Rumsfeld, armor, and reactions: Part 2 (production and capability in general)

Overview

This post will begin to examine the production and capability issue. As I said in Part 1, when I first read Rumskull's comments about production and capability, they seemed reasonable to me. Capacity in manufacturing cannot be increased instantaneously. It does take some time. As a result, production likely will lag behind demand for some period. Still, upon further reflection, I had many questions. What was the demand--as defined by the military--for armored vehicles when the war started? When was the need for more armored vehicles discovered? Why was it not discovered sooner? What had to be done to increase the production capacity? When did that start? What type of production are we talking about--up-armored Humvees, other armored vehicles, armor to be installed in theater, etc.? And more...

A few basic facts

• Initial number of up-armored Humvees, lack of armored vehicles in general, and the increase in demand

As reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, prior to the war, the Defense Department had requested 235 up-armored Humvees for use in Iraq. And according to Stars and Stripes and Newsday, at the end of major combat operations on May 1, 2003, there were indeed only 235 up-armored Humvees in Iraq.

However, according to Army Maj. Gary Tallman, a Pentagon spokesman, "By August (2003), CENTCOM wanted 1,233 of the Humvees in Iraq, and by September that request had shot up to 3,000." In March of this year, Greg Jaffe wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal which stated that the demand for armored humvees at that time was 4500 and climbing. I found excerpts of the WSJ article here and here. The second link is for a post entitled "Army's Cold War thinking impeded production of armored HMMWV" by Phillip Carter at Intel Dump. Carter's post includes the following:

If you look at the Army's vehicle fleet generally, you will see that very few vehicles have any sort of armor or crew protection at all. The vast majority of Army HMMWVs (humvees) and cargo trucks were designed to move in a permissive "rear area" environment, and thus they have nothing but fibreglass and canvas to protect their occupants. Similarly, if you look at the Modified Table of Organization and Equipment for most "rear area" units -- from maintenance companies to medical companies to signal companies -- you will see a noticeable lack of combat equipment. These support units lack crew-served weapons, night-vision goggles, GPS systems, and tactical radios. Simply put, they don't have the equipment necessary to protect themselves while they do their support mission.

(emphasis added). The point I want to emphasize here is that we are not just talking about Humvees, which answers one of the questions I posed above. Almost all of the media coverage and DoD response has dealt with only humvees.

• Initial reaction--ship up-armormed Humvees from other areas to Iraq

While there were only 235 up-armored Humvees in Iraq at the start of the war, efforts to get more of the vehicles to Iraq started in July 2003 when, according to Stars and Stripes, the U.S. European Command began shifting 600 up-armored Humvees to Iraq. Most of those vehicles came from the Balkans.

The movement of armored Humvees out of the Balkans has been an easy transition, according to officials there.

“The Army is looking at administration and staff sections [in Bosnia and Herzegovina] that really don’t have a need for these [armored] Humvees,” said Army Capt. Chuck Traxler, a spokesman for U.S. troops in Bosnia.

“The environment in Bosnia is fairly stable compared to other areas,” he said, and noted that the public affairs office has three armored Humvees that have not been used in 18 months. Those vehicles are earmarked for Iraq.

There are two matters related to this portion of the Stars and Stripes article I want to highlight now. First, remember that the shift of up-armored Humvees began in July 2003. I will explain the importance of that fact in a subsequent post. Second, recall that in the first post on this topic, I noted that on December 8, 2004, Rumskull said "The other day...I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They'’re not there anymore. They'’re en route out here, I can assure you," and then I wrote

That's great, Don, but why were they at the Pentagon in the first place instead of in a war zone where our troops are getting killed? And why did it take until November 2004 for you to get them en route to Iraq?

Let me see if I understand...Bosnia--a former war zone and an area that is still subject to violence--is a more stable environment than the Pentagon. Am I missing something here?

• Production rates

The company which produces the up-armored Humvees, O’'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt (which is owned by Armor Holdings), originally produced 30 a month, and by November 2003, there were plans to up production to 80 per month, and then increase to 220 per month by spring 2004 (these figures came from the Stars and Stripes article). On the one hand, the amount of time needed to increase production this much is understandable. As Maj. Tallman said in June 2004, "When you go from 235 to all units, that is a very large increase to say the least. It took a while to ramp up." In other words, generally speaking, no major manufacturing plant can double (much less increase by 700%) its production capacity overnight. On the other hand, it seems that production could have been increased at a faster rate. As the Indianapolis Star reported on May 7, 2004,

[T]op Army officials insisted they were ordering as many of the trucks as could be made in Indiana and armored in Ohio.

They turned out to be wrong. Last fall, Army officials insisted that 80 armored Humvees could be produced a month, then raised that estimate to 220. In reality, AM General Corp. of South Bend and Armor Holdings of Fairfield, Ohio, are capable of turning out hundreds more a month, according to company officials.

*******

Robert Mecredy, a president of Armor Holdings, which owns O'Gara-Hess, said he "started going ballistic" last fall when he realized O'Gara-Hess was considered the bottleneck. "I put on a full-court press to address the notion that Armor Holdings was incapable of meeting the requirements."

*******

(Brian) Hart (whose son was killed in an unarmored humvee) said he phoned O'Gara-Hess officials and learned the armorer could expand production. In December, Hart alerted several politicians' staff members. The information reached Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., an Armed Services Committee member.

Reed toured the Ohio plant and confirmed Hart's information. "For the longest time they were willing to produce many more vehicles than the Army was ordering," Reed said.

Pressed by Bayh, Kennedy, Reed and others, Brownlee toured AM General and O'Gara-Hess in February. Orders for the armored vehicles soon escalated to 300 a month. The Ohio plant is ramping up for that now.

Bayh said he thinks the Army stuck to its order for 220 Humvees a month to try to keep the cost of the war down.

"People in the Pentagon were aware these vehicles could be produced in larger numbers."

I really hope that Senator Bayh's view on keeping costs down is wrong. By September 2004, the production rate had increased to 450 per month. And then the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that two days after Rumskull's original comments, Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox said that O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt "could do more than 450 and if asked to do more we will do more." As Newsweek put it,

The Humvee armoring company had told reporters only a few days before that it was operating at 22 percent under capacity, but that there were no more orders from the Pentagon...(The Pentagon claims it did not know about the additional capacity until the head of O'Gara's holding company, Armor Holdings of Jacksonville, Fla., announced last week that it was possible.

This makes the second time that the Pentagon was apparently unaware that O'’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt was capable of increasing production. In any event, the Pentagon has increased its demand to 550 per month, and O’'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt expects to reach that level by March 2005.

• Add-on armor

Here I will not address "hillbilly armor," which refers to soldiers finding whatever they can find in theater to add to their vehicles. In this post I will instead address the production of armor kits specifically designed to be fitted on vehicles in theater.

The WSJ article stated that as of March 19, 2004, the Army was "scrambling to produce about 8,400 add-on armor kits that can be bolted to existing Humvees with sheet-metal or fiberglass skin and canvas doors."

And great emphasis was being placed on such add-on kits as of December 2004. A December 11, 2004, New York Times article ("Pentagon Asks Contractor to Speed Production of Armored Humvees") said

As late as yesterday morning, Army officials in charge of providing equipment to soldiers said that what was needed were not more new armored Humvees, but rather more of the conversion kits being produced that add armor to existing Humvees. They said that the kits could be removed, allowing the Army to convert the Humvees back into lighter vehicles when they were no longer needed in life-threatening situations like the attacks soldiers are facing in Iraq.

