1. The criticism of the “surge” has been that political progress has not been made in Iraq. This criticism, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that at least 15 of the 18 benchmarks set for Iraq have been met and great political reconciliation has been made. One of the most controversial topics in Iraqi politics today has been settled without bloodshed, and that is the law about the provincial elections.

The Iraqi president has approved the legislation paving the way for provincial elections, probably the most important elections Iraq has had yet, by the end of January 2009 (although that can still be delayed). This is truly a big development in Iraq, but unfortunately, with the U.S. focused on the economy and presidential election, Americans do not know about this development and are ignorant of its significance.

2. Tremendous new detail about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden is coming out in a book by the leader of the Delta Unit sent in 2001 to Afghanistan to kill him. He explains that, in his experience, no secret plan advocated by Delta had been denied by the higher-ups, but in 2001 it happened several times, resulting in Bin Laden’s escape.

The first plan was to sneak into Tora Bora through the Pakistani mountains to attack Bin Laden from behind. This was not approved. The second plan was to place hundreds of landmines along the pathway Bin Laden would have to use to escape into Pakistan, so they’d be trapped, spotted, and attacked. This was also not approved. This forced them to take part in a frontal assault with hired Afghans who often left the battlefield at night and after brief firefight.

The story of the Delta Unit is extremely fascinating, and I suggest reading the entire article.

3. I’ve long argued that the effort to destroy Afghanistan’s poppy fields was futile. I’m glad to see that Christopher Hitchens agrees with me.  He argues the government should purchase the opium while investing in reforestation over the long-term. The government could then destroy the opium or use it in producing painkillers, which Hitchens says, the U.S. is in a shortage of. The other option is to try destroying the fields, which would hurt Afghanistan’s economy and result in America losing the war for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

It’s a controversial and extreme measure, but with the insurgency in Afghanistan growing, it’s time to think outside the box.

4. But there may be good news coming out of Afghanistan. Reportedly, the Taliban is using Saudi Arabia to offer to end hostilities and break its links with Al-Qaeda. In fact, the Taliban is claiming that they already ended their alliance with Al-Qaeda, although there is no evidence of clashes between the two sides in Pakistan so I doubt this claim.

Part two of my four-part series for FamilySecurityMatters.org.

2. A wishful thinking Iran policy

While the Iranian regime openly talks about the destruction of Israel, denies the Holocaust, supports terrorism and arms, trains, funds, and even dispatches the terrorists who murder U.S. troops and innocent Afghans and Iraqis, Obama is favoring a continuance of the Bush Administration policy of doing nothing. Obama’s only policy prescription has been to launch top-level, face-to-face meetings between the U.S. president and the top leader of Iran (and other rogue states). Obama does not explain why current negotiations by lower-level staff members are not working (and why his will), and why simply flattering the regime with a presidential meeting will change their intentions. He doesn’t explain the goal of the strategy, or put forth a deal that can be made with the regime, or explain why he has any faith that the Iranians can even be trusted to hold up their part of a deal. In short, Obama has no policy toward Iran besides, “let’s talk it out.” It is no wonder that many Iranians, just like their Iraqi neighbors, probably live in fear of an Obama presidency.

Unfortunately for the U.S., Iranian people, and all those whose lives are threatened by Iranian-backed terrorists, Obama is against even the most basic measures to stop the regime. He opposed - but didn’t bother to show up to vote against - a law designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the regime’s outfit used to carry out terrorism, as a terrorist organization which enables the U.S. to impose sanctions on them, a bill with wide bipartisan support from people like Sen. Hillary Clinton. If Obama cannot properly define what a “terrorist” is, and isn’t even willing to support measures to place sanctions on them, how can he be trusted to stop, or at least contain Iran? The truth is that the mullahs only stand to gain from an Obama presidency, and that does not bode well for the people of the Middle East or the people of the United States.

