolving door. There’s something right there in her palm. Would she really hold her special communications device that obviously? And when the camera zooms in on her a few moments later, all I see is a woman on a cellphone who then adjusts her shirt or bra while her partner shields her from view. This is Dubai, after all. But anyway, would they really use their special communications device in the middle of the hotel lobby?

20:39: Another person with their face blurred. And this person spends some time talking to Kevin.

21:01: “Kevin signals the team”. Sorry, missed the signal. But what is it that Kevin is holding in his hand? Was this the attempt to change the door lock for al-Mabhouh’s room? In the elevator lobby?

22:15: I’m certainly willing to acknowledge that Kevin and Gail appear to be up to something as they loiter around the elevator lobby. But is that really the kind of surveillance and monitoring that you’d want? Wouldn’t it have been easier to put a small wireless camera in that plant in the corner? Certainly there have to be better ways to surveil an elevator lobby than having two operatives wander around talking on cellphones right in front of two cameras. And for that matter, shouldn’t they know where those cameras were and take steps to remain out of sight of the cameras?

22:30: “As the execution team acts”. Again, that’s one of those pretty big presumptions.

22:38: The Dubai police suggest that a way to gain access was by reprogramming the lock. But if the lock was reprogrammed, wouldn’t the report say that instead of an “attempt”? Second, if the team could reprogram the lock don’t you think that they’d be able to cover their tracks of having done so? And why just Kevin or Gail posing as hotel staff? Why not one of the other people allegedly in the room across the hall? For that matter, how do we know that the people in the room across the hall (if that' is where they were) didn’t just barge their way into the room as al-Mabhouh was opening his door? This whole thing about how to get into the room seems a bit overly complex, not to mention subject to a whole bunch of things that could go wrong. What if al-Mabhouh wasn’t alone; what if he refused to open the door; what if someone else was in the hallway; what if al-Mabhouh was on the telephone when the door was opened?

22:55: The murder has taken place. OK. And how do we know such an absolutely precise time of death? And it appears that things happened pretty quickly; I find it interesting to note that the alleged execution teams didn’t seem to take any time to interrogate al-Mabhouh before killing him. You know, maybe ask him questions about those arms purchases he was making in Dubai?

23:10: Did you notice that one member of the “execution team” is now wearing a glove or bandage on his hand? Don’t get too worked up over that; he was wearing it when he entered the hotel. I went back and looked.

23:19: Both execution teams wind up riding the same elevator. Sloppy. Very, very sloppy.

24:34: Does Gail look the same here as she did at any other point? Are we sure that Gail isn’t really an amalgam of several women?

24:43: Did you note that when the hotel staff opened the door to al-Mabhouh’s room it "was locked from the inside with the latch and chain in place” (emphasis added)? Interesting, no? What special device was used to accomplish that little trick?

24:51: Also, the initial cause of death was an “increase in blood pressure in the brain”.

25:33: Results “proved that it was a murder and not a natural death”. But all we’re given of that “proof” is a letter from a hospital in Arabic. Moreover, unless it’s just a case of poor wording, it appears that the General Department of State assigned teams to find out “how it was carried out” before they had the proof that anything had been “carried out” and that al-Mabhouh’s hadn’t died of natural causes.

26:00: This is another of the most interesting moments in the entire video (if not the most interesting). Remember how I’ve been talking about the operatives not doing a very good job to keep their faces away from the camera? Right. Watch Gail look directly at the camera and smile! And then, look closely at the face of the woman in the passport photo. Are those the same woman? (For that matter, I’m not sure that the woman in the passport photo isn’t really a man!) And why is this the only time that we see that particular camera angle (presumably of the hotel hallway). Did that camera never see any of the other members of the team? If not, why not?

27:17: A few things to note about all of those passport photos. First, while some of the photos looked like the people in the videos, several did not. Where, for example, are the guys in the “execution teams”? Maybe they’re pictured; maybe not. But where was that third surveillance team, you remember the one with a man and woman? I didn’t see their pictures. And some of those passport pictures were really clear photos. I guess that would be OK if you were wearing a really good disguise when the photo was taken.

Whew. I know. Quite a bit to digest. So what do we make of all this? I suspect that some kind of team of operatives did indeed go to Dubai and kill al-Mabhouh. I’m much less convinced that the entire operation was conducted in the way that Dubai’s police suggest and I’m really not terribly convinced that all of the people shown were involved and/or that others not shown weren’t also involved.