The Philadelphia Inquirer article referenced above added that "All humvees used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be equipped with armor plating by March, and trucks and other heavy equipment there will receive similar upgrades by summer, the Pentagon said yesterday."

• Where are we now?
  

Here are two summaries of the numbers, from the Philadelphia Inquirer (Dec. 11, 2004) and Newsweek (Dec. 20, 2004), respectively:

The U.S. military has about 19,000 humvees in its Central Command area, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Tesia Williams, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Materiel Command, said 15,000 of them had some degree of armor protection. The remaining 4,000 will be armored in the coming months, she said yesterday.

About 1,900 of the 5,900 trucks, trailers and other heavy vehicles also have had the upgrade, Williams said. The rest are scheduled to be completed by the summer.

*******

Of the 19,782 Humvees currently in the Iraq theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a little more than a quarter, or 5,910, are the new M-1114 model, which is armored top to bottom and can withstand the weight because it has an improved transmission, a 6.5-liter turbo diesel engine and a tougher chassis. An additional 4,737 Humvees have no armor, and most of the rest have been modified with add-on kits.

Wrap-up and preview of my add-ons

In some ways, the information above does not show any screw-ups by Rumskull or the Defense Department or the Army. One could conclude that the powers that be saw a need for adjustments and took actions as quickly as reasonably possible. Here's an example of a similar conclusion from Newsweek:

Gary Motsek, director of support operations for Army Materiel Command...says the Army has adjusted faster than many people realize. Last fall, he notes, when the Army realized the gravity of the insurgency, engineers at the Army Research Lab at Aberdeen, Md., designed the add-on armor kits for the Humvees "over a weekend."

(emphasis added). I--and here's a big surprise--do not make the conclusion that the powers that be acted in such a timely manner. That is in part due to additional information related to the emphasized portion of the preceding quote. See, the conclusion that the powers that be acted in a timely and reasonable manner depends on "when the Army realized the gravity of the insurgency" and similar issues. That will be addressed in Part 3.

Merry Christmas!

Here's wishing good will to all people and peace on earth.

Some Christmas Eve thoughts

We Christians celebrate on this night the birth of Jesus. As told in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary through the Immaculate Conception. As stated in the description of "my humble home in the blogosphere," I am a United Methodist with unconventional views, and this post will express some of those views.

I happen to believe in the story of the Virgin Birth, but not because it is written in the Gospels. Rather, my belief in the Virgin Birth is based on my belief that anything and everything is possible with God. If that's not unconventional enough for you, just wait...Even if it is conclusively proved that the Virgin Birth did not happen, I would not care. I believe that Jesus was and is Christ, and my belief does not require that the Virgin Birth story be true. And the basis for my belief is...?

Christmas is one of two major Christian holidays related to Jesus. In basic terms, Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus, and the other major holiday, Easter, commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, it seems to me that the focus of many Christians is primarily on these two events (the huge popularity of Mel Gibson's film is some evidence of this). More to the point, I feel that the majority of Christians place too much emphasis on these two events and ignore the life of Jesus. Jesus said that the most important commandment was to love God with all your heat, soul, mind, and strength, and then he said another commandment is like it--love your neighbor as yourself. See Matthew 22:36-40 and Mark 12:28-31. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus provided examples of how to achieve these commandments. Stated differently, through his life, not his birth or resurrection, Jesus showed how to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. Yet where are the celebrations of this? Where is the emphasis on this in the institutional Christian church?

The Virgin Birth and the Resurrection serve to highlight the divine nature of Jesus. However, it seems that the institutional church and many Christians place little emphasis on the fact that Jesus was not only Son of God, but also Son of Man. Indeed, Jesus constantly refers to Himself as Son of Man, not Son of God. The point here is that Jesus was a human being, subject to the same weaknesses and foibles as any of the rest of us. Were He not, why would Satan have bothered trying to tempt Jesus? Why would Jesus have prayed in Gethsemane for "this cup" (His trial and crucifixion) to be removed? See Matthew 26:36-39 and Mark 14:32-36. If He was only divine and not human, why would He express such reservation?

My belief in Jesus as Christ rests in what I see as the fact that Jesus--as a human--achieved total and complete union with God in this physical existence. Jesus is known by many other terms: Christ, Messiah, Lamb of God, Exemplar...Jesus achieved perfect union with God, and His life provides an example of how we can do the same.

For me, of the three main aspects of Jesus--His Birth, His life, and His death and resurrection--His life is the most important. Was Jesus the Christ just because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary? If His life had ended when He was a child, would we worship Jesus as the Savior? If Jesus had grown up to be a juvenile delinquent, would we worship Him as Christ? Not likely. Consequently, I maintain that the Virgin Birth--standing alone--does not make Jesus the Christ. As for the Resurrection, I believe that the lesson is not that Jesus overcame death, but rather that death never really was present. I'll save a detailed discussion of that topic for the spring, but here I will say that this view also deals with life rather than death. And so I return to the life of Jesus. Jesus stated what the two most important commandments were and are. Indeed, he said "There is no other commandment greater than these," (Mark 12:31) and "On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets" (Matthew 22:40). And by and through His life, Jesus taught and showed how to carry out these commandments. That is why my faith is based on the life of Jesus.

Does that mean I think anyone who does not agree with me is wrong? No. This belief is what works for me. It may or may not work for others. See, I believe that however one achieves the two commandments given by Jesus is fine. If someone believes that the Virgin Birth is absolutely the most important aspect of Christianity and also satisfies the commandments from Jesus, I have no problem with that person's beliefs.

Does this post mean that I think Christmas is not important? No. The birth of Jesus deserves a most joyous celebration. Without the birth of Jesus, we never would have had the life of Jesus. His birth was the Word made flesh (John 1:14). It was a miraculous, joyous event. It did mark the beginning of a new age of possible peace on Earth. However, we need to keep in mind that birth is a beginning of life. It is an opportunity to then truly live. It is important to celebrate the birth of Jesus, but it is also important to celebrate His life by following the example He gave us. His birth should remind us of that as we celebrate this Christmas season.

Another on target cartoon from David Horsey

Here is a cartoon by David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It sums up not only the Rumskull armor flap but also a great deal about the whole Iraq war. Go to the Post-Intelligencer online to see archives of Horsey's work.

More opinions on the Rumsfeld/armor furor

I am working on several more posts on this matter, but in the meantime, I encourage you to go to Soldiers for the Truth and check out the special section devoted to this issue. There you will find many columns and letters looking at many of the varied aspects of this issue--including analysis and opinions that are different from mine.

More on Rumsfeld--ahead of schedule

As the saying goes, "Life is what happens when you have something else planned." In my previous post, I gave a preview of upcoming analysis on the Rumsfeld armor furor, and then today I see a story that really addresses a topic I intended to cover toward the end of the series. I will still do that, but I think a brief (for me) statement now about this story is needed.

When I went online this afternoon, the first thing I noticed was a link to a story about Rumskull. The article is entitled After Outcry, Rumsfeld Says He Will Sign Condolences, and the line beneath the headline is "Report Reveals His Signature Was Stamped on Letters to Dead Soldiers' Families." It turns out that the condolence letters sent from Rumsfeld to the families of those killed in action contained Rummy's stamped signature, and some people are upset:

But several families of troops killed overseas said they were sure the notes they received hadn't been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld wasn't paying attention to their loss.

"To me it's an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq," Army Spc. Ivan Medina told Stripes.