3. A flawed philosophy

By studying Obama’s foreign policy, a seriously flawed philosophy on geopolitics can be seen. There are three parts to this. The first is Obama’s moral equivalency. When Russia invaded Georgia, going so far as to occupy the territory of Abkhazia which was not part of the original conflict, Obama’s first response was to call for restraint on both sides. By acting as the father of two boys struggling over a video game controller, Obama goes to great lengths to appear as the impartial arbitrator. Of course, Obama condemned Russia’s blatant aggression, but this occurred only after harsh criticism from the McCain campaign and all those who marveled at Obama’s failure to see black and white, instead choosing only to see grey. Such an outlook is convenient - seeing only grey means the U.S. won’t be morally obliged to support the white and oppose the black, and can instead sit on the sidelines trying to offend no one, but that doesn’t make people like the Georgians any less victimized, countries like Russia any less emboldened, or America any less threatened.

The second part of Obama’s philosophy can be viewed by three simple, if largely unreported, statements he made to David Brooks of The New York Times. He first states that U.S. foreign policy must look “at the root causes of problems and dangers,” a frequent phrase used by those who empathize with our enemies’ criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, even if disagreeing with their tactics and ideologies. This reflects the mindset that terrorism is an outgrowth from anti-Americanism caused by U.S. foreign policy, dismissing the inherent unreasonableness of radical Islamic ideology. The belief that anger against American policy is the enabler of radical Islam, and therefore U.S. policy must not anger foreign populations, fails to see that radical Islam flourishes largely due to the propaganda machines of non-free countries. These anti-American and pro-extremist attitudes do not emanate from an objective critique of American policy, but of the impartial, twisted take on current events that tyrannical regimes promote. No change in U.S. policy will be accurately represented, and therefore, no attempt by Obama to “address the root causes” will change anything, unless democratic reform is enacted in such countries that break the extremists’ blockade on information. However, Obama has said nothing about encouraging such reform, and there is no reason to believe he understands this dynamic.

Obama’s second statement in the interview is truly shocking. He states that the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas “need to be compelled to understand that they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” Stating that these terrorists have “legitimate claims” is unprecedented for any major presidential candidate. Again, Obama overlooks the goals of these groups and seeks to empathize with their grievances against the West. This isn’t to say Obama is unpatriotic, anti-American or pro-terrorist, but Obama should be forced to address which of Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s claims he views are legitimate. There can be no greater question in determining how someone views the world.

The third statement comes when Obama is asked how he could negotiate with the leaders like Ahmadinejad. Obama states, “there are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms.” Here, Obama dismisses the idea that there are simply some enemies of the U.S. who are not rational. No, Obama seems to believe, a deal can be struck with anyone. Common interests that will alleviate hostilities can always be determined. This shows Obama has a fundamental misunderstanding of radical Islam and radical ideologies as a whole. Their actions are not determined by politics or money, but by an uncompromising worldview that does not tolerate any dissenting thought. When Ahmadinejad says he is trying to hasten the arrival of the Hidden Imam, who will only come when the infidels and true Muslims go to war and the Imam will then destroy the infidels despite their superior power, no rationality, deal-making, or deterrence will work. The Brooks interview is the most important of this election, and all readers seeking to understand how Obama views the world, through all the rhetoric and “plans” absent of detail, must read it.

1. The suspicious murder of an anti-Chavez student leader in Venezuela has prompted a government investigation. The obvious culprit in this case is Chavez and his underlings. The murder caused anti-Chavez protests at several universities, again demonstrating growing discontent with the government. The fact that the immediate reaction was to blame Chavez shows that a large portion, perhaps the majority, of the Venezuelan people no longer trust Chavez and think he is evil enough to do something like this.

Unfortunately, by the same token, it shows that the opposition is unable to stage a strong political counter-attack after such a horrible deed. At some point, a critical mass is reached where those opposing the regime unite, and severely destabilize or overthrow the government, as we saw in Lebanon after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The sad truth is that the opposition appears unable to react in a similar way, due to fear, lack of organization, or maybe just not having enough support for such a spontaneous rebellion to occur. However, one day Chavez will go one step too far, and he’ll see the people marching towards the doors to his house.

