Bobby's blog

Being 8 hours ahead of New York, I came in to work this morning and heard the news that former President Gerald Ford passed away today- he was 93. I've been in a state of shell-shock ever since. I'm not saying I didn't know this was coming-- eventually-- just that when it came, I wasn't prepared for it.

What follows was written exactly eight months ago, when I named President Ford at the top of my "TOP FIVE People I Would Most Like to Meet." I think it summarizes how I felt about the man, and although he deserves a much more fitting tribute, I just can't muster the spirit to write right now...

Pat's already done a much better job on Rangel and the draft, but since he links to this in his comments, I've brought it over here...

As someone who doesn't really subscribe to partisan ideology, the upside of the Democratic takeover of Congress was that Democrats got relatively more conservative representation in their ranks with people like Jim Webb and Bob Casey, Jr., moving into the Senate. The House Democrats have already demonstrated their maturity by rejecting the ridiculous Jack Murtha in favor of the more responsible Steny Hoyer-- despite the fact that Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi endorsed the former. And, of course, Joe Biden is now poised to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I've long since argued that he's one of the few politicians-- Republican or Democrat-- who really "gets" the Global War on Terror.

The downside, however, is that many of the House Democrats' most senior members-- the ones who, by design, will step into the leadership positions and committee chairs-- are quite frankly some of its most radical and least centrist members.

I suppose-- by the time I post this-- you'll all be rather acquainted with Henry Kissinger's recent statement that "Military Victory in Iraq [is] 'Not Possible'." The statement couldn't have been older than five minutes when a buen amigo-- who knows that Dr. Kissinger, and US covert operations in the Angolan civil war, was the subject of my senior thesis at West Point-- forwarded it to me. I should note that while USMA's Department of Social Sciences still has the picture of me and Kissinger on their alumni collage (that's us in the bottom right of the picture), regular readers of this blog will be well-aware that I'm not the stark Realist that my subject was (and actually, neither are the anti-war activists, but that's a different story). Being in Iraq, I don't have the luxury to surf the 'Net and read what the anti-war activists are saying about this, but I suspect that they're praising Nixon's most senior statesman for "seeing the light" that they-- in their infinite wisdom-- have always known. But, of course, nothing is ever quite that simple, is it? And I would caution you to read everything he says before jumping to the conclusion that the architect of the Grand Design has already consigned us to failure. For starters, he specifically noted that:

And thank God for that!

I haven't been blogging for the last six weeks, partially because of my deployment to Iraq, but mostly because I hate how ridiculously polarized things get leading into elections. Americans seem to have such little perspective, imagining these great differences between their political parties, when in fact the Republicans and Democrats are far more alike than nearly any two other opposition parties in the world! I'm aware of that, and so the politicians' continuous need to cast each other's opponent in the devil's image has never made sense to me.

In any case, according to the newscasters, the Governator trounced Angelides in what turned out to be not a very close election at all (the Dems probably should have gone with Westly after all...), and Senator Lieberman managed to win re-election by a double digit margin-- despite being rejected by his Party in the primary. It should be clear to all (once again) that, in the bipolar American political tradition, the middle usually wins-- it's almost by design. Still, it appears that the Democrats have taken control of the House and should have a small minority there, and control of the Senate seems to hinge on outcomes in Montana and Virginia. They, like the Republicans before them, may misread the outcome as a mandate for their ideology, instead of what it really is-- a repudiation of their opponents and a clear desire to return to the center. And that's okay-- the nation can be pulled to the left right now, even if it means we get pulled too far. Eventually, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction and we'll have Republicans again, this time trying to pull us back to the right. It always does, and we always manage to stay somewhere near our center. That's what our political system was designed to do.

But, regardless of the outcome, those of us on the ground here in Iraq can be comforted by the knowledge that the Republic will survive. It may adjust-- it may even do some things I don't agree with-- but it will survive. And thank God for that.

Now the rest of us can get on with our lives...

