Here are more excerpts from Bin Laden's December 27 tape. MEMRI reports that the entire tape is over an hour long (I must have missed that in the NYT extensive coverage). Here's more on the Zarqawi affiliation [all emphases are mine]

Zarqawi Is the Commander [Amir] of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq
"The warrior commander [and] honored comrade Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi and the groups who joined him are the best of the community that is fighting for the sake of the word of Allah. Their courageous operations against the Americans and against the apostate Allawi government have gladdened us…

"We in the Al-Qa'ida organization very much welcome their union with us. This is a tremendous step on the path to the unification of the efforts fighting for the establishment of a State of Truth and for the uprooting of the State of the Lie…

"Know that the warrior comrade Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi is the commander [Amir] of the Al-Qa'ida organization in the land of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and the comrades in the organization there must obey him."

Again it seems that Bin Landen is welcoming a new relationship rather than acknowleding one that the White House has insisted, with no proof, already existed and was a justification for war in Iraq. On June 9, 2003 President Bush in response to a question about missing WMD in Iraq said "I read a report that somehow, you know, that there is no al Qaeda presence in Baghdad. I guess the people who wrote that article forgot about Al Zarqawi's network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named Foley." Condoleezza Rice echoed this in a November 2003 interview with a Florida television station saying, "It is very clear that he [Saddam] had links to terrorism that were broad and deep, including numerous contacts with al Qaeda, including an al Qaeda associate, a man named al Zarqawi, who was operating his network out of Baghdad."

Interestingly, though, did you know that the Zarqawi network was wiped out in Iraq? From a White House fact sheet

Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Ended a regime that possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored and supported terrorists, suppressed human rights and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world;

Stopped Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate, from operating in northeastern Iraq;

Eliminated from Iraq the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi network, which had established a poison and explosives training camp in northeastern Iraq; and

Shut down the Salman Pak training camp where members of al-Qaida had trained.

The new Bin Laden tape that was broadcast by Al Jazeera hasn't received much coverage because of the tsunami in South Asia. The extensive coverage of that horrific disaster though will very soon go the way of the Bam, Iran earthquake -- that is by week's end our ADD afflicted media will have moved on to another story. Anyway here's what I find interesting about the Bin Laden tape. In his message, Bin Laden apparently welcomes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi into the al-Qaida fold. CNN.com reports that "A speaker purported to be al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden endorsed the terror campaign of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and urged Iraqis to boycott next month's elections, in an audio tape broadcast Monday on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera television network."

The CNN story continues

If the voice is Bin Laden's, the tape would mark the first time the al Qaeda leader has mentioned al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist whose group had been responsible for numerous car bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq.

Interesting, because this suggests that one of the Saddam/Iraq terrorists links touted by the Bush administration as a justification for the war is as many have already asserted, is indeed bogus. Bin Laden would seem to be welcoming Zarquawi rather than acknowledging him as a long-time associate

We, in al Qaeda organization, welcome him joining forces with us, a great welcome and this will be a great step towards unifying the mujahedeens' efforts in establishing the nation of justice and destroying the nation of evil.

We ask God to accept this unity and bless it and for all to know, the dear mujahed brother Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, so we ask all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds.

It's hard to place this in context, because as usual news outlets refuse to provide the full transcript of the tape.

The situation in Darfur, Sudan is becoming or has become one that the ICC was designed for -- a grievous situation in which a government refuses to act to prevent atrocities from occuring. This article suggests that even so, the U.S. may be an obstacle to taking the Khartoum government before the ICC.

Annan said that a majority of the Security Council members would want the ICC to play a role against the ethnic killings in Sudan.

"But we also know that the United States has a problem with any referral to the ICC. This is an issue the council will have to find a way around. But I think those who are perpetrating these crimes (of genocide) must not be allowed to get away and impunity must not be allowed to stand," Annan told reporters during his annual year-end press conference on Tuesday.

What would Iran's strategy be in the event of a U.S.-led attack? Here are some ideas.

Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I missed this one when it first came out. Let me see if I can summarize it in two sentences. Axis of Evil member, terrorist sponsor, and burgeoning nuclear weapons state Iran, apparently offered the Bush administration a Libya-esque “grand bargain” conveying in a letter through the Swiss ambassador that it would “address US concerns on nuclear weapons, terrorism and Israel in exchange for establishing normal diplomatic relations.” It was business as usual though in the administration with the hawks opposed to any rapprochement and Colin Powell (and surprisingly Condi Rice) arguing for and losing out on taking a serious look at the proposal. Now the second interesting part of this is, I can’t find any of the major U.S. newspapers reporting this. It seems only the Financial Times has reported this story. Why? Isn’t this a huge story? This was reported March 17 of this year, before the election. Here’s some bits

Senior Iranian officials have offered to address US concerns on nuclear weapons, terrorism and Israel in exchange for establishing normal diplomatic relations. But the US has been unable to offer a clear response since last May because of divisions within the Bush administration, according to official US sources and mediators.

Hawks in Washington have resisted opening a dialogue with the clerical regime in Iran, which George W. Bush, US president, branded part of the "axis of evil". However, Colin Powell, secretary of state, recently told an internal meeting that Mr Bush was looking for an "opening" with Iran, raising the possibility of a positive reply.

What has become known in diplomatic circles as Iran's "grand bargain" was first communicated to the US State Department in a cable through the "Swiss channel" on May 4 last year. Switzerland represents US interests in Iran.

The cable quoted a senior Iranian official as laying out a "road map" to normalise relations, which have been hostile since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Under the plan, Iran would address US concerns over nuclear weapons and terrorism, co-ordinate policy on Iraq and consider a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In return, Iran expected a lifting of sanctions, recognition of its security interests, dropping of "regime change" from the official US lexicon and eventual re-establishment of relations.

…

Divisions within the administration over Iran make it likely that Republicans will try to keep the subject off the election agenda. The Democrats have accused Mr Bush of weakening Washington's position by "contracting out" its diplomacy, giving Europe the lead in negotiating Iran's nuclear compliance, and China the lead on North Korea's nuclear weapons.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, says he would deal with Iran direct and hinted at negotiations on restoring relations.

Although the Bush administration is holding out the prospect of "grand bargains" with Libya and North Korea, there is powerful opposition - led by Dick Cheney, vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary - to a deal with Iran.

This is from another story the same day in the FT

Mr Zarif played an important role in mediating with Lebanese groups in the early 1990s to secure the release of western hostages in Beirut. Mr Rafsanjani was then president.

Important figures on the US side then, and still wielding influence now, are Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Mr Bush's father, and Thomas Pickering, then US ambassador to the UN. Now in the private sector, both encourage engagement. Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, backs Mr Scowcroft's talks with Mr Zarif.

Fellow realists inside the administration include Colin Powell, secretary of state, and his deputy, Richard Armitage.

Another believed to favour engagement is Robert Blackwill, strategic planner for the Middle East under Ms Rice. But for US hardliners and neo-conservatives, their experience of Iran is dominated by events a decade earlier - the morass of Lebanon and the Iran-Contra debacle when Ronald Reagan, then US president, tried to trade guns for hostages.

For Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Iran and its creation Hizbollah cannot be forgiven for the retreat of US forces from Lebanon in 1983 after 241 Marines were killed by a bomb.

For many in the Bush administration, that humiliation, followed by no meaningful retaliation, created an image of American weakness in the Arab world that ultimately encouraged the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.

So now let me see if I can sum up in two sentences. The next likely nuclear weapon state has reached out to the United States to address its security concerns. The secretary of defense though can’t move past something that happened 20 years ago (under a Republican president) to possibly prevent the emergence of a new member of the nuclear club. That about right?

I’m going to look into this more. And though I’m never at all surprised by this administration’s incompetence, I would not at all be surprised if there are secret negotiations going on along the line of what happed with Libya. Perhaps, Colin Powell before departing will have a major announcement to make. Perhaps not. More on this later. Click here, here, and here to read some of the original reporting.