"This doesn't show our families the respect they deserve," said Medina, a New York resident whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer.

Illinois resident Bette Sullivan, whose son John was killed in November 2003 while working as an Army mechanic in Iraq, was incensed when she, her son's wife and her grandchildren received the exact same condolence letter with the apparently stamped signature.

NOTE: By the time I finished writing this post, the article had been revised, and it no longer contains the excerpts quoted above.

I agree that Rumskull should take the time to personally sign each letter. I understand why families are angry. If I was in their position, I, too, would be angry.

However, where was this kind of outrage over George W. Bush doing exactly the same thing? Go check out the "Letters" section of my post on Defense 3 as to why Bush has not attended any funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The article referenced above also has a statement from a White House spokesman "said that Bush does personally sign the letters sent from the White House." Maybe he does now, but he did not before. Sure, Rumskull is in charge of the Armed Services. However, he is not the Commander in Chief, nor is he the supposed leader of our nation, nor is he the person who gave the order for this war. Where was the outrage over Bush sending out two-line form letters with stamped signatures? At least Rumsfeld had the balls to admit he had not personally signed the letters.

So what does this have to do with Rumsfeld? Well, in the short time since he made his comments about the armor on December 8, the public criticism of Rumskull has just exploded. And there are at least two significant aspects to this criticism: 1) its intensity, and 2) it recent sources, namely people from the right wing. Folks such as William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Trent Lott have been highly critical of Rumskull. [NOTE: For all you right wingers, Kristol is one of the conservatives I respect because he does not merely spout the party line. When he sees something he thinks is wrong, he will say so--even if in doing so he criticizes the Bush administration.] And there are other Republicans who have suddenly decided to throw Rummy under the bus. Here's my problem: why are such people just now jumping all over Rumsfeld? Yes, his comments about the armor were boneheaded and insensitive, but that was oh so far from the first time he has said something stupid and insensitive. Moreover, when you look at the surface of the totality of what he said about the armor, it doesn't seem that bad. It's only when you look beneath the surface that it all starts to smell bad. And the real point is that he has done SO many things before now that have been so damaging and--in my opinion--criminal, and only now is he coming under such heavy fire.

Where the hell has the media been all this time? And by the way, anyone who wants to claim that the media is the "liberal media" can just pucker up and kiss my ass. And even on this story (about the stamped signatures) the media has been slow to act. The article I reference was published today. However, that article notes that David Hackworth (you can read his regular column and much more at Soldiers for the Truth, which is included in my list of links) wrote a column on this issue on November 22. And almost one month later, this issue gets widespread coverage in the media. Let me put this another way...This issue about the letters was actually raised about two weeks before Rumskull's comments about the armor, yet we hear little or nothing about it until after Rumsfeld made his armor comments. What the hell? If those armor comments had never been made, would Rumsfeld be catching heat over the letters?

So where am I going with this? Although I am very upset over the armor comments, those comments are nowhere near the top of my list of Rumskull's mistakes and stupid decisions. Thus, in a sense the reaction to the armor comments seems to be a bit of an over-reaction. Part of the reason I feel that way is that I think Rumsfeld deserved this level and intensity of criticism long before now. I guess the armor comments could have been the proverbial last straw for lots of people, and the intensity of the criticism reflects not just this one incident but the cumulative effect of all the bullshit he has perpetrated. I just wish it had come sooner. And I just wish some of it would be directed at the other person who shares with Rumskull the title of National Command Authorities--George W. Bush.

Rumsfeld, armor, and reactions: Part 1

Rumskull's initial comments on armored vehicles

On December 8, 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a trip to Camp Buehring in Kuwait to give a pep talk to members of the 278th Regimental Combat Team of the Tennessee Army National Guard before they deployed to Iraq. Next time Rumsfeld does something like this (assuming there will be a next time), he should emulate what Bush does in such staged events and not allow unknown questions. Instead, Rumskull opened up the floor for questions from the troops. Oops! As reported by the AP, there was an interesting exchange between Rumskull and Spc. Thomas Wilson.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Given that Rumsfeld bought some extra time by having Wilson repeat his question, one might think that he would come up with a really good answer. You can judge for yourself from the transcript of the exchange.

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you.

(emphasis added).

Initial analysis of Rumskull's statements

• "You go to war with the Army you have..."

I will start with the comment that has received the most attention--"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Now I know that I am nothing but a freedom-hating, smart-ass heathen civilian, but it seems to me that when you choose to go to war and when you choose the time that you go to war, you should not go to war until you have the army you want.

• "Production and the capability of doing it."

Rumsferatu said that getting more armored vehicles was basically a "matter of production and the capability of doing it." He also stated that the Army had greatly expanded the production of armor from what existed previously, but added that the Army believes this rate is "all that can be accomplished at this moment." When I first read these statements, I thought this seemed like a reasonable explanation, then my mind went back to "you should not go to war until you have the army you want." I wanted to know why production had not been ramped up before the war.

Before leaving this issue (for now), I point out that it is not clear what Rumsfeld was talking about specifically. Was he referring to production of armored humvees? By this I mean humvees that come out of the factory armored (these are called "up-armored"). Or was he referring to armor that is added to vehicles once they are in theater? General Whitcomb seemed to address armor being fitted on vehicles that were already in Kuwait. Also, what vehicles was Rumsfeld talking about? Just humvees, or other vehicles as well? These questions are relevant to the production and capability issue.

• Vehicles can still be blown up.

Rumskull talked about how every effort was being made to armor vehicles, and then he said, "And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Why the hell did he say that? It seems like he was basically saying "Why are you soldiers so concerned about armored vehicles? You can still get blown up, so quit your whining." He was there to pump up morale, and these comments certainly don't measure up to "Win one for the Gipper."

• The Pentagon Humvees

Rumskull closed with something that got applause and showed what a neat guy he is: "The other day...I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. They’re en route out here, I can assure you."

That's great, Don, but why were they at the Pentagon in the first place instead of in a war zone where our troops are getting killed? And why did it take until November 2004 for you to get them en route to Iraq?

Preview of subsequent analysis

The production and capability issue really is key. Essentially, the explanation given by powers that be is that 1) production could not be increased immediately, and 2) no one knew there would be such a great need for armored vehicles because 3) the need was created by the tactics that the insurgents started using beginning in August 2003. I will evaluate this explanation.

The Kerik debacle

Watching the wheels not merely fall but fly off Bush's nomination of Bernard Kerik for Secretary of Homeland Security has been a real hoot for me in many ways, and in others it saddens me because of what I feel it reveals about Bush's administration.

Kerik's record

I know that about three weeks ago I got semi-self righteous saying to expect detailed analysis and documented sources from my posts, but in this particular instance I am being a little lazy. Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo has just about all the depth and documentation on this matter that one could want, and I figured I wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. First check out his archives from the week of December 5-11. Josh began his coverage by examining Kerik's rather brief stint in Iraq and wondering what was up with that. He was hoping that some Senators would find their gonads long enough to ask Kerik about that...O.K., he was just expressing a desire for Kerik to be questioned on that matter, and after reading his posts, I was hoping that some Senators would have the balls to ask. Just when that part of the story really started getting some legs, BOOM, Kerik withdraws, and then all the other shit starts hitting the fan. Check out Josh's posts for this week for the details and the links.