Whenever people ask me what's the best way to reduce nuclear proliferation, I always tell them that we should go back in time and prevent their initial conception. After all, if we can stick the nuclear genie back in the bottle, no one would have nuclear weapons-- not even the great powers-- and no one would be worried about having to control their emergence and prevent their dissemination to unsavory characters who might actualy use them. Rather than seeking nuclear weapons, other states would have to find other means of balancing American power, and many would simply find it easier to bandwagon with US hegemony than to contest it. It's a remarkably sound argument, undermined only by the small, insignificant fact that reverse time travel is not yet (and may never be) possible. Other than that, though, it's a great policy.

I mention all this because that's actually what many serious policy-makers seem to endorse on a different stage with a different problem.

There's this notion in the world that perception becomes reality-- it's only partially true in that how we perceive things will impact our decisions, the action of which will re-shape the world around us (generally, but not always) in a manner consistent with our perceptions. But in politics, especially, substance often takes a backseat to appearance-- far more often than not, something that constitutes astute policy, but that is politically radioactive will get placed on the backburner, while something that does very little (or may even be a bad policy) is likely to be embraced if it is politically savvy. This is why the struggle to define events around us-- the battle for the perceptions of contemporary Americans-- occupies an enormous amount of energy not just for politicians, but for corporations and even academia: witness the amount of advertising that businesses and universities spend marketing their products or recruiting new students. This isn't to say that the product or the education is irrelevant, only that the perception of its relevance has become ever more important over the years-- Apple may very well make a better computer, but most Americans won't know that if the perception is that one needs a PC to get by in the world; the Detroit Tigers may have the best record in baseball, but no one outside the state of Michigan believes they're really the best team (although, in fairness, they will get their chance to prove it, perceptions be damned).

Finally some good news for Beirut, Turkey announced they would be committing troops to the "expanded peacekeeping" (didn't we use to call that "peace enforcement"?) mission in Lebanon. Although Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul stated that the Turkish contribution probably would not exceed 1,000 troops, that's still good news for everyone. Besides being a NATO member with a highly proficient military, Turkey has strong relations with Israel, and their presence should alleviate some Israeli concerns about who's looking out for their interests in southern Lebanon.

It also means-- since Qatar earlier agreed to commit 200-300 troops-- that the UNIFIL force is getting greater representation from Muslim countries, which is critical if it's going to avoid flaring up already-existing Christian/Muslim tensions in Lebanon. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan mentioned the UN's desire to increase Muslim contributions, and Indonesia announced that it would be contributing 1,000 troops as well. Two other likely candidates would be Bangladesh and Malaysia. It's anyone's guess how the "expanded rules of engagement" will play out on the ground and with each nation's domestic populations, or what the long-term plan for handing over security responsibility to Lebanese forces, or even if Hezbollah will eventually be disarmed-- nor do I know how to weigh that in light of Nasrullah's admission that, "Had I known that capturing the soldiers would lead to this result, I never would have done it."

But we're going to have to start somewhere if we're ever going to stabilize that country, so I guess this is as good as anywhere.

Did you know that when Harry S Truman left the Oval Office his approval rating was just 23%-- lower than Jimmy Carter (28%), and lower even than Richard Nixon (24%), who left the White House disgraced and barely ahead of his impeachment notice? In fact, so unpopular was Truman that in 1952, he actually lost the New Hampshire primary to Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, thereby prompting his March 29th decision not to run for re-election.

It seems like everyone is asking me about the Connecticut primary and the unseating of Senator Joseph Lieberman as the Democratic Party's nominee to represent that state in the Senate, and I'm not really sure if I understand why-- I generally prefer to focus on foreign and defense policies and how I think they might impact our future, as opposed to most bloggers (and, indeed, journalists) who seem to be focused (if not consumed) on the whole "inside politics" thing. But that said, my first sense is that-- like so many things-- we need to be really cautious about drawing instant lessons from any event, because it often leads us to make snap decisions that may or may not prove true.