2. Here’s a good editorialon the way to take down Chavez. He reportedly referred to lower oil prices as “a hundred hurricanes.” Chavez has used oil as a weapon–and so should we. A major project to reduce American oil dependence on Venezuela and the Middle East will do far more damage to these enemies than invasions or covert operations. This is one issue every American can agree on, and the U.S. should make it a national priority, much like the effort to construct the atom bomb. Simply put: Energy independence would weaken every enemy of the U.S. while strengthening America geopolitically and economically. There should be no greater cause for the next American president.

3. Israel has accused North Korea of providing conventional weapons or nuclear technology to at least 6 Middle Eastern countries. It’s pretty easy to guess who these are: Libya, Iran and Syria are givens. U.S. officials told Yahoo! News that the other three are Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, showing that North Korea has a huge financial interest in sparking an arms race in the region.

Pundits on North Korea seem to be missing the big issue: The North Korean regime’s possession of nuclear weapons is a threat, but the bigger threat is such technology or arms going to countries like Iran or Syria. These countries have openly stated their desire to share such technology with Venezuela and Sudan. This is unbelievably dangerous without even emphasizing the fact that such expertise, technology, or even assembled arms could be given to terrorist groups so that such countries can attack us without fingerprints.

In addition, the more countries that have such capabilities, the greater the possibility that Iran or someone else will launch an EMP attack on the U.S., frying the electronics of potentially the entire continent. When the Intelligence Community looks for a culprit, there will be no fingerprints, and there will be too many countries to pinpoint one by process-of-elimination.

One more note: If the regime collapses, these weapons will go to rogue states, criminals, and terrorist groups. They will. There are far too many of them and far too many starving people that will need to sell them for survival. In the event of a regime collapse or destabilization, the only option would be to overtly or covertly encircle North Korea (especially on the Chinese border somehow) to prevent such transfers. This requires planning right now and good enough intelligence ahead of such a collapse so that there’s enough time to assemble a force. We don’t have that intelligence, and it is doubtful whether we can trust the Chinese to adequately police the border. The rumors about Kim Jong-Il’s death should not provide comfort.

As always, WorldThreats.com welcomes the input and talents of its readers. But now we have a special request. In October, the very prestigious Intelligence Summit will be held. I am scheduled to speak about the influence of Nazism on the rise of radical Islam. The Summit brings together some of the most highly recognized experts and researchers on national security and foreign policy. Go to IntelligenceSummit.org for more information.

This presents a great opportunity for WorldThreats.com. I am currently a full-time student, severely affecting my ability to fund such trips. If you can support this web site through a donation, it’d be greatly appreciated and will go a long way.

If interested, please email me by clicking the “Email This Author” link at the bottom of this post if you can help. No donation is too large or too small. A $10 donation is just as appreciated as a $100.

You’ve been very generous in the past and without such support, I’d never have been able to be recognized even on this relatively small level. Thank you for all your support!

Ryan Mauro, founder of WorldThreats.com.

This is part one of a four-part series of articles I’ve authored for Family Security Matters.

You can view the published article here:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1379/pub_detail.asp.

Most people who know me personally know I’m not a partisan by any means, and in fact, most of my opinions on domestic issues are still being formed. I like Senator Obama personally, but the choice this year is easy for me: I am voting for Senator John McCain. On foreign policy and national security, the topics that I study and truly feel comfortable voting based upon, McCain is the clear choice.

Here is the first part of the series. On Iraq, besides reviewing McCain’s obviously superior judgement, I make this point, since the arguments about the past are getting repetitive: A vote for Obama is not a vote against war, but a vote for prematurely ending one in exchange for a costlier one down the line.

Click the link to read the full article.

Read the rest of this entry »

1. Apparently, there is a bit of an ideological struggle going on inside Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It’s a fascinating article. As a critic of Muslim Brotherhood, I find the development rather positive. Some analysts assume all members of Muslim Brotherhood are Wahhabi (or something close to it) and are extremists, but I’ve long argued that the Brotherhood is such a large organization that this is not the truth.

Muslim Brotherhood skillfully portrays itself as moderate and an advocate of human and civil rights, which brings them more support and recruits, particularly among younger Muslims. Many Muslims, especially in Egypt, favor Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring because they are seen as the main opposition group standing against the governments that oppress them. Muslim Brotherhood lambasts the human rights’ records of Mubarak and other leaders they deem not to be true Muslims, putting them on the side of the people. This has resulted in an influx of more moderate Muslims who will one day (or, according to the article, already are) foment an ideological struggle inside the organization.

