Inside the Ring

Mughniyah hit

Many theories are circulating inside U.S. intelligence agencies on who killed notorious Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah, who was blown up in a car bomb attack in Damascus Feb. 12.

One theory popular in the Middle East is that the hit was an Israeli intelligence operation. An Israeli hit is considered possible but unlikely since even though Israel’s Mossad has a long arm, the bombing took place in the Syrian capital, considered a very difficult intelligence operating area.

A prime suspect is Syria itself, specifically Syrian intelligence agents who would have known Mughniyah’s personal security measures and travel. Syria’s government is investigating the killing and recent reports from the region state Damascus is blaming Saudi Arabian agents for the killing, a charge Riyadh has denied.

Iran also is suspected. Despite its decades-long backing of Mughniyah, Tehran, this theory goes, was not happy with Mughniyah and wanted him out of the way. Even Hezbollah is a suspect, based on stories of growing factionalism inside the Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group. Still another theory is that the killing was the work of Lebanon’s security service, in retaliation for the terrorist killings of Lebanese officials.

Asked who killed Mughniyah, Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant defense secretary for the Middle East, said in a brief interview recently that he knows at least 15 theories on the death of Mugniyah, who has been blamed for killing more Americans than any other terrorist, not counting al Qaeda.

“And all 15 could be wrong,” said Mr. Kimmitt, a retired Army one-star general, adding: “Whoever did it, the world is a better place without him.”

Hedge strategy

Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon consultant on China, said recently that the U.S. strategy of “hedging” against an emerging military threat from Beijing by building up U.S. forces in the Pacific likely will continue whoever is elected president in November.

Mr. Pillsbury made the comments during a panel discussion at a Jane’s U.S. Defense Conference and noted that a key part of the strategy is the U.S. buildup of forces on Guam. The recent deployment of additional U.S. forces there prompted some “hysteria” from the state-run Chinese news media, he said.

The hedge strategy, Mr. Pillsbury said, remains below the public radar, however, with Bush administration officials saying it is not directed at China. However, so far none of the current presidential candidates has sought to repudiate the strategy, he said.

Mr. Pillsbury quoted a senior Navy civilian as saying the new Pacific game plan is needed because “hope is not a strategy,” meaning the hope that China’s rise will be peaceful.

The hedge strategy is the Pentagon’s grand design to beef up military forces in the Pacific and upgrade alliances in the region to be ready to counter a hostile China, that is rapidly deploying advanced nuclear and conventional missiles, submarines and other naval forces and more mobile ground forces, but will not disclose the extent or target of the decades-long buildup.

Some pro-China academics and officials have suggested the hedge strategy, first developed under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, never existed or if it did, it ended with Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation in 2006.

That notion was dispelled by recent testimony from David Sedney, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, who told a congressional China commission hearing last month that the hedge strategy is a response to excessive Chinese military secrecy.

Story Continues →