I'm a big believer in what Branch Rickey, the fabled General Manager of the Dodgers, Cardinals, and Pirates, said about luck: "Things worthwhile generally don't just happen. Luck is a fact, but should not be a factor. Good luck is what is left over after intelligence and effort have combined at their best." Of course, I don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that I seem to have atrocious "luck" when it comes to flights. Two months ago, I made it to West Point's Senior Conference-- a rather humbling experience when one counts the number of generals and Ambassadors who were in attendance-- but because of flight problems, I arrived in shorts, tennis shoes, sunglasses, and a Blackhorse polo shirt, while my luggage somehow went to Pittsburgh and Charlotte before getting to New York. Luckily for me, of course, Major Jon Byrom-- my old commander at Fort Irwin-- is teaching Economics at USMA, and he was able to lend me a suit and tie, and all the accessories so that while I spent the first day and a half in borrowed clothing, at least it wasn't that noticeable.

In Robert Jervis's most excellent book, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, the legendary Columbia professor details everything you need to know about international relations. It's a fantastic book (an original on my Hall of Fame Reading List), and makes some excellent points that are often missed by political spin doctors, including: that actions undertaken to accomplish stated objectives will lead to unintended effects that cannot always be predicted (implicit in this is the understanding that one can never predict everything that will occur from a single action); that our actions influence the system and transform the parameters, and can subsequently lead to changing behavior on the part of others (or even ourselves); and that our behavior is always influenced-- at least in part-- by the behavior of others. Simple points? Perhaps, but I would argue that most politicians and bloggers alike fail to appreciate these eternal truths. Thus, for example, FDR's alliance with Stalin's Soviet Union was strategically necessary to win World War II, but that doesn't keep contemporary historians from criticizing him for making a deal with the devil. Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski's decision to arm the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Army was the right move (just as the Reagan Administration was wise to continue and expand the policy), but that doesn't keep modern critics from arguing that it was the single event responsible for creating the so-called "blowback" to 9/11.

It's overbearing to pretend that all decisions should be made with x-ray vision or to pretend that leaders of the past should conform to the standards of today (thus, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson can be condemned for not abolishing slavery). But that doesn't keep us from doing it. Similarly, it's downright arrogant to ignore the third point (that our actions are shaped by the behavior of others), and yet there it is-- conservatives denounce President Clinton for failing to complete the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (even though men named Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat probably had some responsibility there) and liberals today blast President Bush for failing to eliminate North Korean nuclear ambitions (or to defeat the Iraqi insurgency), somehow convincing themselves that the Pyongyang regime or the Iraqi insurgents don't have a vote in the process. But that's politics for you, and it's one of the reasons that I don't really know (or care) much about what they have to say on strategic issues-- few of them know what they're talking about, anyway.

Believe it or not, the U.S. Army is currently above its year-to-date recruiting goals (51,615 through June), although with a final target of 80,000, it's going to be a tall order to meet our annual mission-- an average of about 9,500 recruits a month for each of the last three months of this Fiscal Year. Critics have been quick to point out that the recruiting numbers are "cooked"-- and that we've only gotten what we've got because we've "lowered the standard"-- generally pointing to the reduced requirements for high school diplomas over general equivalency, and the fact that we've raised the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42. I understand why they make these points, but I disagree with their logic-- I've led a lot of (mostly infantry) troops in the service, and whether or not they had high school or college degrees was often not the best indicator of their quality as Soldiers; for that matter, I often found the older recruits to be more mature and responsible than the under-21 crowd that still had a lot of growing up to do.

I mention all of this because of a news wire that crossed my computer screen this week: a 41-year-old Tucson woman has just enlisted in the Army and passed all her initial screening as she ships out to Fort Leonard Wood for Basic Training. But what makes Laurie-Ann Fuca's case so interesting (beside the fact that she's doing something that young men half her age won't do) is that she probably has a better idea than any other recruit about what it means to join the contemporary Army: her 19-year-old son deployed to Iraq just three weeks ago. Fuca, who hopes to become a combat medic (and whose friends "laughed their heads off" when she told them of her enlistment), is actually a Canadian native who has been a US citizen for the last ten years; her father, sister, and brother have served or are serving with the Canadian Forces.  In the article, she says that she always wanted to serve in the military, but was unable because she was a full-time mom. Now she's getting the opportunity to live her dream, and to serve her (adopted) country, to boot. Congratulations, Laurie-Ann, and welcome to the team!