The hierarchy of MB is trying to control these younger members who are voicing their more moderate opinions on the Internet, even going so far as to tell them to quit the movement. One member described being pressured after criticizing their party platform, which rejected rights for women and Coptic Christians, on the Internet.

Much like the Sunnis who joined the insurgents in Iraq, these Muslims are repulsed by Muslim Brotherhood after being sufficiently exposed to them. If freedom of speech was allowed in Egypt, it’d immediately hurt Mubarak, but it too would hurt Muslim Brotherhood’s appeal by allowing such dissent and criticism to be voiced.

2. An interesting account of why the U.S., Afghans, and Pakistanis failed to capture Bin Laden is reported here, although the criticism of the U.S. strategy there surely gives the article some bias.

The U.S. was unable to seal the border due to having insufficient forces in the area nor the capabilities to move a large force quickly in from Kuwait.  On the other hand, the #2 man in CENTCOM at the time, Michael DeLong, says Musharraf refused to send forces into the border areas because he felt it would spark a civil war.

On the other hand, Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who went with General Tommy Franks to Islamabad to meet with Musharraf, says DeLong’s account is inaccurate. She says that Musharraf offered to send 60,000 troops to the border areas but that he’d need airlift from the U.S. to transport them there.

David Lamm, the Army’s commander of forces in Kuwait, says the airlift didn’t occur because the forces weren’t available. Lamm says that an entire aviation brigade, hundreds of support troops and hundreds of helicopters would have to have been available for that to take place.  In addition, weather and geographic conditions would have hindered the airlift and sealing the border will would have been very difficult due to the pro-Bin Laden sympathies of the Pakistani population in that area.

The U.S. didn’t have the forces in because assembling such a force would have delayed the invasion of Afghanistan until spring 2002. Should we have waited? There are probably more cons to that option than pros. It’s unfortunate Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements escaped into Pakistan, and surely with 20-20 hindsight we can say some errors were made, but it’s hard to see what could have been done to change that outcome.

3. A new report says that the high-level Syrian official killed in the car bombing in Damascus was involved in the Syrian nuclear program which was recently restarted with North Korean help.

It’s also been reported that he was being investigated by the UN for having a role in the Hariri assassination, and therefore may have been killed by the regime. So who are the possible culprits?

1) Hezbollah, warning Syria of the consequences of turning to the West and breaking ties with them and their Iranian sponsors

2) Israel, launching a covert attack to weaken their nuclear program and perhaps destabilize the regime by creating fear and paranoia.

3) The Assad regime, concerned that this official could provide the smoking gun tying them to the Hariri assassinations and other acts of terrorism.

4) Members of the Syrian government or military who favor a move towards better ties with the West and away from becoming Iran’s satellite state.

5) A Syrian opposition group like Muslim Brotherhood or Sunni terrorists. It’s still possible that Syria will blame Sunni jihadists in northern Lebanon for the attack as a pretext to invade, although some reports indicate U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice has warned Syria against such a move.

Be sure to take two advil before consuming your daily dose of geopolitical analysis.

From this edition of the Christian Action Network’s Weekly Terrorism Spotlight (authored by yours truly):

1. The intelligence community is searching for Americans who have recently traveled to Pakistan, after interrogations of a female Al-Qaeda operative (educated in America) revealed that hundreds of Westerners have been trained by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan in recent years.

2. A fascinating debate has occurred on a radical Islamic internet forum after an author provided instructions on poisoning water supplies in Europe. Some extremists fell the attacks were unjustified due to the death toll of civilians and Muslims that would result, with others arguing that it was perfectly acceptable. A great read.

3. A civilian counter-terrorism group, the Northeast Intelligence Network (which I sometimes contribute to) has issued a warning that an apparently credible post has been made on a radical Islamic Internet forum. Muslims are warned to move their children to safe havens after October 7, and the post seems to indicate New York City and Washington D.C. are targets. The warning also cited previous postings claiming that terrorists had been sent to the U.S. and Europe to execute attacks.