But the bigger question is not whether or how but, obviously, who. Who killed al-Mabhouh? The obvious answer is Israel and certainly that’s where fingers are pointing. But there are other possibilities, starting with the Palestinian Authority and/or Fatah not to mention Hamas itself or maybe even Egypt or Iran. So let’s take a few minutes and examine the possibilities.

First let’s start with the obvious choice: Israel. Clearly Israel has something to be gained by killing al-Mabhouh; after all, he’s wanted by Israeli authorities and he’s a known terrorist who has allegedly been involved in illegal weapons purchases to be smuggled into Gaza. That certainly seems reason enough for Israel to want al-Mabhouh dead. But query whether that is simply too obvious? A Hamas commander is killed, so who else would be the obvious assassin? But why would Israel go through the effort and risk to assassinate al-Mabhouh in Dubai? It would seem a lot easier to get him in, oh, I don’t know, maybe Gaza? Why put 11 or more Israeli operatives at risk, not just in a foreign country, but in an Arab country (and a fairly moderate Arab country friendly to the West), in order to assassinate this one guy? Imagine the problems that Israel would have faced had one of its operatives been captured or killed in Dubai? Imagine if al-Mabhouh had gotten off a lucky shot and killed a member of the team. Al-Jazeera would have loved that one.

We also (on the basis of books and films, not to mention history) have a picture of Mossad as being quite competent. Yet this operation, as I discussed above, was riddled with odd behavior if not outright errors. Is Mossad slipping? Or was this operation intended to look like it was carried out by Israel but actually conducted by operatives without the skill that has given Mossad its reputation?

Here are a few things to think about:

• Why did the Dubai police look into al-Mabhouh’s death in the first place; after all, he was found dead of apparently natural causes in a locked room.
• How were the Dubai police able to focus on the 11 alleged members of the assassination squad so quickly? It’s almost as if they were told where to begin looking (or simply to begin looking). Remember, they didn’t open his door until the next day, yet they claim to have discovered the 11 members of the team within 24 hours!
• Why did so many of the agents (especially Gail in that last scene) seem to make such an effort to look directly at the cameras, rather than trying to keep their faces covered?
• If Israel was behind the plot, why would the Mossad have used false passports bearing the names of real Israelis? After all, Israel goes to quite a lot of effort to keep its own people (not just Mossad agents) safe. Frankly, I find it odd that Mossad would use stolen identities in the first place (rather than well-crafted false identities that would stand up to initial scrutiny), let alone identities stolen from Israelis.
• Why would Israel allow 11 agents to be subject to such scrutiny that they can likely never work outside Israel again? After all, Peter, Kevin, and Gail are probably pretty famous and well known to police around the world by now.
• Was al-Mabhouh really such an important target that Israel would put together this kind of operation, taking these kinds of risks, making these kinds of mistakes, and risking the international condemnation that will no doubt follow?

So, if not Israel, who else might have something to gain from al-Mabhouh’s assassination? As a starting point, it is worth considering whether al-Mabhouh’s assassination was the goal of any other organization or country or whether he was simply the McGuffin to use to frame Israel as having done a “bad thing”. Nobody’s going to believe Israel bombing a plane or a bus, but people are certainly willing to believe that Israel might assassinate a terrorist.

What about the Palestinian Authority or Fatah? The PA and Fatah are practically in a state of civil war with Hamas. Might this have been a part of that civil war? Might this have been a veiled statement to Hamas that the PA and/or Fatah are willing to take the fight global? Then again, perhaps the assassination was part of a power struggle within Hamas. We know that the Syrian-based wing of Hamas and the Gaza-based wing don’t quite see eye-to-eye (especially after the Syrian leaders had the chance to watch their brothers in Gaza get pummeled by Israeli in January 2009). Egypt is itself struggling with Islamic extremism (the Muslim Brotherhood) and has been making a few half-hearted attempts to stop weapons smuggling through Egypt into Gaza. Might this assassination have been an attempt by Egypt to warn Hamas? Finally, Iran stands to gain from any further incitement to violence in the Middle East, both in terms of actual conflict between Hamas or Hezbollah and Israel and in terms of the focus of world attention on Israel and away from Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Or perhaps Iran and al-Mabhouh had a falling out over the arms sales.