Contempt unveiled. Kofi Annan is sticking to his guns saying he won't resign over the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. It's funny how Republicans in Congress, even while being critical of Donald Rumsfeld who had a direct impact on the mess in Iraq, can't bring themselves to call for his resignation. But Annan who didn't have direct oversight of the Oil-for-Food scandal is a different story. But Republican contempt apparently isn't even consistent. Where are the calls for Annan's resignation over these horrific charges of sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo -- another scandal he had nothing to do with? C'mon guys. More ammunition for your hypocrisy.

Eminent Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis has an article in the new Foreign Affairs about second term grand strategy for the Bush administration. Here are some nuggets

President Bush has insisted that the world will not be safe from terrorists until the Middle East is safe for democracy. It should be clear by now that he is serious about this claim: it is neither rhetorical nor a cloak for hidden motives. Democratization, however, is a long-term objective, so it is too early to assess accomplishments. What one can evaluate is the extent to which the Bush strategists have succeeded in a more immediate task they set for themselves: to clear the way for democratization by shattering a status quo in the Middle East that they believed had victimized the people of the region and had become a threat to the rest of the world.

Whether democracy can be "planted" through military occupation in that part of the world is not yet clear, however, and may not be for some time. Three years after the invasion of Afghanistan, that country still is not secure. Taliban and al Qaeda elements remain, economic recovery is spotty, warlords rule, opium cultivation thrives, and Westerners cannot travel safely much beyond Kabul. And yet, on October 9, 2004, millions of Afghans lined up to vote in an election that had no precedent in their nation's long history. Had anyone predicted this three years ago, the response would have been incredulity--if not doubts about sanity.

...

The most skillful practitioner ever of shock and awe, Otto von Bismarck, shattered the post-1815 European settlement in order to unify Germany in 1871. Having done so, however, he did not assume that the pieces would simply fall into place as he wished them to: he made sure that they did through the careful, patient construction of a new European order that offered benefits to all who were included within it. Bismarck's system survived for almost half a century.

The most important question George W. Bush will face in his second term is whether he can follow Bismarck's example. If he can shift from shock and awe to the reassurance--and the attention to detail--that is necessary to sustain any new system, then the prospects for his post-September 11 grand strategy could compare favorably to Bismarck's accomplishments, as well as to those of U.S. presidents from Roosevelt through Clinton. For their post-Pearl Harbor grand strategy, over more than half a century, persuaded the world that it was better off with the United States as its dominant power than with anyone else. Bush must now do the same.

I have a quibble with how some of this article proceeds. Much of the logic is sound, but it is built on the same, and in my opinion, flawed assessment that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. Gaddis spends some time initially in the article admitting and then providing justification for the Bush administration's conflation of the concepts of prevention and preemption. This is still not the issue with Iraq. Even if one accepts that Saddam had the desire to do harm to the U.S. (which I don't accept), he lacked the capability. And as I've said numerous times here, any capability to do so rested on using terrorists as a delivery vehicle, the weakest link in the Saddam-threat chain.

Gaddis also admits but doesn't seem too concerned that the greater threats -- Iran and North Korea -- were essentially ignored by the Bush administration. Here's some of his take.

What takes place during the second Bush term in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and especially the Israeli-Palestinian relationship may well be as significant for the future of the Middle East as what occurs in Iraq. And what happens in China, India, Russia, Europe, and Africa may well be as important for the future of the international system as what transpires in the Middle East. All of which is only to say that Iraq must not become, as Vietnam once was, the single lens through which the United States views the region or the world.

This article is not meant to be a roadmap but it's still a little unsatisfying. But check it out nonetheless.

By the way, the John Lewis Gaddis article I mentioned in the post directly after this one is part of a special issue of Foreign Affairs devoted to second term foreign policy of the Bush administration. Check it out here.

I was just checking out the latest news and went to Yahoo! News. The top two headlines in this order read:

• 60 Killed, 120 Wounded in Iraq Car Blasts
• Time Selects Bush As Person of the Year

Says a lot doesn't it.

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reflects on the one year anniversary of Libya’s decision to abandon its WMD programs.