4. I am highly critical of attempts to paint Obama as a closet Muslim, an anti-American radical, or terrorist sympathizer. Let’s be clear. His extremely concerning statement that Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims” even though their methods are wrong does demonstrate that he believes that terrorists’ grievances need to be listened to. Like many well-meaning, intelligent people, Obama believes that while terrorism is reprehensible, there must be some sort of logical thought process that drives them to such extremes.

The conclusion then follows that extremism is produced by political gripes, rather than a crazed ideology (in the same interview, Obama says there are “rarely purely ideological movements”).  This explains why he believes diplomacy can work with the most vile, apparently illogical of enemies like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Obama simply fails that the terrorist’s anti-American worldview follows after radical indoctrination. As I will explain briefly in a forthcoming article, this mindset is the centerpiece of an Obama foreign policy. While the U.S. certainly should try to minimize anti-Americanism in the world, it is wrong to point to such emotions as the source of extremism. After all, Europeans and South Americans are staunchly against American foreign policy, but they aren’t turning into suicide bombing extremists.

For a more in-depth look at this topic, check out my article, “Is American Foreign Policy Responsible for 9/11?” by clicking here.

1. Syria’s allowing of an anti-American, pro-terrorist TV station to open on their territory under a different name (al-Zawraa to al-Rai) caused me to believe that the Western-Syrian rapproachment had failed or was exaggerated all along. Then this story breaks. Hezbollah members are being told that Syria is no longer safe and to not visit the country, and for those that are there to take extra safety precausions. While the article says it is due to the bombing on September 27, I think it’s more of a culmination of events like the assassination of Mughniyah, and rumors of an Iranian-Syrian break. Whether this is truly a move based on safety by Hezbollah or whether this is a sign that Hezbollah no longer believes Syria to be on their side is unknown.

Senior members of Hamas in Syria are also on alert.

2. The head of the Jeemah Islamiyah terrorist group (and al-Qaeda affiliate), Naji Ibrahim, has stated that the Pakistani military nearly captured the #2 man of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in the tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan. This is significant as it’s the highest level confirmation we’ve received from the enemy side that Zawahiri is in that area. Unfortunately, Ibrahim did not say where along the border, so it won’t do much to refine the search.

3. Another sign that Al-Qaeda is largely defeating itself: A Saudi Mufti named Sheikh Abd al-Aziz Aal al-Sheikh has condemned Al-Qaeda, saying they were dividing the Muslim community and helping Islam’s enemies. He also criticized their “discourse” saying it was full of “killing, extortion and anarchy.”

4. Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the UN’s IAEA which runs the inspections of nuclear programs, has basically admitted that they are unable to prevent countries from secretly developing nuclear weapons. Basically, because if a country wants to hinder their investigation, it can do so at will (and with the U.N. being, well, the U.N., they have little to fear in doing so).

The report correctly ties this to the IAEA’s inability to investigate Iran and Syria. Iran has not sufficiently rebutted allegations of secret nuclear weapons development and bars inspectors from visiting sites connected to the military or interviewing certain officials. Syria, likewise, is also refusing inspections of sites they claim are not involving in nuclear work.

Nice to see some honestly from el-Baradei about the insanity of relying upon the IAEA to protect the world’s national security from rogue states.

1. A large bomb went off in Damascus on September 27 that targeted Abdul Karim Abbas of Syrian Military-Intelligence. The Reform Party of Syria previously suspected the bombing was an accident because it was near a car depot used by Syrian intelligence to put together car bombs for terrorist attacks. However, RPS says that it has learned that Abbas was at the center of the UN investigation into the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the prime minister of Lebanon, in 2005, that most experts blame on Syria. RPS says that Abbas delivered the truck bomb used in the assassination.

It seems likely that the Assad regime has killed him in order to prevent being implicated in the assassination.

2. The Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, which has provided credible intelligence to the U.S. in the past, says that Iran has accelerated its nuclear weapons program with help from North Korean scientists. They said a place called Mojdeh, southeast of Tehran, is where Shahab-3 and Qadr ballistic missiles were being made and that southwest of Tehran, at Khojair, missiles and nuclear warheads are being built at a facility with newly constructed tunnels.