One other point worth noting: It has been reported by several sources (though curiously the report is not repeated anywhere near as often as the claim that Israel is responsible) that “[t]wo Palestinians alleged to have provided logistical support to the operation are in custody in Dubai”. Palestinians providing logistical support to an Israeli assassination team? Interesting.

Right now, it seems that there is a rush to judgment to presume that the operation was carried out by Israel. Perhaps it was, though if so, I must say that I’m less impressed with Mossad’s operational skill and technique than I’d anticipated I would be. On the other hand, there are just enough little questions floating around to make me wonder whether this whole operation was put together either by someone else who wanted al-Mabhouh dead or who wanted Israel to take the fall for an assassination. Of, if we want to get really cynical, the operation could have been undertaken by Israel in a way that would divert suspicion off of Israel and onto someone else (“Gee, if we’re real sloppy, no one will seriously believe that we did it…”). Of course, once you start down that road of reasoning there is no stopping.

I’m not saying that Israel didn’t do it. I don’t know; maybe Israel did. But there are just enough odd things, just enough questions, just enough sloppiness, to make one wonder whether Israel is responsible and sloppy or whether someone else wants us to think that Israel was responsible.

It will be interesting to see how this whole investigation plays out. It will be interesting to see how forthcoming Dubai is with additional facts that “prove” the case. If nothing else, it makes for a pretty interesting spy movie.

[updated February 24, 2010]

Who Is Ready to Help Haiti?

Out of curiosity, I did a quick scan around the Internet this morning to see which countries have offered or begun supplying aid and assistance to Haiti following yesterday's devastating earthquake. To be consistent in my unscientific search, I simply searched for the website of the ministry of foreign affairs of a number of countries and looked to see if there was a statement about Haiti. If not, I searched for "Haiti" (presuming that the site offered a search function). So, as of 1:00pm, the day following the earthquake, here are the nations that have offered aid or begun supplying assistance:

United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Israel (see Israeli search and rescue delegation departs to Haiti)

The United Nations also has a page devoted the Haiti and notes that Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called for international assitance.

The websites of the foreign ministries of the following nations do not mention the earthquake or any aid or support:

France
Venezuela
Cuba
Bahamas
Jamaica
Dominical Republic
Russia
Japan
China
India
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
Qatar
Iran

After that, I got bored.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Perhaps nothing; perhaps some countries just don't update their websites that often (though most appear to...). And perhaps these countries have made formal statements that haven't been reflected on their websites. Who knows.

I don't find it particularly interesting that the US has offered aid. I do find it interesting that France, the former colonial power in Haiti, hasn't said anything yet. Also, somewhat surprising is the silence of both Venezuela and Cuba, both of whom always seem to be trying to position themselves as important actors in the region. You'd think that they'd be rushing to get aid to Haiti faster than the US, just to show that they could. Furthermore, note that neither Japan (which has extensive experience with earthquake recovery) or China (which suffered a devastating quake of its own last year) appears to have offered help.

On the the other hand, Israel has already dispatched aid even though it does not have bilateral relations with Haiti. In other words, those "evil" Israelis, living half a world away, have been able to dispatch aid before many of the "great powers" or regional actors. Maybe things that like this should at least be noted when the world tries to throw Israel under the proverbial bus. Ah, but alas, I suspect that most people will view this as some kind of cynical ploy by Israel rather than a sign of true concern. Of course, Israel also offered aid to Iran following in earthquake there (which was rejected) and did provide aid following earthquakes in China, India, and Turkey as well as aid following the Indiana Ocean tsunami. But evidence that Israel is truly concerned with the situation of Haitians (or Iranians or Chinese or any others who are victims of a natural disaster) wouldn't square so well with the narrative of the evil, apartheid, Nazi, organ-stealing Jews propounded by much of the world.

Bahrain's Overtures Toward Jewish Citizens

I just came across an interesting article on JTA:

The king of Bahrain said he would facilitate the return of Jewish expatriates through restored citizenship and land offers.

King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa met in New York Tuesday with about 50 Bahraini Jews who had immigrated to the United States, following a similar meeting in London this summer.

The king said that all expatriate Bahrainis, whatever their religion, were welcome to return.

"It's open, it's your country," he said in New York.