UPDATE: I just wanted to note that Stubborn Facts beat Drudge in noticing this by over two weeks--Tully

WARNING: A clear and unapologetic conflict of interest follows...

It's time for some shameless promotion of mi novia, Mercedes Stephenson! In the current issue of Chatelaine, a leading Canadian women's magazine with a paid circulation of 645,044 (second only to Reader's Digest in Canada), Mercedes has a featured article entitled "Hitting Home," in which she provides an informal analysis of the foiled Canadian terror plot and wraps it up into the greater overall context of Islamist jihad, the Global War on Terror, and why all Canadians (and Americans) should understand this threat. Bringing complex international security issues into the mainstream memory bank has always been one of Mercedes' chief goals, and Chatelaine is providing her an excellent opportunity to capitalize on the success of her television program, "The URC Investigates." So if you live in Canada, stop by the news stand and grab yourself a copy!

Even if you're not in Canada, the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television has nominated Mercedes in their 21st Annual Gemini Awards Viewers' Choice Award for Lifestyle Host. This is a tremendous accomplishment for Mercedes, whose show has only been around for two seasons but has rapidly established its reputation because of the quality of the documentary research and the credentials of her high-profile guests (who have included Senator Hugh Segal, chairman of Canada's Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, Canadian Forces; and Oxford Lecturer Dr. Jennifer Welsh, author of At Home in the World: Canada's Global Vision for the 21st Century)-- not to mention her own formidable intellect, articulation, and eloquence. Fan voting will determine the Top Five, and Mercedes isn't sure she'll be able to break in against the rather impressive competition (including Kim Cattrall-- yes, that Kim Cattrall), but she hopes to make the Top Ten, and-- who knows?-- she just might be able to surprise people yet again. So if you're so inclined (and seriously, who isn't?), follow this link and click on (what she calls) her (very bad) picture [she's in the second column, third row from the bottom], and cast your vote for Mercedes as Favorite Host. You don't have to register, you just have to leave your name, email address, and zip code [US or Canadian zips are fine, and "All personal information will be kept confidential and is only used to verify your vote"], so what are you waiting for? Click away and vote!

Quietly, without fanfare or noise, NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) assumed international responsibility for counterinsurgency and reconstruction operations in southern Afghanistan from the US-led Coalition (Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan). Under this arrangement, ISAF now has authority over military operations in the north, west, and southern provinces of Afghanistan, while the Coalition maintains responsibility for the "eastern" provinces (Paktika, Ghazni, Bamyan, Maydan Wardak, Logar, Khowst, Nangahar, Kabul, Parwan, Laghman, Kunar, Nuristan and Panjsher). Make no doubt about it, this is a tremendous step forward for a NATO alliance that has-- from inception-- been defensively-oriented and prone to inaction in a world that seemingly requires expeditionary operations more than ever. While, in a sense, this move appears to be window dressing (the forces in southern Afghanistan are mostly British, Canadian, and Dutch who will now merely report to a different three-star commander, from American LTG Karl Eikenberry to British Lt. Gen. David Richards), it really marks a tremendous departure from previous traditions. Even in Kosovo, which was fought under a NATO banner, the US Air Force provided more than ninety percent of the resources needed to influence Milosevic's regime-- and that was in Europe's backyard. Afghanistan really is different.

French reporter Leon Bruneau, surveying the Afghan landscape in the south and noting the active insurgency that British forces have encountered in Helmund, argues that this is NATO's "moment of truth"-- noting that Europeans prefer to see their militaries used for "peacekeeping" and not counterinsurgency, Bruneau writes: "Given hostilities in the south, where insurgents have made hit-and-run attacks across the Pakistani border as new troops moved in, NATO could be drawn into fighting that exceeds its mission." Ron Synovitz of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty notes that NATO has drawn up its most highly permissive rules of engagement yet for the ISAF mission:

According to a TIME story, Jimmy McCain, the youngest son of US Senator and Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, has enlisted in the Marine Corps. Although this isn't the first of McCain's children to follow down the path of military service (that's practically a rite of passage for their family) -- older brother, Jack, just finished his plebe year at Annapolis -- Jimmy could be the first to find himself in a hostile fire zone (TIME reports it could be as soon as this time next year), if he reports to a unit that gets deployed as a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU)-- and given the current optempo, I'm guessing he stands a very good chance of seeing that happen.