As for just what was "all the other shit," Josh provided a nice initial summary in one of his December 11 posts:

As nearly as I can tell, almost every major assignment Kerik has had turns out to have been hazed over with clouds of scandal. At the posting in Saudi Arabia he is, it seems credibly, accused of pursuing his boss's private agenda and spying on the boss's many paramours on his behalf.

Then on Kerik's watch, Riker's Island turned into a latter-day GOP Tammany Hall, with punishment meted out to employees who didn't do off-duty work for Republicans. At the NYPD there were reportedly other problems. And then you've got the Baghdad bug-out after that.

And then you've got the 9/11-based security rainmaking with Rudy, though perhaps that's considered an advantage since he could work better at DHS with former employers.

(links provided by Josh Marshall). The last excerpted paragraph raises an issue that was examined further by Newsday,

Since his nomination, much of the attention about Kerik has focused on potential conflicts of interest between his proposed role as the nation's security chief and the expansive business ventures of Giuliani Partners, a firm set up to invest and guide businesses concerned with security in the post-9/11 economy, including those seeking contracts with the Department of Homeland Security.

*******

"This is our worst fear," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Project on Government Oversight. "Membership in these appointed panels is providing an inappropriate and unfair insight for friends and business partners about where the government is going to use its resources. That's a ticket to the most prized information."

And then there's Kerik's questionable purchases for the NYPD. Newsday also covered this issue, detailing a contract for the purchase of stab-resistant vests which was not put out for bid in violation of City procedures, the purchase of batons which allegedly did not meet NYPD standards, and the procurement of security doors from a company with which Kerik might have ties. The New York Post had a story on the security doors. The owner of that company has pled guilty to to submitting inflated and excessive invoices to the city under various contracts.

Josh Marshall also included the following excerpt from the Washington Post:

In the vetting process, which was conducted by the office of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, Kerik also never mentioned that a New Jersey judge had issued a warrant for his arrest in 1998 over a civil dispute over unpaid bills, the sources said.

But wait--there's more, including possible connections to the mob and multiple extra-marital affairs, AND then, according to another Newsday report, there is a possibility that Kerik married his second wife while he was still married to his first wife. There are many more issues details to be found at TPM, so feel free to go there. You can also check the websites for all the New York papers. Believe me, I have only scratched the surface here.

Wow--with all that real and potential scandal flying about, it's no wonder that Kerik withdrew from his nomination, right? Well, here's the funny thing...the only reason anyone has given for Kerik's withdrawal is not any of the matters listed above. The sole reason given by Kerik and everyone at the White House is that Kerik had a nanny who might have been an illegal alien for whom he did not pay taxes.

What in the wide, Wide World of Sports is a-goin' on here?

• Overview
  

It is with a tip of the hat to Mel Brooks and the late, great Slim Pickens that I ask this question. Here's another piece of information from the Washington Post article referenced above:

The existence of the dispute (over unpaid bills) was first reported by Newsweek Friday night. It is unclear why White House lawyers could not uncover a warrant that Newsweek discovered after a few days of research, although some are blaming Bush's insistence on speed and secrecy for failing to catch this and other potential red flags in Kerik's background.

(emphasis added). The Newsweek article is here. How in the world did the White House not find out about these matters before the press did? I find it incomprehensible that the White House was unaware of these matters in Kerik's past. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the White House vetting process just missed this--and all the other info on Kerik's past.

Not bloody likely.

• The vetting process, as described by the White House
  

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan made two series of statements about Kerik's vetting process. The first to which I refer is the press briefing on the afternoon of December 13. Here's a summary: 1) the White House has a thorough vetting process in place. 2) That process includes a lot of independent research. 3) The nanny issue became clearer for Kerik in the week leading up to his withdrawal, and he felt he should have informed the White House of it sooner. 4) The nanny issue is the only one given by Scotty as the reason for Kerik deciding to end his nomination. 5) Kerik, not the White House, decided to end the nomination. 6) The vetting process was not rushed because it had been going on for several weeks. In case you doubt my summarizing skills, here's some of the transcript:

We have a thorough vetting process in place. It's a process that looks closely at a candidate's professional, personal and financial background. And based on our solid record on nominations, we remain confident in that process.

*******

David, when you go through the vetting process you do a lot of independent research yourself. You also look to the candidate to provide you with the information you need to complete that vetting process.

*******

This was a matter, in terms of his nomination, this matter relating to the nanny came to his attention more clearly last week and he indicated he should have brought it to our attention sooner. This matter is now an issue that is closed, as far as we're concerned. We're looking forward on who the new nominee will be for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Q: As far as you're concerned, though, there was only this one issue that disqualified him?

MR. McCLELLAN: It was his decision to withdraw himself. We were moving forward --

Q: Right, I understand that. But there was nothing else that you're aware of that would have affected his --

MR. McCLELLAN: We were moving forward with the nomination process when this issue was brought to our attention by Commissioner Kerik, and it was his decision to withdraw his name from consideration.

*******

Q: Tell us something about the vetting process. Had Kerik answered written questions prior to the announcement?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's a lot of information that candidates provide to us. There's a lot of questions asked to nominees. I'm not going to get into any specific details regarding an individual nominee, because we want to be respectful of those individuals, and be respectful of the process that we have in place. But it is a thorough vetting process that we go through.

Q: Well, can you give us some kind of time line? When was Kerik told he was under serious consideration? How long did the vetting process go along? We're getting the impression that it all happened pretty quickly.

MR. McCLELLAN: That would be an inaccurate impression if you have that, because this was something that was a matter of weeks, not days, that we were going through this vetting process.

Scotty-boy went into more detail earlier on December 13 at a press gaggle. Odd thing...I got the transcript of the gaggle from Talking Points Memo, for it does not appear on the White House web site. Anyhoo, check out what McClellan said, paying particular attention to the emphasized portions:

In terms -- I'm not going to -- I think out of respect for individuals involved in the vetting process, I'm not going to go into any specific issues relating to nominations. But there -- we have a thorough vetting process that candidates go through before the President makes an announcement that he intends to nominate someone. That vetting process continues after the announcement is made that the President intends to nominate an individual.

There are some -- there's a clearance process, more detailed clearance forms that have to be filled out, financial disclosure forms, security clearances, and things of that nature. But our vetting process looks at all the issues related to a potential nominee's personal, professional, and financial background. And we did so in this instance, as well.

*******

But I'll be glad to talk to you about the overall vetting process, because it is a thorough vetting process -- and it was in this instance, as well. And as I indicated Friday, when some of the questions were asked about financial issues -- I think Taser -- I said those were all issues that we looked at.

Q: And you're confident that your vetting process is not improvable? Because I raised questions with you last week, and you insisted then he'd been thoroughly vetted.

McCLELLAN: And he had. Now, when you go through the vetting process -- let me just walk you through it for a little bit. There's the -- when a person is a candidate to be a nominee for a particular position, we do a thorough review of that candidate's personal, professional and financial background. We do independent -- we go to independent sources. We look at the public records that are available. Lawyers in our Counsel's Office also spend time visiting with the potential candidate, and going through questions with that particular candidate.

And in that process, we rely, to some degree, on that candidate to provide us with all the information we need to complete that part of the -- that phase of the vetting process. And then when the decision is made to move forward with announcing the intent to nominate, that individual will fill out more detailed security and financial clearance forms. And then when that's complete, the full FBI field investigation can begin.