Hamad had reversed a law that banned dual citizenship and was ready to restore the citizenship of Bahrainis who had lost it in the interim, as well as offer it to their children.

"The younger ones can’t remember much, but we want them to know," he said of Bahraini heritage.

Returning Bahrainis would be eligible for land allocations, the king said.

Hamad is in New York to attend an interfaith conference co-sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the United Nations. He has instituted reforms in recent years, including extending the vote to women. He recently named a Jewish woman, Houda Nonoo, as his ambassador to Washington.

In an interview, Hamad told JTA that he did not expect his reforms to replicate throughout the region.

"What we do in Bahrain is for sure for Bahrain, it’s not to be exported," he said.

Bahrain has recorded a Jewish presence since the Talmudic era. Its current community of several dozen Jews is descended from Iraqi Jewish merchants who settled in the late ninth century.

Several things about this article struck a chord for me. First, given the open hostility to Jews throughout the Arab world (not just Israelis), the idea that an Arab country would take positive steps to improve relations with its own Jewish community is a terrific sign. Many people forget that a large segment of the Israeli population is comprised of Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab countries in the years following the formation of the State of Israel. And many people forget that the few remaining Jewish communities in Arab countries are often discriminated against or used as scapegoats for societal ills (or accused of being Israeli spies). So it is a welcome sign to see at least one Arab country actually recognizing that Jews play a role in their society and welcoming them as full partipants. Compare this to countries like Saudi Arabia where it is a crime not to be a Muslim.

But Bahrain has, apparently, gone further than just welcoming Jews. The Bahraini government has actually given a Jew (and a woman, at that) a position of power and influence within the government. That is a very positive step forward that could, given time, help form a base for some kind of construction dialogue between Bahrain and Israel. For the record, I wouldn't expect Ambasador Nonoo to be pro-Israeli; she should be pro-Bahraini and advocate for her nation. On the other hand, one would certainly hope that even if she opposes the government of Israel, she would also oppose anti-Semitism and could become a voice for tolerance in the Arab world.

Of course, the King's recognition that he did not expect the reforms to spread through the region is the "reality check" upon this small positive step forward.

Russian Double Standards: Chechnya and South Ossetia

Do you remember a few years ago when Russia was engaged in a full scale assault on Chechnya that resulted in the virtual destruction of Chechnya's capital Grozny? At the time, numerous world leaders criticized Russian actions in Chechnya, in particular the use of excessive force against primarily civilian targets. Russia's response? Chechnya was an internal part of Russia and therefore not a proper subject for world commentary or criticism.

Yet over the last few days, Russia intervened in the internal dispute between Georgia and its "breakaway" republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I'm not suggesting that Georgia's conduct with regard to these two areas was appropriate. Frankly, I don't know enough about the relations among the ethnic groups, the long-standing disputes, or the governmental systems involved to say whether the Georgians or Ossetians and Abkhazis or even the Russians are the "good guys". But I do find it interesting (in a troubling sort of way) how quickly and readily Russia intervened in Georgia's internal affairs (and how, exactly, did Russia mobilize that much manpower and equipment that fast for a conflict that apparently flared up unexpectedly?). Can you imagine how Russia would have reacted had anybody intervened to help the Chechens?

So what is the difference between Chechnya and South Ossetia/Abkhazia? Simple. Russia, like it or not, is still a superpower (or at least pseudo-superpower) and can pretty much get away with flexing its muscles however it wants. Just like the world voiced distress but did nothing when China flexed its muscles in Tibet, the world will criticize Russia while Georgia is pummelled. Perhaps, though, this episode will make more people realize that Russia's ambitions are not in line with those of the west, especially considering Russian calls for the ouster of Georgia's democratically elected president. Despite what Russia may want the world to think, it is not a democracy and its actions in Georgia seem to demonstrate that Russia is uncomfortable with western-allied democracies on its borders.

One other item that I've come across in news related to the ongoing dispute: It appears that Israel has been organizing special flights to Georgia, not just to evacuate Israelis from Georgia, but also to help some of the estimated 12,000 Georgian Jews who want to escape the area of conflict and emigrate to Israel. This calls to mind the efforts by Israel to help Jews escape Ethiopia back in the 80s. Can you imagine any other country (especially one of the Muslim countries) offering to help resettle those trapped by the fighting?