Iraqi Hackers crack Military Dones

For now, insurgents have only gained access to the video feeds from drones, but it appears that using off-the-shelf hacking tools they have gained valuable intelligence about American military operations in Iraq. This highlights the fact the age of dual-use technology is not just about making better toys available to the rest of us, but also about putting sub-standard security into some of our military hardware. This needs to be rethought before any war with a "real" enemy.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

U.S. officials say there is no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.

U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have used off-the-shelf programs to intercept video feeds from Predator unmanned aircraft.
The drone intercepts mark the emergence of a shadow cyber war within the U.S.-led conflicts overseas.

Gotta admit, I had not seen it this way

From Townhall.Com

What the "Shoe Throwing Incident" really means

Much is being made of an incident over the weekend where an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at President George W. Bush. The touching of the soles of ones shoes to a person is considered a great insult in the Iraqi culture, and the journalist intended to condemn the poor job Bush has done in the war and the suggestion that Americans could be in the country for many years to come.'

The incident is being viewed by many as a repudiation of Bush and a major international incident. But it should be seen as what it truly is. A sign of a slowly maturing democracy, where people are confident enough in the protection of their freedom that they can protest without fear of reprisal. Do we think in the culture of Sadaam Hussein's Iraq that such a thing could happen without someone dying? Do we think it is even possible today in nearby friendly countries like Saudi Arabia? Nope. This is a sign that Iraqis - while upset at the situation in many ways - are confident that they have freedoms and that they will be protected. This is a good thing.

Perspective on the Iraqi Withdrawal Date

One of the most under-reported stories of the Thanksgiving season was the Iraqi and American governments signing a treaty to authorize American troops in Iraq thru 2009 and setting a withdrawal date in 2010. Charles Krauthammer has up a good analysis of the deal achieved, and what it means for Iraq's government and people. The short version: It shows a much more mature parliament than we expected to ever see in Iraq only a year ago.

Iraqi Cabinet sets withdrawal dates for U.S. troops

As predicted, anyone who voted for Obama because he would withdraw troops from Iraq has had their vote made irrelevant. The Iraqi cabinet has set dates for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. They claim the dates are firm and we are required to honor them.

The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said.

Honestly, it is a good thing. It shows a level of maturity and confidence in the Iraqi government. Hopefully, it is truly reflective of the realities on the ground.

In case you missed it, we invaded Syria on Sunday

Apparently, while Democrats were obsessed with the idea of Bush ordering an invasion of Iran before the election, Special Forces instead decided to enter Syria in pursuit of Al Qaeda. Syria is furious.

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

Hopefully, this does not mean we are entering a new phase of the war. But some quotes from officials in the article make it sound like the military is trying to get in a few parting shots before the election.

Refuted? Obama tried to delay Iraq Agreement

The Iraqi Foreign Minister has refuted claims that Barack Obama tried to delay the latest Iraqi agreements until after the election. This claim was reported here on Friday, so I felt it important to report this ASAP. Things still seem to be somewhat confused as to what did happen, but it appears the worst accusations are untue.

Claim: Obama tried to delay Iraq agreement

Okay, I was going to make today a "politics-free zone" here at Mod-Blog, since we have had some contentious debates this week. But I don't see how I can NOT post this one. The Washington Times, an admittedly right-leaning paper, is claiming Obama tried to delay a deal to begin phasing out U.S. troops until after the election. Presumably, this would be to echo the Iranian situation with Jimmy Carter where the hostages were released only after Ronald Reagan was elected, handing him a political bonanza.

"In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States.

He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.

I really hope this is false, or at least greatly exaggerated. I'd like to hope both Obama and McCain are more honorable than this. But I hope the facts come out quickly, rather than leaving us with 4 weeks of charges and counter-charges. One can't help wondering if this is the "October Surprise" for this cycle.

Time to go, or time to surge again?

If John McCain's view of the Iraq War is to prevail, he needs many articles like this one. From an embedded reporter, it calls upon Congress to learn the lessons of the war and send MORE troops not less.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

The problem, of course, is that American patience for the war is almost spent. Fighting any war is always a balance between the needs of the war and the resources of the people. A war between "good enough", and the perfect solution. Some charge the reason we're here now, is an unwillingness to accept "good enough" and an attempt to impose American Ideals on an Iraq without an American history to build upon.

I am not sure which is right, but I think now is the time for McCain and Obama/Clinton to truly have the debate. Otherewise, it will be more politics where neither side can compromise with the other. And compromise in Iraq is a good part of what has turned this War around.

Should Iraq Pay For Its Own Reconstruction?

Iraq is sitting on a bunch of oil which is worth quite a lot these days. This has prompted Senators Carl Levin (D - Michigan) and John Warner (R - Virginia) to ask, "Where's the money?" Estimates are that Iraq will earn at least $100 million because of oil for 2007 and 2008 combined. To date, we've spend around $47 billion trying to reconstruct Iraq. Iraq can't even figure out how to spend the $10.1 billion it has allocated for reconstruction.

Is it fair to require Iraq to spend on its own reconstruction or will this just create resentment like in the post-Civil War South?

How can we enforce the requirements we've put on Iraq? On the one hand, if we say, "Do this by X date or we will leave," we've given the terrorists a timetable. We've told them that all they have to do is create enough havoc until that date. On the other hand, if we don't somehow enforce it, then we give the Iraqi government no incentive to not have us foot the bill.

I honestly believe that there are people in Iraq that want to be free, but does Iraq as a country really want to be free? Is this just a case of being under a dictator for so long that it takes a while to get the concept of freedom like post-Soviet Russia?

I believe that we want Iraq to be stable. I believe that if we leave now, we'll have sent a message that the terrorists won and we'll just have to redo what we've done before. That being said, if Iraq wants a ruler, I'm not sure I like the idea of having the U.S. holding Iraq as a territory, at least from a PR standpoint.

Iraqis miss all targets for progress

I still support the Iraq War. There. I have said it. And I mean it. It was a good thing to remove the madman Sadaam Hussein from power - stopping the filling of mass graves - and the only way it was going to happen was by application of military force. But it is becoming harder and harder to support the peace, as every report shows an Iraqi government unwilling or unable to make progress.

A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.
One likely result of the report will be a vastly accelerated debate among President Bush's top aides on withdrawing troops and scaling back the U.S. presence in Iraq.
The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released, the official said.
"The facts are not in question," the official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft is still under discussion. "The real question is how the White House proceeds with a post-surge strategy in light of the report."

I have beeen thinking for some time about the best way to address this situation, since we all knew that at the very least not EVERY target would be met. Where do we go from here? After all, Sadaam Hussein slaughtered all of the best and brightest, so it is not a great shock that those who remain lack experience. But at the same time, there comes a time when you stop making excuses and start forcing accountabiliity. One wonders how different a presidential race it will be if the troops are out of Iraq by Election Day 2008.

Russia Counters

Russia has countered our proposal for a missile defense system by saying that we should put our missile defense in Turkey, Iraq, or on sea platforms. So, let me get this straight... putting our missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic is a threat to Russia's balance of power, but putting them in Turkey or Iraq which appear to be *closer* to Russia is okay? I read somewhere that one of the Russian leaders in this is former KGB and wants to return to the Soviet Union style Russia. Is this Russia admitting that they want Poland and the Czech Republic back?

The link above is a NY Times article which seemed to have a good summary and a small number of ads. For those that prefer, here is a USA Today article (Unfortunately, it appears to have a pop-up, but the FireFox pop-up blocker blocks it).

For those wondering where Azerbaijan is, you can see it on the map just north of Iran.

Another cool thing, apparently the NY Times allows you to double click words on their site to get a definition (such as finding out about Azerbaijan). Very cool.

What we do affects our families, too.

CNN has up an article about the Muslim owners of a pizza restaurant right outside of Fort Dix where 7 men were arrested recently for plotting a killing spree against American servicemen. One of those arrested was the son of the owner and the plotters chose the restaurant as a cover because it delivered to the base. Now, soldiers and base personnel are shunning the pizzeria. CNN appears to be mourning this as punishing the innocent father for the sins of the son.

This is an important lesson for those who would harbor the enemies of America, and not anything that the Fort Dix crowd should be ashamed of. What we do reflects not only upon us, but also upon our families. The son of the owner needs to learn that his crime is not in isolation, but affects the whole world.

If you doubt the kinds of monsters we're dealing with in Iraq...

...read this story and be reminded. The American military discovered this week that a new girls school being built north of Baghdad literally had artillery shells baked into the foundation!!! detonating cord has been run throughout the building, turning the school into a building-wise IED (improvised explosive device). Discovered by accident, it shows an Al Qaeda attempt to murder perhaps hundreds of innocent little girls, merely to generate terror for their parents and to make the point that educating females is against Bin Ladin's idea of proper Islam.

I truly do not understand why Feminists like Nancy Pelosi refuse to speak out on things like this. If we leave Iraq and Al Qaeda moves in, they will want to impose a Taliban-style government which sends women back to the times when they had no place in public discourse... or even the public space at all. Are they so focused on embarrassing GWB, that they don't care about this?

GWB Vetoes War Spending Bill

We caught the president's speech yesterday explaining his reasoning for vetoing the Democratic spending bill for the War in IRaq. Essentially, he gave two reasons: (1) giving a date for withdrawal only telegraphs to the enemy how and when to plan the next attack, and (2) the bill is so laden with pork that in many ways it is less a war spending bill than a homeland appropriations bill. The Democrats in Congress have immediately mobilized to contain the political damage (hardly suprising since they knew this veto was coming) but already seem a but shrill in their feigned shock and outrage.

While I understand the Democratic need to pander to their base, I do not see how they hope to win this one. Do they really want to open themselves to charges of sending the troops into battle with insufficient armor or weapons or ammunition? The commander-in-chief already has them over there, and the Constitution only gives Congress power over the purse. It seems to me that it would be more logical for them to threaten to not vote on any Judicial Appointments or some other priority of the president's until he agrees to concessions, rather than punishing the troops. Well, we shall see.

Selling Internet in Iraq

Ever wonder what it takes to have a business of selling internet access in Iraq? Here is an account of the struggles two Californians have had. Sounds like the pay is good, but personally, I'd rather not have to always be watching my back.