(emphasis added). Take another look at the emphasized portions and try to tell yourself that the White House's "thorough vetting process"--which was carried out in Kerik's case--failed to reveal any of the less than stellar elements of Kerik's past. To jump ahead a bit, I have to say that if this oh so thorough process failed to discover any of things, the people conducting the vetting are at best supremely incompetent. More on that later...For now let's get back to the McClellan press gaggle. Here's an interesting exchange:

Q: So none of this other stuff involving interstate or gifts that may have been received as police commissioner -- none of that raised a red flag during the vetting process? The Taser --

McCLELLAN: John, I think Mayor Giuliani pointed out, himself, that -- well, first of all, that the reason the President announced his intention to nominate him is because he is someone who has done a very outstanding job at the head of the Riker Corrections facility, as the head of the New York Police Department, and someone who is strongly committed to helping us win the war on terrorism and protect the American people here at home. He was the -- one of the first ones on the scene at Ground Zero and he was overseeing the response and recovery efforts. And I think Mayor Giuliani pointed out some of this. He enjoyed strong support from Senator Clinton, Senator Schumer, and Mayor Giuliani, people who knew him best.

Q: Right. But --

McCLELLAN: No, we look at -- that's why I said, the vetting process is a thorough one; we look at all the issues related to a potential nominee's background. That includes the financial aspects, the professional aspects and the personal aspects. And the decision to withdraw was his decision.

Q: Right. But you're saying that during the vetting process, there was nothing that came to your attention before --

McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to get into specific details of any individual nominee's vetting process. I think that's out of respect for the process. But we were moving forward with the nomination, and this information was brought to our attention and he made a decision to withdraw his name. And that's where it stands. Now we will move forward quickly to name a new nominee.

(emphasis added). This is classic McClellan--get a straightforward yet uncomfortable question and deflect the focus to something that has nothing to do with the question. Notice how the question was asked about whether "this other stuff" raised a red flag and McClellan pointed that Kerik was basically a 9-11 hero and that's why he was nominated. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question! And when the reporter tried to get McClellan back on the actual question, Scotty stresses that the decision to end the nomination was Kerik's and was based solely on the nanny issue. Again, that has nothing to do with the question, for the reporter was asking all the issues other than the nanny issue.

And then McClellan continued this pattern:

Q: Scott, Mr. Kerik said that when he was finally filling out some of those detailed forms, that's when it dawned on him that he might have a problem.

McCLELLAN: That's right.

Q: Would it be better, in the vetting process, to have that filled out beforehand, before he is nominated?

McCLELLAN: Well, I pointed out that they go through an awful -- they go through a pretty thorough vetting process in the initial phase. He did, and this -- I would point out to you that if you look at the nominations we have made, which I think are well over a thousand, less than -- well less than 1 percent have had to withdraw their nomination. I know Linda Chavez during the transition into the first term did, and then you have Commissioner Kerik. And I think that's -- it's a pretty solid record.

The diversionary tactic here was to discuss other nominations and try to convince people that because almost every other nomination had been successful, the vetting process worked just fine in Kerik's case as well. Yeah, right.

Go back and review all of McClellan's statements. One could reasonably conclude the White House spent several weeks investigating all aspects of Kerik's background--utilizing far more than information provided by Kerik--and found nothing which caused concern.

• A follow up report on the vetting process

On December 13, the New York Times published an article by David Sanger entitled "White House Says Its Review of Nominee Was Thorough."

Senior administration officials on Sunday defended the White House review of Bernard B. Kerik's background before his nomination as secretary of homeland security. One official said that even "controversial" material uncovered in a weeklong review had not appeared to endanger Mr. Kerik's confirmation.

*******

Administration officials seemed eager on Sunday to dispel any notion that Mr. Gonzales's office short-circuited the process in the case of Mr. Kerik or was not alert to potential problems in his background. They described a vetting process more intense than usual before a presidential nomination, asserting that Mr. Kerik brought his troubles on himself by failing to flag the issue of his housekeeper despite repeated questioning on the subject.

*******

But one official said that the White House spent "more time than most" with Mr. Kerik "because he was someone with a colorful background, and there was a good deal in the public domain - much of it favorable, some of it controversial."

(emphasis added). From this one could reasonably conclude that whatever the vetting process revealed other than the nanny issue did not cause any concern for the White House. However, the article does not explain what the White House discovered. The "administration officials" "declined to go into detail about questionable issues they had reviewed involving Mr. Kerik's past, saying that would violate his privacy."

• The possibilities

From the foregoing, there are at least three possible conclusions:

1) The nanny issue is really why Kerik's nomination ended.
2) The White House did not find out about the other shady aspects of Kerik's past.
3) The White House did find out about those other aspects of Kerik's past and wanted him anyway.

Each of these possibilities are discussed below.

Possibility 1: The nanny issue is really why Kerik's nomination ended.

I find this possibility highly unlikely for two reasons. First, of all the actual and alleged aspects of Kerik's past, the nanny issue seems inconsequential. On one side of the scale there is an illegal alien nanny. On the other side of the scale we have the following: two extramarital affairs, the possibility that he was still married to one wife when he married the next, possible mob connections, a suit for failure to pay his bills and an arrest warrant related thereto, conflicts of interest, violation of City purchasing procedures, buying security doors from a company that overbilled NYC on contracts, and on and on. And an illegal alien nanny outweighed all of the other matters combined? Give me a freakin' break.

The second reason why this possibility is unlikely is that there might not even be a nanny. On December 16, the New York Times ran an article which basically said there has been no objective tangible evidence that Kerik ever had a nanny. Kerik's attorney said, "I know she's not a phantom, because a document was applied for and received." However, the document has not been produced, and the lawyer also admitted "I never met her. I don't know what country she came from. I don't know her nationality. I don't know her name." One of Kerik's neighbors said she had seen "a woman she believed to be the nanny playing ball with the two Kerik children in a side yard;" however the neighbor also said she had never met the woman or knew where she came from. Here's more from the article:

Last night, Mr. Kerik was told that skeptics in city government circles were questioning the very existence of the nanny, and he was pressed to provide any kind of evidence to document that she was real. But after taking time to consider the request, Mr. Kerik again decided to remain silent on the subject.

Most puzzled about the nanny, perhaps, are former neighbors of the Keriks and their kin. In the Riverdale section of the Bronx, where the family lived in a first-floor apartment for years before moving last year into the Franklin Lakes home they had extensively renovated, neighbors did not recall any household help. One neighbor, Dennis Doyle, noted that Mr. Kerik's wife, Hala Matli Kerik, a former dental hygienist, not only seemed to care for Celine, now 4, by herself, but that she did her own laundry as well.

In the blue-collar neighborhood of Elmwood Park, N.J., where Mrs. Kerik's mother, Zakia, lived in a rented duplex for years, neighbors reacted with surprise to questions about a nanny, and said that Mrs. Kerik's mother had moved into the Kerik home about a year ago.

"They never came around here with a nanny," said Sophie Borsuk, 55, the longtime landlady and downstairs neighbor of Mrs. Kerik's mother. "I never saw any nanny. This is the first time I heard about a nanny."

As Josh Marshall says, "It's hard to read the Times story and not conclude that the whole nanny thing was a con."

Possibility 2: The White House did not find out about the other shady aspects of Kerik's past.

And pigs can fly. I have two basic reasons why I believe Possibility 2 is not possible. Here's reason one...The White House ultimately controls most of the means of gathering information and data available to the federal government, and the federal government has even more power in that regard due to the Patriot Act. Moreover, the White House spent weeks vetting Kerik prior to his nomination, paid special attention to this vetting. And yet the White House failed to find any of this information about Kerik when the media did so easily? If that is true, then not only will pigs fly, but moneys will also fly--out of my butt.