The world now has two very different models for how to eliminate a threatening nation’s nuclear and missile capabilities. The Iraq model of regime change has been enormously costly, chaotic and uncertain. The Libyan model of changing regime behavior has been efficient, effective and almost cost-free. Officials should not stop their efforts now. A little more investment in the transformation of Libya could pay dividends throughout the region for decades to come.

Cirincione of course is directing some of this towards the situation with Iran. But his analysis overestimates some important elements of the Libyan story. Sanctions hurt Libya a lot more than the U.S. sanctions hurting Iran. Many analysts and journalists have noted that contrary to the Bush administration’s contention, Gaddafi was not persuaded by U.S. military action in Iraq. He wanted to end his economic isolation. Besides, he initially approached the Clinton administration. Iran is another story. Iran’s trade with EU is growing steadily, almost doubling in the last five years. Libya also simply hadn’t gotten very far on its nuclear program. Abandoning it may have been a difficult pill to swallow, but it wasn’t the abandonment of anything much more than a symbolic program. Iran has a robust program that could produce a weapon in a few years. Why give that up?

What the Libya episode tells us is that sanctions sometimes work, especially when they are multilateral and severely punishing (e.g. South Africa). What the U.S. and EU do with regards to Iran is an extraordinarily interesting and difficult foreign policy problem. Unfortunately the Libya case offers no guidance on how to proceed.

The NYT has a long article on the dubious evidence used to accuse those three Muslim servicemembers at Guantanamo of all sort of things from espionage to mishandling classified material. The article is pretty damning, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. One prominent is my mind is what the role of Muslim chaplains was supposed to be with regard the detainees. The article reports a lot of suspicion on the part of other servicemembers because of the close contact between these men and the detainees. Well, how else were they supposed to do their job? I guess what I'm tiptoeing around is why the story didn't address the issue of racism and bigotry as the motivating factor in the accusations against these men -- which from what is presented in the article seems clear.

Read "How to Rig a Ukrainian Election" in Slate's Explainer column here. This article would seem to confirm my general criticism that although the U.S. media suprisingly can't get enough of this story, it's been covered in a very superficial way with few outlets willing to delve into the details of how the alleged fraud in the election took place.

So George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are floundering around after the troops embarrassed Rumsfeld by asking "silly" questions about things like armored vehicles. Here's how the WaPo has Bush addressing the issue today

During a photo opportunity in the White House today, Bush was asked whether he knows how widespread the problem of inadequate armor is and what the government is doing about it.

Bush said, "The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is, we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment. And if I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question, and that is, are we getting the best we can get us? And they deserve the best."

Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this all John Kerry's fault? What happened to that line of attack? Remember the second debate?

KERRY: [...] We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 Humvees aren't armored. I visited some of those kids with no limbs today, because they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right body armor.

I've met parents who've on the Internet gotten the armor to send their kids.

There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse.

GIBSON: Mr. President?

BUSH: He complains about the fact our troops don't have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

So those angry troops really ought to be directing their venom at Senator Kerry.

Who cares about their threat perception. It’s all about us. From UPI via the Washington Times.

Iran has been dancing a diplomatic tango over its nuclear negotiation — taking two steps forward for every step back. Diplomats and analysts believe the result is Iran gradually inches toward the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

In negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union three — France, Britain and Germany — the Iranians sent mixed signals. First they seem to indicate they will abide by international requests to curb their nuclear program, only to later renege and then to return again to the negotiating table.

…

When Secretary of State Colin Powell sat next to Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at the Sharm el-Sheik conference on Iraq last Nov. 22, instead of engaging his Iranian counterpart in useful dialogue, Mr. Powell reportedly limited himself to "polite dinner conversation." If true, that is both sad and a lost golden opportunity to initiate diplomacy. The United States and Iran have no formal relations and the Sharm el-Sheik dinner would have been a perfect opportunity for the two top diplomats to begin exchanging ideas.

One way to better understand the problem's complexity, and Iran's reluctance to forgo pursuing nuclear weaponry, is to consider Iran's perspective, not that it will solve much.

Yes, understanding your adversary’s threat perception is a one-way ticket to nowhere. Phone the Bush people.