Interestingly, Senator McCain was not excited to see the story in print, apparently preferring it remain the private decision of an eighteen year old (as it so often really is). But the article nonetheless goes to great lengths to reflect on how it might affect the political landscape in 2008, not to mention his expected ascension to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee in January.

In any case, despite knowing his family's unique history, I think that Jimmy should have taken his oath with the nation's best and oldest service... After all, service is service, but why play for the Padres when you can be a Dodger? Still, there's no denying that the US Marine Corps don't have a history and a legacy of its own-- one that is unsurpassed in world history-- and I wish him the best as he joins the few and the proud in becoming a brave and honored defender of our nation and our nation's values -- I only wish that more of his generation would have been raised with the same sense of duty. But welcome to the profession of arms, Jimmy!

Sometimes it's hard to look at the developments of the world and not get depressed. The Dodgers have lost 11 of their 12 games since emerging from the All-Star break, falling into sole possession of last place in the NL West, and 5.5 games behind the Division-leading San Diego Padres. That's not an insurmountable lead to overcome, but it doesn't look good for the Dodgers, even after trading away disgruntled pitcher Odalis Perez and two minor league pitchers (Blake Johnson and Julio Pimentel) to the Kansas City Royals for Elmer Dessens. I still think they're going to win the Division-- and getting speedster Jason Repko back from the DL is only going to help in that capacity-- but it's going to be an uphill battle and a tough challenge for the Blue Crew.

Another uphill battle this season was recently described by former Marine helicopter pilot and Orange County entrepreneur Quang Pham, author of A Sense of Duty, who has recently joined the OC Blog's team of quality bloggers. In "Switching Sides: Tan Nguyen for Congress Updates," Quang notes the problems that Loretta Sanchez's latest challenger Tan Nguyen faces in gaining the endorsements and raising the funds to overcome the incumbent's tremendous campaign warchest. It doesn't look good: Tan loaned $349,000 to his campaign, but has barely $13,000 cash on hand and his campaign doesn't report another fundraiser until early October; by comparison, Loretta has $960,705 cash on hand and continues to pull in money from PACs, special interest groups, and liberals across the country. Tan's chances look more like the Royals' than the Dodgers' chances of making the post-season, and that's a real uphill battle.

Meanwhile, the Arab American Institute, which has been flooding my inbox with email since the Israeli military action in Lebanon, has launched a heavy criticism of Congressional Democrats in their latest press release. The AAI tends to be critical of the Bush Administration (perhaps because its President, James Zogby, is a former Clinton staffer... but then again, who isn't critical of the Administration these days?)-- most recently with a demand that the President seek an immediate ceasefire between the hostile parties. At the moment, however, the AAI is criticizing the likes of Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Charles Schumer, and House Democrat Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel for recently demanding (at threat of boycott) that the House remove Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki from addressing their body. Al-Maliki's transgression? Apparently he called for a ceasefire and criticized Israeli aggression. According to the AAI, the height of this criticism came in the form of:

Every once in a great while, something comes along that completely redefines the system and changes the way things work. Almost paradoxically, it seems that (as often as not) when these moments occur, we generally don't realize it until well after the fact or, if we're actually aware of the revolutionary change coming before us, we tend to be suspicious and resist such changes to the status quo. This was the case, for example, when Zack Snyder directed a re-make of George Romero's classic zombie movie, "Dawn of the Dead." Knowing that the zombie franchise was in trouble because slow, plodding undead buffoons just don't inspire terror in movie watchers, Snyder took a page from "28 Days Later" (whose zombies aren't undead, but the "infected") and made his zombies run. That's right, they run. Fast. And if you weren't expecting it, it really does catch you by surprise when Sarah Polley's husband leaps onto the car and starts punching her windshield. But Romero fans being dogmatic zealots who can't suffer any departure from canon, this was taken as a sign of insult to their cherished traditions (which only makes me wonder, if they want no deviation from the original, why even bother with a re-make?).