The second reason is that anyone could have found much of this information via web search engines such as Google or Yahoo and Lexis/Nexis. As the December 13 New York Times article noted, "In Mr. Kerik's case, even the most rudimentary search brings up a wealth of information."

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the White House did not find any of the negative information about Kerik outside the nanny issue. That means that the people running the vetting process--including the nominee for Attorney General--are complete incompetents.

Possibility 3: The White House did find out about those other aspects of Kerik's past and wanted him anyway.

To quote Sherlock Holmes, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." As far as I am concerned, Possibilities 1 and 2 are quite impossible (unless everyone in the White House is just plain stupid), so why in the (wide, wide) world (of sports) would Bush want to have Kerik in charge of Homeland Security? Remember, this is the President and Republican party that are all about values, and yet someone with Kerik's history of infidelity, possible organized crime connections, and lawsuits for failing to pay his bills passes muster? How could this be?

The answer lies in part in the Department of Homeland Security itself, or more specifically in the legislation that created it . Quick--just what does the Department of Homeland Security do? What does the DHS Secretary do? Just what did Tom Ridge do in the office? You see, folks, the Homeland Security Act's major effect was NOT the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, the primary, overarching effect of that legislation was a massive reorganization of the federal bureaucracy. This is really a subject for a series of posts, so I will not go into detail now. Here's the bottom line for me: DHS is not a clearly defined agency, so it can be molded into whatever, the President wants it to be. I think that DHS was always intended to be a bit of a smokescreen which could be used to cover any activity the President wanted to undertake. For instance, other agencies--such as the FBI and CIA could be doing one thing while public focus could be shifted to DHS, or vice versa.

This is where Kerik fits--or would have fit--in. Kerik was basically an attack dog, a hatchet man, who would do whatever his master told him to do. And I'm talking about doing his master's "dirty work." The amorphous nature of DHS would allow him to do this more easily, particularly when the Patriot Act is added to the mix. And then there was Kerik's public image as a 9-11 hero. You criticize or question Kerik, you attack a hero of 9-11, which means you hate freedom and are practically a terrorist your own self. And if Kerik ever thought about refusing an order, the White House could force him to comply with threats of exposing his dirty laundry, or if they needed to get rid of him, they could do so easily by exposing his dirty laundry.

That's why the White House didn't care about Kerik's past.

Conclusion

I began this post by saying that "Watching the wheels not merely fall but fly off Bush's nomination of Bernard Kerik for Secretary of Homeland Security has been a real hoot for me in many ways, and in others it saddens me because of what I feel it reveals about Bush's administration."

Here's what it reveals about the Bush administration. They are either stupid and incompetent, or they are liars, or they are hypocrites. All of those alternatives are frightening enough, but the real dangers follow if Possibility 3 is true. That would show that the Bush administration is willing to use any means to accomplish its agenda, and that agenda includes manipulating and going outside the law and civil liberties. Now that's scary stuff.

A plug for a web site

A friend of mine has recently established a web site called RiverRant.com. Here's a description from the site:

We’re glad you came! At RiverRant.com, it is our aim to provide you with commentary, news, and reviews with a distinctly fresh taste and an emphasis on property rights and personal liberty. We are the only source of information that dares to challenge the mainstream media of north Texas.

Since we live on the banks of the Red River that borders Texas and Oklahoma, much of our content deals with our area. But we will not limit ourselves. You can expect to read items at RiverRant.com of national and even international interest. Check back regularly.

The guy who runs the site is articulate, provocative, and often highly entertaining. I don't always agree with him, but I can assure you that his positions will be well stated and thought out. He has been a columnist for several newspapers in this area, and he usually ends up upsetting the powers that be. He is a straightforward, no bullshit person who is always open to a good, spirited discussion. Check out RiverRant.com.

A personal congrats

Today my nephew Chris made one of the best decisions he has made or ever will make and proposed to his girlfriend. And in one of the best moments he has experienced or ever will experience, she said "yes." So, congratulations to Courtney and Chris! Courtney, we are thrilled to welcome you into our family!

17 years of more fun than one person should be allowed to have

It was 17 years ago today that I became a licensed attorney here in the great state of Texas. And it's just been a non-stop laugh riot since then. But hey, without all my experiences as a lawyer, I wouldn't have my oh-so-sunny outlook.

Anyone who does not recognize the sarcasm in the previous paragraph should seek professional help immediately.

Questions for Republicans

Kevin Drum of Political Animal (one of the blogs I have listed in my sidebar), has a post which poses "A Few Wee Questions" for Republicans. Regardless of one's political persuasion, Kevin's questions need to be answered. And before you right wingers have a conniption fit, please read some of Kevin's other recent posts to see that he has posed some questions for liberals as well.

More news from Spain

This is a follow up to News from Spain. In that post I quoted a Reuters article which in part discussed the Spanish withdrawal from Iraq and said that “Bush warned (that the withdrawal) had emboldened the terrorists.” Keep in mind that Spain’s withdrawal of troops is inextricably part of the March election in which the Partido Popular (PP), a staunch ally of Bush, was voted out and the Socialists, led by Zapatero, were voted in. Long before the March 11 bombings, Zapatero made withdrawal part of his campaign.

The view (by some) of the new Spanish government

Once Zapatero said he would keep his campaign promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, the cries went up that Spain was caving in to terrorists and that the new government would be unable to cope with terrorism ever again. You can find plenty of such editorial rantings, but I want to highlight the views of my favorite whipping boy, Paul Wolfowitz, and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. As reported by American Forces Press Service on March 17, 2004, Wolfowitz felt that “A withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq would encourage global terrorists that their strategy of violence and mayhem is working to undercut U.S.-coalition resolve[.]” Specifically, Wolfowitz said such a withdrawal “would send a terrible message to terrorists if they think that, by killing innocent civilians, particularly on the eve of a democratic election, that they can make us cut and run[.]” Although Wolfowitz was speaking mostly about the effects of a Spanish withdrawal on the "coalition," he nonetheless expressed a not-so-implicit message that such a withdrawal would be a "terrible message" that Spain had given in to terrorists and would encourage terrorists. Hastert was a bit more explicit, as reported in this AP article:

Speaking to Capitol Hill reporters on another subject, Hastert, R-Ill., called Spain "a nation who succumbed ... to threats of terrorism, changed their government."

Asked if he was referring to Spain, he said: "Well I'm saying, they changed their government because of the perception of threat."

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to in a sense appease terrorists," Hastert said.

Boy, one would suspect that the new government of a "nation who succumbed to terrorism" would have ongoing terrorism problems. In Spain, the terrorist threat is both foreign and domestic. This post will address the domestic part of the threat.

The domestic threat: ETA

For more than 30 years, a Basque separatist group known as ETA has been committing acts of terrorism in Spain. ETA is an acronym for “Euskadi Ta Askatasuna,” which in the Basque language means “Basque Homeland and Freedom.” Recall that the Aznar government initially blamed ETA for the March 11 bombings in Madrid. If Spain's new government had sent a "terrible message" and "succumbed to "threats of terrorism," it would be reasonable to assume that ETA would be in a position to further its cause through acts of terror because the government under Zapatero would be weak. It appears that just the opposite is the reality.

Spanish government under Zapatero regarding Eta

• Early statements by Zapatero

As noted by this April 10, 2004, article in the London Times, Zapatero said before the election that "What I am working towards is to finish off terrorism and ETA is not going to get a minute’s rest." The same Times article and one from the Guardian addressed public statements by Arnaldo Ortegi, one of the leaders of the Basque political party Batasuna, which is believed to be the political arm of ETA (in the same way that Sinn Fein is the political organization for the Irish Republican Army). The Times article noted that "Following the socialist victory in Spain’s general election on March 14, ETA called for dialogue with the incoming government while pledging to maintain its campaign of violence for independence." (emphasis added). By April 10, however, Ortegi at least was saying something different. As reported by the Guardian, "Asked by the Basque country's Deia newspaper if he thought ETA was willing to abandon violence, Mr Otegi said: 'I am convinced of it.'" Both the Guardian and the Times quoted Ortegi as saying that "Their (ETA's) latest statements, taking a clear position towards the new government of Spain to sit down and talk, point in that direction." As will be explained throughout this post, the sincerity of such statements is dubious, but, if Zapatero’s government was soft on terrorists–as Wolfowitless and Hastert would have you believe–then surely Zapatero would take Ortegi’s words as true. Instead, according to the Guardian, here was Zapatero’s reaction: "The only communique I await from ETA, as do the vast majority of Spaniards, is one in which it abandons violence." Does that sound like someone who is going to succumb to terrorists?

• Agreement between Spain and France

On September 16, 2004, AFP reported an agreement between the Zapatero government and France related to terrorism:

France and Spain are to set up a joint police corps to combat terrorism by Islamic extremists, Spanish Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar said following a meeting with his French counterpart here.

"Today we are going to take a very important step in the anti-terrorist fight within the European Union in signing the first accord for a joint Spanish-French inquiry corps," Aguilar announced after conferring with French Justice Minister Dominique Perben.

The body will consist of police and magistrates and will seek to crack down on the armed Basque separatist group ETA--an area where Paris and Madrid are already cooperating closely--"but also, and of course right away, on Islamic terrorism, notably (its) financing," Aguilar said.

The announcement came the day after Spanish police arrested 10 people, most of them Pakistanis, suspected of involvement in Islamic extremism in an operation in the northeastern region of Catalonia.

Perben said Spain had agreed to grant French police the same powers as its own when they need to operate over the border as part of a reciprocal agreement.

Please note that 1) this joint effort was instituted to crack down on ETA and Islamic terrorists, and 2) Spain arrested suspected Islamic terrorists in September. Spain’s recent efforts against Islamic terrorists will be examined in a subsequent post.

• October 2 arrests

By early October 2, 2004, the joint effort between Spain and France had produced results. On that day, many ETA members were arrested. The information which follows came from the BBC, CNN, USA Today, the AP, and Reuters. In a series of raids in seven villages in France and one in Spain, 20 members of ETA were arrested, including the leader of ETA and the top female in the organization. Mikel Albisu Iriarte, a/k/a Mikel Antza, has been ETA's political chief since 1993, according to Spanish authorities. A spokeswoman for the Spanish Interior Ministry Spanish described Albisu as "the top, he is number one" in ETA, and Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso said the arrest was of "extraordinarily high importance." Maria Soledad Iparraguirre, a/k/a Anboto, is wanted in connection with 14 killings, and she is believed to have run ETA's extortion unit, which financed ETA attacks through the collection of “protection” money from businesses and individuals.

In addition to the arrests, the raids uncovered seven weapons caches. Among the seized weapons were more than 2200 pounds of explosives (including 880 pounds of dynamite), assault rifles, submachine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, detonators, and 40,000 rounds of ammunition. The existence of these weapons caches is one reason why any statements from Batasuna or ETA that ETA is willing to give up violence are dubious at best.

The raids were carried out by 140 Spanish and French police agents, and Spanish Interior Minister Alonso said the operation was hugely important and an example of outstanding collaboration between the two countries. The Spanish Socialist Party said “The blow struck against the terrorist organization today is an important step forward on the road to peace and shows that the end and the defeat of ETA is possible.” Alonso said “This operation is historic,” but quickly added that “Despite this grave blow [to ETA] . . . we continue on maximum alert, and won't let our guard down one single minute.”

Thus, while Zapatero’s government–with the help of France–has made progress in its fight with ETA, it remains vigilant and active, or, to put it in words George W. Bush should understand, Spain is staying the course in fighting domestic terrorism.

• Additional actions in October

On October 6, 2004, the BBC and CNN reported that Spanish authorities had arrested five more suspected ETA members and recovered two Russian-made SAM-7 shoulder-fired missiles.

This was followed by the discovery of two more ETA weapons caches on October 17, 2004, by French police. These caches included 30 mortars, about 30 machine pistols, 40 assault rifles, 90 handguns, 48 anti-tank rocket launchers, 25 kilograms of dynamite and 30 detonators, an anti-tank rocket launcher, and around 93,000 bullets.

Reuters reported that "At the end of October, ETA said in a letter to Basque television that it would be open to negotiations with Spain[.]" This, however, is another statement of suspect sincerity.

• Letter from the "old guard" made public in early November

On November 2, the Guardian reported that a letter written in August by six high-ranking members of ETA recommended an end to violence.

Six senior members of the Basque separatist group ETA, who represent the old guard, have called on the organisation from their prison cells to lay down its arms, it was reported yesterday.

The call from ETA's former leader Francisco Múgica, alias Pakito, and five other veterans is contained in a letter addressed to ETA's leadership that was leaked to the Diario de Noticias newspaper in Pamplona, northern Spain, yesterday. In it, the authors recognise that ETA's campaign is failing to bring the Basque country closer to independence.

*******

Instead their letter recognised that ETA had been crippled to the point of uselessness by the hundreds of arrests by French and Spanish police in recent years. "It is not a question of fixing the rear-view mirror or a burst tyre. It is the motor that does not work," the authors said.

*******

They suggested, instead, that ETA try to use the support for separatism shown by Basques, who have traditionally given about 10% of the lo cal vote to political parties that back the group's separatist aims.

"Our capital and political potential is still there, let's exploit all its possibilities: the institutional fight and the fight of the masses," they said.

Now that sounds rather promising. If Zapatero's government was supposed to be weak on terrorists, why would Eta's old guard be writing such a letter?

However, another portion of the November 2 Guardian article provides further reason to question the sincerity of statements from ETA regarding reducing violence. The article contained a reaction from Ortegi:

Arnaldo Otegi, former leader of the now-banned Batasuna separatist party, claimed the letter had been leaked to give a false impression of what ETA prisoners thought.

He invited Spanish journalists to go to the country's jails and ask ETA's prisoners "what they really think".

That's not consistent with what he said in April and certainly does not indicate a willingness to lay down arms.

The November 2 article concluded by noting that "It was revealed yesterday that Spanish police had arrested another five suspected ETA members in and around the northern city of Bilbao." These arrests are at the least more evidence supporting Zapatero's statements about ETA and negating a claim that his government would be soft on terrorists.

• Batasuna's proposal

The next developments occurred about two weeks later. On November 13, 2004, Berria, a newspaper in the Basque region, reported on a proposal to be made the following day by Batasuna.

The proposal to be presented at the Donostia (San Sebastian) Cycle Stadium tomorrow clearly indicates that Batasuna has given priority to the building of a process aimed at resolving the conflict. Batasuna is keen for the document it will be presenting tomorrow to be a contribution towards building a peace process. In tomorrow’s event it will be stressing the need to build a process through dialogue, because it believes that the conditions are in place to support such a move.

*******

Starting at 17.00 hours tomorrow afternoon, Sunday, Batasuna will be presenting its document entitled Orain herria, orain bakea, konponbiderako ekarpena (The people now, peace now, contribution towards a solution) to the public present at the Donostia Cycle Stadium.

As a result of the analysis made of the course of the past 25 years Batasuna’s priority is this: “The building of a peace process, so that the scenario of the armed, political confrontation in our country can be overcome once and for all.”

The next day, there were several reports of the rally at which the proposal was presented. The ones I reference here came from the BBC, Reuters, and the Independent (British newspaper). At the rally, Batasuna presented a two-part proposal. The first part would be an agreement between all the Basque political parties and unions regarding a referendum on whether to seek independence. The second part would be an agreement between ETA and Spain and France to demilitarize the conflict.

This sounds really promising, for as reported by the Independent,

Batasuna's dramatic plea is the party's most important political gesture since it was banned nearly two years ago...But [Ortegi's] assertion that peace was now the priority, and his promise to stick to democratic methods breaks from the usual belligerent rhetoric and could bring a truce nearer.

Still, there are reasons to be cautious and vigilant. The primary reasons are that Batasuna did not condemn ETA's use of violence and did not call for ETA to lay down its arms. The Zapatero geovernment, speaking through Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, played down Batasuna's proposals, saying, "In a democracy, you can only listen to the voices of those who talk, and not to guns." Another reason was discussed in the November 2 Guardian article, which noted that the "old guard" of ETA (those who wrote the letter discussed abouve and are in jail)

may no longer have any sway over the increasingly young Eta members who are believed to run what is left of the group.

"In ETA, old guys fade away quickly," Teo Uriarte, a former member who now opposes Basque nationalism, told the Associated Press.

Others warned that ETA's new leaders would now feel they had to prove that the group could still kill. "If its weakness is being highlighted, it may try to show its hardest face," said Francisco José Alcaraz of the Terrorism Victims' Association.

This reflects a general level of distrust of ETA. The BBC's Katya Adler wrote an analysis in which she quoted reactions from Spaniards regarding Batasuna's proposal:

With wry smiles, many Spaniards shrugged their shoulders.

They had hoped for a miracle - the announcement of a definitive end to Basque separatist violence by the militants' political mouthpiece, Batasuna.

But few had really believed it would happen.

"A group of us were discussing this, this morning and we decided to lay bets on what Batasuna would say," said Alejandro, a student in Madrid, "but out of eight of us not one person thought they would explicitly condemn violence.

"How can they? Their party has always depended on terrorists."

"All this makes me so sad," said Marian, an interior designer from Bilbao, the regional capital of the Basque country.

"It's another wasted opportunity. Batasuna promised a 'new way out' of the Basque conflict but what they've announced today is meaningless and it's old hat."

So now you know some of the reasons why many Spaniards doubt the sincerity of Batasuna and ETA. Another reason occurred the day before Batasuna's proposal. As reported by Reuters, "Two bombs exploded at a Spanish army post in the Pyrenees on Saturday, causing serious damage but no injuries in what appeared to be an attack by Basque separatist guerrilla group ETA."

Nevertheless, some in the Basque region were optimistic. According to this report from the BBC, Deia, a newspaper close to the Basque Nationalist Party, said the following: "There are no reasons for rushing to celebrate, but it would be a serious mistake if this initiative were to go to waste." According to the same BBC report, the newspaper Gara, which is close to Batasuna, said the proposal was a "firm commitment to the civil resolution of the conflict" and "In spite of the spectacular trappings of the public presentation of Batasuna's new political proposal, it does not appear to be a mere publicity pose or an ad hoc response to obtain media prominence." An article from the International Herald Tribune stated that "commentators in the Basque region saw the party as trying to coax a weakened ETA to the negotiating table."

The Spanish government took a different approach, as evidenced by this November 16 article from the International Herald Tribune:

The Spanish justice minister on Monday rejected a new proposal from Basque militants for dialogue with the intention of ending the region's long conflict, saying the proposal lacked an explicit renunciation of violence.

*******

In a radio interview Monday, Justice Minister Juan Fernando López Aguilar rejected the idea of negotiations with a group that has not renounced violence.

"We don't want a single word with ETA or anything in its entourage," he said.

Of Batasuna, López Aguilar said: "I don't see how a party that has never condemned violence can act in any sphere of public life."

This is consistent with what Zapatero said upon becoming Prime Minister and shows that the current Spanish government has no intention of succumbing to its domestic terrorists. And what was ETA's reaction? ETA sent a written statement to the Basque public broadcasting company that said "As long as the occupation forces continue in our country, there will be no peace." So much for giving up violence.

• November 16 arrests

Two days after Batasuna made its proposal, the Spanish government further showed that it was not decreasing its attack against ETA. The following information came from the BBC, Reuters, and the AP. In the early morning of November 16, 150 Spanish police office carried out a series of raids which resulted in the arrest of 17 more ETA members who comprised a network providing infrastructure, support, and information on targets.

• Latest ETA bombings

On December 3, the AP reported that

Five small explosive devices detonated Friday at Madrid gas stations after a telephone warning from the armed Basque separatist group ETA, reports said.

Interior Ministry officials said there were no injuries and only minor damage, the news agency Efe said. It said the gas stations were evacuated before the blasts.

Earlier, the Basque newspaper Gara said it had received a call from a person speaking on behalf of ETA who said five explosive devices had been placed at gas stations along major highways leading out of Madrid.

Again, so much for any thoughts of the end of violence by ETA. However, perhaps it is a good sign that ETA issued a warning so that the areas could be evacuated.

And then today (December 6), ETA set off small bombs in seven cities covering acorridor from far north to southern Spain. Reuters and the BBC both reported that ETA called in specific warnings shortly before the explosions which allowed evacuations. As a result, there were no deaths or serious injuries. The Reuters article also said the following:

Analysts interpret the weak potency of the bombs and the warning calls as ETA's message that it is still standing and wants to negotiate, although talks have been rejected by Spain's mainstream parties as a capitulation to terrorists.

ETA-watchers also say the group apparently has decided not to risk even further public backlash by killing more people in the wake of the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, carried out by Islamic militants, when 191 people died.

(emphasis added). The emphasized portion of the previous excerpt reiterates the government's position on negotiating with ETA prior to these bombings, but would that change?

The short answer is "no." The attacks came on a holiday, Constitution Day, which marks the anniversary of the 1978 Constitution which returned Spain to democracy after 40 years under Franco. ETA opposes that constitution because it made the Basque territory a permanent part of Spain. Jose Antonio Alonso, the Interior Minister, said, "Today is Spanish Constitution Day and it has to continue being Spanish Constitution Day, not ETA Day. ... ETA maintains operational capabilities and that's why we are on maximum alert." The BBC article explained that "Zapatero said Eta had only one choice: to 'stop the violence and hand in its weapons.'"

So, Zapatero's government has not changed its stance. It is also worth noting that the leader of the opposition party--you know, the PP, the party favored by Bush--said he stood by the Socialist government's efforts to neutralize ETA.

Conclusion

Despite the recent violence, could ETA really be willing to negotiate? Should Zapatero negotiate with ETA? To me, the answer to both questions is likely "no," but the objective of this post is not to examine the ETA issue in that regard. The objective is to show that the view by many in this country that Spain caved in to terrorists and that Zapatero's government would be weak on terrorism is wrong as it concerns ETA.