Last month, ThinkProgress reported that NSA whistleblower Russell Tice would meet with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss undisclosed unlawful activity that the Agency has engaged in. “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them,” Tice said.

Since that time, little has been reported of Tice’s meeting. CongressDaily (sub. req’d) follows-up today, “Tice met last month in a closed session with senior staff from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Tice said he told the staffers everything he knew. But he said the aides did not say how, or if, they would follow up on his allegations.”

CongressDaily also reports that House Government Reform National Security Subcommittee, through its Chairman Christopher Shays (R-CT) and ranking member Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), is seeking to interview Tice, but the NSA is resisting.

Tice said his information is different from the terrorist surveillance program that President Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts last month that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. Because he worked on special access programs, however, it has not been clear on Capitol Hill which committees have jurisdiction to debrief him. Shays and Kucinich gave the NSA until Friday to explain any legal reason why they cannot interview him. But that deadline passed without a response, and a subcommittee aide today called the missed deadline troubling.

Shays and Kucinich had originally asked the NSA to give them a reason by May 26, but the agency asked for an extension until June 9. NSA spokesman Don Weber said today that the agency “is performing due diligence in developing a response to the committee’s request,” but added that Tice has not notified the agency of the alleged illegal activity. Tice said he does not believe he needs to notify the agency of his allegations.

Congress deserves to hear from Tice, who has a history for blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. He was one of the sources that revealed the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program to the New York Times.

The New York Times reports that the Bush administration is making plans to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely:

Mr. Bush on Friday made clear that the American commitment to the country will be long-term. Officials say the administration has begun to look at the costs of maintaining a force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come, roughly the size of the American presence maintained in the Philippines and Korea for decades after those conflicts.

On Meet the Press, Retired Gen. Barry McCaffery said it was likely that the U.S. will keep at least 50,000 in Iraq for the next 10 years:

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, if it’s a government that works, we can probably sustain the U.S. troops, 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 troops there for 10 years and hope that Iraq turns into a responsible governmental entity that doesn’t attack its neighbors, doesn’t build WMD. I still think that’s a likely outcome if the political system can come together on the ground.

Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress stripped a provision from the supplemental spending bill that would have ruled out permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

In his radio address today, President Bush warned that Zarqawi’s death may lead to a sustained period of increased violence in Iraq:

Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. In the weeks ahead, violence in Iraq may escalate. The terrorists and insurgents will seek to prove that they can carry on without Zarqawi…The work ahead will require more sacrifice and the continued patience of the American people.

This is part of a continual effort by the White House to spin increases in violence in Iraq as a sign of progress.

The truth is — while Zarqawi’s death is good news — violence is unlikely to decrease in Iraq because Zarqawi and his associates aren’t responsible for the bulk of the violence in Iraq. American Progress’ Joe Cirincione explains:

Foreign terrorists represent only from 6 percent to 8 percent of those committing violence in Iraq, said Joseph Cirincione, senior vice president of the Center for American Progress. “By far, most attacks are being carried out by Sunni insurgents and by the growing Shiite and Sunni sectarian groups battling each other,” he said.

Jim Carafano of the conservative Heritage Foundation agrees: “This isn’t really going to materially affect the level of violence in Iraq. Even if al-Zarqawi’s group has been seriously disrupted, there are many other groups there that are interested in killing.”

So President Bush may be right, but the reason isn’t because his strategy in Iraq is succeeding. It’s because Zarqawi is only a small part of a much larger problem.

Reuters reports that conservatives are quietly backtracking from their earlier stance against permanent base construction in Iraq:

Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.

As ThinkProgress noted last month, the Senate acted to unanimously pass an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that clearly stated that none of the appropriated funds should be used for permanent base construction. In March, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) wrote on ThinkProgress that the House had unanimously accepted her amendment prohibiting permanent base construction.

The amendment served an important purpose – it indicated to Iraqis that the U.S. did not plan to remain in their country forever. A Jan. 2006 Knight Ridder poll found that at least half of Iraqis supported attacks against U.S. troops. The poll suggested one reason for Iraqi hostility was the common belief that the U.S. planned to remain in Iraq:

The poll also found that 80 percent of Iraqis think the United States plans to maintain permanent bases in the country even if the newly elected Iraqi government asks American forces to leave. Researchers found a link between support for attacks and the belief among Iraqis that the United States intends to keep a permanent military presence in the country.

It appears that conservatives caved to pressure from the administration. Testifying before Congress in April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “did not directly answer” a question about whether the Bush administration was planning for permanent bases, and Gen. Abizaid has refused to rule it out. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has asked for more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq.

Next week, the House will hold a floor debate about the administration’s Iraq policy. Rep. Lee has already indicated she plans to make permanent base construction a key part of that debate. Call your congressman and tell them where you stand.

The death of terrorist Abu Marsab al-Zarqawi is unquestionably good news. But there is little evidence that his absence will create a vacuum in the foreign fighter leadership in Iraq. Two points:

1. Zarqawi was replaced as the head of Iraq’s insurgency months ago. Recall the news from earlier this spring that Zarqawi had been replaced as the leader in Iraq by Abdullah bin Rashed Al-Baghdadi (a nom de guerre). Al Qaeda’s Iraq cells had already reorganized before this happened and will readjust again.

2. Al Qaeda’s global leadership was getting sick of their partner in Zarqawi. Last year, Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy Ayman Zawahiri sent a letter to Zarqawi that contained a “striking critique” of Zarqawi’s insurgency strategy. “He comes down like a ton of bricks on what has happened tactically,” one U.S. analyst said describing the letter. Even Iraqis sympathetic with the goals of the insurgency have grown to disapprove of al Qaeda’s actions. Over the last year, there were several instances in which the local population turned on Zarqawi’s followers and attacked them.

In other words, Zarqawi’s star had fallen over the last six months, and there is reason to believe that his falling from favor was a key ingredient in this operation. Someone gave up details on him because they wanted him out.

Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that we should rejoice in today’s news. But we should also be clear in our analysis about what it means for the next steps. There is little evidence of a leadership vacuum in the foreign fighter leadership and cause for serious concern that the current violence in Iraq will not abate.

– Brian Katulis

U.S. officials: Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed.

UPDATE: Also yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki finally filled the remaining security-related positions in his cabinet, completing the formation of Iraq’s first permanent government:

The Iraqi parliament approved on Thursday Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s candidates for interior and defense ministers, ending wrangling that had threatened to plunge his three-week-old unity government into crisis.

UPDATE II: “The news [of Zarqawi's death] came amid more reports of violence in Iraq, with two bombs striking a market and a police patrol in Baghdad, killing at least 19 people and wounding more than 40.”

UPDATE III: Reports from U.S. military officials indicate Zarqawi was exposed by those closest to him, suggesting an internal power struggle. Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said, “Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting … when the air strike was launched.”

Yesterday at a conference co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation, Mark Malloch Brown — the #2 official at the U.N. — offered a constructive critique about the way the United States treats the organization:

[T]he prevailing practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the UN one way or another.

Brown noted that rampant U.N. bashing in the United States makes even renovating their dilapidated headquarters difficult:

[T]he only government not fully supporting the project is the U.S. Too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years“”manifest in a fear by politicians to be seen to be supporting better premises for what they unjustly regard as overpaid, corrupt UN bureaucrats””makes even refurbishing a building a political hot potato.

In response, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has lashed out at Brown. He said that if Annan didn’t immediately repudiate the remarks, the United Nations would be the “victim.” From his press release:

Well, on that speech, this is a very, very grave mistake by the Deputy Secretary General…Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations. And even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant it’ s just illegitimate.

…But what we think the only way at this point to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is that the Secretary General Kofi Annan, we think has to personally and publicly repudiate this speech at the earliest possible opportunity.

Looks like Bolton can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

Today on CNN Late Edition, retired Army General John Batiste said there was a “direct link” between allegations of serious misconduct against Iraqi civilians at Haditha and the “bad judgment” of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 and 2004. Batiste explained that Rumsfeld’s war plan left troops “under-resourced [and] overcommitted.” The result was an “unbelievable” strain on U.S. forces. Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

On Thursday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, was quoted saying the following about Haditha:

This is a phenomenon that has become common among many of the multinational forces. No respect for citizens, smashing civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch. It’s unacceptable.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Snow insisted that Maliki was “misquoted.” Snow was unable to say exactly how he was misquoted, saying “it’s a little hazy to me.”

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked about Maliki’s comments. Rice said she had talked to Maliki directly about his remarks but did not claim Maliki was misquoted. Instead, she said he was “speaking to the concerns of the Iraqi people.” Watch it:

We’ve posted the transcript here.

Last month, the Washington Post reported the Bush administration was “secretly supporting secular warlords” in Somalia “who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.” Some of these warlords reportedly “fought against the United States in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead.”

U.S. support for these militias upset the Somali prime minister, who said, “We would prefer that the U.S. work with the transitional government and not with criminals. … This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a stable place and we want the U.S. in Somalia. But in a more constructive way.”

He’s not the only Somalian upset with the policy. Reuters reports today:

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Mogadishu on Friday angrily condemning the United States for supporting warlords involved in clashes with Islamic militias that claimed 16 more lives overnight. ["¦]

Some 350 people have been killed in three bouts of heavy fighting since the start of the year in the fighting that had focused on the capital but has now moved beyond Mogadishu.

The policy of supporting the “enemy of the enemy” is further destabilizing Somalia, but a shift in policy is unlikely. Last week, the State Department transferred Michale Zorick, the former political affairs officer for Somalia, to a different post after he spoke out against supporting the warlords.

Yesterday on Fox’s Your World with Neil Cuvuto, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton explicitly said that unilateral military action against Iran was “on the table.” Bolton diplomatically added, “This is put up or shut up time for Iran.” Watch it:

Transcript: Read more