3. Read this fantastic article about China’s rush for critical minerals and metals in Africa and how it is affecting that part of the world. The author says China is creating “a new slave empire” by exploiting the people there, and by reading it, I can’t disagree with him. China is involved in Congo, which is run by a dictator, and Zambia, a fragile democracy whose people opposed the Chinese presence. The author says that some even suspect China of trying to work with certain parties to defeat candidates who threaten China’s interests. A blockbuster article that will hopefully cause the U.S. to develop a meaningful strategy in this sad part of the world.

4. The Iraqi News Agency has reported that Dr. Muhammad al-Sayyed al-Tantawi, the Graind Sheikh of the prestigious Egyptian Al-Azhar University, has issued a declaration supporting the rights of the members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iraq. He said they should not be the victims of aggression, an obvious reference to Iran’s threats to them. This is extremely significant. While some argue MEK has little support inside Iran (and that may be true), this could help make the MEK cause a wider Sunni Muslim cause, boosting their support. Whether this is a good thing or not will depend on your view of the MEK.

The only question I’d ask now is if Dr. al-Tantawi is supporting them simply because their Sunni and targeted by Iran, or if it’s also because of their self-proclaimed democratic beliefs. If there is wide support for the MEK due to their democratic rhetoric (whether it’s genuine or not is another debate), that may indicate that Sunni Muslims in the region still aspire to follow those who express such ideals.

1. If this report is accurate, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has made a remarkable statement. He reportedly flatly stated he does not support “armed resistance” against Israel and said the intifada was counter-productive, resulting in the destruction of the Palestinian people and infrastructure. Abbas may not be the moderate some have claimed he is, but he appears to be succeptible to military pressure. Hamas, on the other hand, will never disavow force and the West should never mistake them for a rational political actor.

2. The Russians, despite all their whining about the U.S. construction of an ABM system, now plan to build their own space-based missile defense system as well as an entire nuclear submarine fleet by 2020. Russia also announced it’d develop new warheads in order to create a “guaranteed nuclear deterrent system.”

3. There’s some alarming quotes in this article about Russia’s buildup. The Russians are also putting their military on “permanent readiness” and their recent war exercises, which simulated a nuclear war with the U.S., were the largest since the Cold War.

The Guardian interviewed a defense analyst based in Moscow, who was quoted as saying: “Right now the present Russian leadership believes that a war with Nato is very much possible. This is the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union that the Russian military is actually preparing for an all-out nuclear war with America.”

The analyst then says that Russia wants to “divide the world into spheres of influence,” and if the U.S. must not interfere with Russia’s ambitions, or “we will prepare for nuclear war.”

4. It’s very clear that the Russians still have a Cold War mindset, as no logical analyst could conclude that the U.S. wants to threaten Russia with nuclear weapons. In fact, the U.S. (particularly the Bush Administration) has gone out of its way to avoid confrontation with Russia.

The truth is that the Russian leadership may not act completely rationally. Sure, they may not be Ahmadinejad or Ismail Haniya, but it’s clear that their way of viewing geopolitics isn’t entirely based in reality. Look at Iran. The Iranian regime supports radical Islamic terrorists and ideologies, which threatens Russia. But Russia still sells them arms and helps them build the capacity for nuclear weapons. Of course, the focus on nationalism and the military is a way for the leadership to maintain and expand its power, but its geopolitical maneuvering does not indicate that their foreign policy is solely intended for domestic political purposes.

5. As usual, the Long War Journal has some of the best reporting on a topic we must discuss: The hijacking of an Iranian ship by pirates. Read their report here. It’s been reported (but not verified) that the pirates are dying from symptoms that match exposure to radiation sickness. If true, then don’t rule out the ship’s involvement in nuclear material trafficking. The LWJ believes the ship simply has arms, probably intended for terrorists in Somalia. The LWJ also mentions how the U.N. and Western intelligence confirmed past Iranian support for the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, which has been linked to Al-Qaeda.