Or witness Bill Walsh and the emergence of the "West Coast offense" during his tenure as head coach of the San Francisco 49ers. Today, most of the NFL is using Walsh's playbook and formations, but when he first came to the Bay Area, the league still believed that the key to offensive success was establishing a solid running game, which would draw in the secondary and open up the defense to be exploited by the passing attack. Walsh, on the other hand, posited that precision passing drills could force the defense into guarding against the pass, thereby creating running lanes for the running backs. Because NFL coaches were slow to change their styles, Walsh (with help of a quarterback named Joe Montanta) was able to exploit the league for Super Bowl championships in 1981, 1984, and 1988, before the rest of professional football (and indeed most of college football) adopted the method as well. In fact, throughout the nineties, successive USC Trojan coaches and alumni argued that the program would only return to greatness when they were able to restore the Power-I of the glory years. Granted, the Power-I served the Trojans well when Mike Garrett, O.J. Simpson, Anthony Davis, Ricky Bell, Charles White, and Marcus Allen carried the football, but those teams (as great as they were) never had the success that Pete Carroll and Norm Chow were able to generate when they handed the football to quarterbacks Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart.

Just a little reminder that theories, philosophies, ideologies, policies, and plain old good ideas are ultimately meaningless without men and women of action on the ground to implement them...

A colleague at a World Affairs Council dinner last night directed me to this Los Angeles Times article about my once and future boss, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, formerly the top dog in Afghanistan and now, for the last year, the top American official in Iraq. Although it's not as in-depth as other articles I've read -- Jon Lee Anderson's "American Viceroy" in The New Yorker, is a good one if you're looking for more -- it still provides an interesting look at the man who is leading our civilian efforts on the ground in Iraq.

Every once in a while, something comes across my screen that reminds me of why Jonathan Swift was so successful at writing satire. I got this Yahoo article in an email from a friend and West Point classmate who is currently commanding a company in Iraq. It's too interesting not to post:

RAFAH, Gaza Strip (AFP) - Wearing a green Hamas headband, waving a Hamas flag, swinging a Kalashnikov and chanting for Israel's demise, Bassem Shorah looks to be a prototypical Palestinian militant.

His olive green shirt, however, tells a different story. It's a spot-on replica of those worn by soldiers in the United States Army, replete with combat patches and unit designations.

Though he's a committed Islamist activist in a movement that denounces the United States for supporting Israel and occupying Iraq, Shorah proudly sports what has become the latest trend in Palestinian street wear: US military apparel.

Now how do you define irony again? Swift could not have written this better, even if he had Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mark Twain leaning over his shoulder...

After the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, as critics argued the event was meaningless and unworthy of celebration, I commented at Centerfield using the analogy of scoring a touchdown in a football game-- it is by no means complete or decisive, but is still a positive development for our team, and therefore worthy of responsible celebration (so long as we remember there's plenty left to play and we're going to need score a few more touchdowns). I did, however, note that this touchdown was potentially less remarkable for putting points on the board than it was for the manner in which we might have done it-- after all, if reports that the strike against Zarqawi was the "result of intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by residents in the area" prove true, then I hypothesized that we should really be celebrating right now. In a guerrilla war such as Iraq, victory comes not from killing every single adversary (such a "scorched earth" tactic almost always fails), but from isolating the insurgent from the population that supports him. Mao noted that an insurgent must move through the population like a fish through the water-- when the two are separated, his cause will fail.

Then, too, the capture of Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) leader Abimael Guzman is often (mistakenly) pointed to as the decisive event that ended that Peruvian insurgency. In fact, far more decisive than his capture was the Fujimori government's decision to arm the rondas-- local self-defense militias that had emerged to fight the Sendero guerrillas. In doing so, the Peruvian campesinos were able to resist Sendero terror tactics, and drive a wedge between them and the population. That precipitated the collapse of the Shining Path; in fact, it enabled the capture of Guzman.

And now we see this report by USA Today writer Rick Jervis, that the Iraqi government may be considering arming local insurgent groups so that they can fight the foreign fighters (such as Al Qaeda) in their midst. Excerpts follow: