LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

LFTC - 12/31/09 Special Terror Post: Flight #253

Isaac Yeffet, former El Al chief and Israeli intelligence agent, told Fox & Friends yesterday tow key things in considering aviation security: (1) hire smart well-educated people; (2) train them very well.  Here is a 12/29/09 F&F video (4:34) with Yeffet, worth seeing to see the incredulous expression on his face as he describes TSA's comic-opera performance.

Right after he appeared F&F ran a brief clip of a former TSA security screener who is apparently writing a book on her experience, in novel form.  She said that upon showing up for work she was told to "keep your mouth shut" and she would do alright; supervisors then did what they wanted as to implementing the rules.

Meanwhile, ICX Technologies, a security firm in Arlington, VA, has a product line coming to market or in advanced testing.  Check out the website and watch the brief demos.

Newt Gingrich calls for targeted profiling immediately.  One Brit columnist sees a pattern of complacency and minimizing terrorist attacks, with 44 & his minions playing down the Islam connection while blaming Team Bush.  Here are more Family Security Matters videos on Flight #253.  Dick Cheney told Politico that Obama is pretending we are not at war, and that 44's priority is remaking American society.  A  New York Times front-pager recounts how intelligence failed to connect the dots of the impending attack.  BBC reports that a Somali national is in custody, having been arrested trying to board a plane in November with identical explosives and assembly materials as used by the XMAS bomber.  Another New York Times front-pager reports that airline executives are quaking in their financial boots, fearing customers will spurn air travel due to long lines and Mickey Mouse in-flight rules.

Reagan Justice Sept. official Victoria Toensing has pointed questions for the XMAS bombing perp:

Yet even the legal issues of a trial are of little importance compared to the threat to our security putting this terrorist into the regular criminal justice system presents. Abdulmutallab is in effect in possession of a ticking bomb, but we cannot interrogate him. His right to remain silent, as required by the Miranda rule, thwarts Mr. Obama's hollow attempt on Tuesday to "assure" us he is "doing everything in [his] power" to keep us safe.

Questions need to be answered. Where was Abdulmutallab trained? Who trained him? Where is the training facility located? Where is the stash of PETN, the explosive used in the bomb? What are the techniques he was told to use for getting through airport security? Was there a well-dressed man who helped him board the plane without a passport as claimed by another passenger? And, most important, are future attacks planned?

Yes, we could try him first and then interrogate him. But by then the information is stale, especially if he utilizes the same legal challenges Moussaoui did to drag out the process for years.

As the president told us, there were indeed "human and systemic failures" that "contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security." By placing this terrorist into the regular criminal process, he continues and magnifies those failures, which could leave to an actual catastrophe.

Abdulmutallab is not a United States citizen. By detonating a bomb on an airplane filled with 269 civilians, he committed an illegal act of war. A military commission, which has been used for such conduct since Gen. George Washington, will give him due process. But first, he must be interrogated.

Writing in the Daily Beast, Richard Miniter sums up the Napolitano-Holder Doctrine: Rights trump security.  The rights crowd converts our laws and the Constitution into a suicide pact.  Janet & Eric, it seems, would rather lose pretty than win ugly.  Andy McCArthy says the problem lies at 1600 Pennsylvania, not Homeland Security.

And then, as the TAS Prowler reports, there is what might be called the Obama Doctrine: Blame Bush for doing worse.  Dig this:

On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.

"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. Other administration sources also say a flurry of memos were generated on December 26th, 27th, and 28th, which developed talking points about how Obama's decision to effectively shut down the Homeland Security Council (it was merged earlier this year into the National Security Council, run by National Security Adviser James Jones) had nothing to do with what Obama called a "catastrophic" failure on Christmas Day.

"This White House doesn't view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it's a political issue," says the White House source. "That's why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue."

For Team Obama, politics trumps homeland security.

Even Ruth Marcus is mad at Team Obama.  After six "How can it be" paragraphs in mid-article, shoe closes with this fusillade at Team Obama:

And how can it be, in the face of all this, that the administration's communications strategy, cooked up on a conference call, was to assure us that they were looking into things but in the meantime we should settle down?

This was not just one supposedly out-of-context stumble by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; it was the official line. Making the rounds of Sunday talk shows, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs resisted every effort to get him to acknowledge that something had gone seriously wrong.

The American people are not as stupid as the administration's initial approach assumed. They accept that a smart, determined terrorist can -- and eventually probably will -- slip through the best-constructed defenses. They cannot accept -- nor should they -- a system so slipshod as to let through a bungler like Abdulmutallab, with all the red flags that were waved, and ignored.

Bottom Line: Earth to Team Obama: When your cheerleader friends are mad at you, you have a problem--a BIG problem.

LFTC READERS: ONCE AGAIN, HAPPY 2010!

LFTC - Special 12/30/09 Terror Update: Flight #253

President Obama made it official: There was a mix of human and systemic failure that led to near catastrophe Friday:

Moreover, as Secretary Napolitano has said, once the suspect attempted to take down Flight 253 -- after his attempt it's clear that passengers and crew, our homeland security systems and our aviation security took all appropriate actions.  But what's also clear is this:  When our government has information on a known extremist and that information is not shared and acted upon as it should have been, so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could cost nearly 300 lives, a systemic failure has occurred.  And I consider that totally unacceptable.

The reviews I've ordered will surely tell us more.  But what already is apparent is that there was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security.  We need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix the flaws in our system, because our security is at stake and lives are at stake.

I fully understand that even when every person charged with ensuring our security does what they are trained to do, even when every system works exactly as intended there is still no one hundred percent guarantee of success.  Yet, this should only compel us to work even harder, to be even more innovative and relentless in our efforts.

As President I will do everything in my power to support the men and women in intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security to make sure they've got the tools and resources they need to keep America safe.  But it's also my job to ensure that our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security systems and the people in them are working effectively and held accountable.  I intend to fulfill that responsibility and insist on accountability at every level.

Begin with sage advice from El-Al's ex-security chief & Israeli secret service operative given on Fox & Friends yesterday, re aviation security: (1) we ignored the father's warning; (2) behavioral profiling--list examined pre-flight, question suspects thoroughly, check documents in detail and require all questions to be answered fully; (3) against body scan--Muslims will know wife seen naked in machine, would touch off cultural explosion; (4) probably a confederate assisted at airport!; (5) stop panic--shows fear & weakness, such as one-hour before landing rule--terrorist blows up plane 90 minutes before!

Two quick reactions: (a) OK, give anyone the option of electing a pat-down alternative to a full body scan, to avoid cultural problems; (b) it will be harder to discover confederate co-conspirators, thanks to Team Obama's decision to instantly indict, and thus "Mirandize" defendant.

On "Hardball" last night Chris Matthews channeled...Dick Cheney!  He said that al-Qaeda are enemies at war with us and thus we can hold them for the duration of the conflict.  He stated that the minute a plane blows up, civil liberties will be put aside and security put first.  (Hmmm, maybe Chris can replace Janet Napolitano & Eric Holder....)

Ralph Peters fingers political correctness--44 yesterday ignored radical Islam--and so instead we hassle grandma at the airport.

A New York Times front-pager identifies shortfalls in implementing previously recommended security measures:

This latest round follows years of effort that has created a security net that is much stronger in key areas, from simple things like secure cockpit doors to the routine inspections now done on checked baggage.

But a review of government audits and interviews with experts inside and outside the government also shows that the system has been slow to make even bigger changes because of a balky bureaucracy, fickle politics and, at times, airline industry opposition. It has also squandered tens of millions of dollars on faulty technology, like high-tech “puffer” machines that repeatedly broke down and flunked the most basic test: they failed to detect some explosives.

As a result, the government has delayed putting in place some of the most important recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission report, which examined the missteps that led to attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.

For example, the government has yet to fully deploy a sophisticated method of matching passenger names with terrorist watch lists. And it has still not finished changes that would make it harder for terrorists to sneak bombs into airplane cargo holds, according to government reports.

Certain measures have been implemented:

Approximately 45,000 professional screening officers have been hired by the federal government. More than 1,600 machines that function like a doctor’s office M.R.I. have been installed at airports nationwide to inspect checked baggage. Another 900 of the machines that scan carry-on bags at passenger checkpoints have been upgraded, to make it easier to find hidden weapons or explosives.

Hundreds of additional canine teams are in place at some of the nation’s 450 commercial airports, and nearly 2,900 of the transportation security officers have been assigned to so-called behavioral detection teams that observe passengers headed to flights for possible hints of terror plots, a strategy adopted from Israel.

Notable is the failure to deploy sophisticated database-matching systems to make best use of terror watch list information.  Not mentioned in the Gray Lady's otherwise informative article: Civil liberties advocates went ballistic when the Pentagon tried to do just this, with its misnamed Total Information Awareness project.  Call it Threat Integration Analysis and restart the idea, ASAP.  But the Team Obama mindset works against this, whereas the Team Bush mindset put security over sensitivity.

This may have been a test run, Heritage Foundation national security expert James Jay Carafano told Fox American Newsroom.  On NRO Corner: Carafano sees 2010 has a bad terror year if our luck runs out, with a feckless Washington unable or unwilling to do what must be done to minimize serious threats; John Derbyshire calls for limiting Muslim immigration to Western countries; Daniel Pipes sees Janet Napolitano's definition as a working system so long as no one was killed as a problem; Rich Lowry sums up how passenger inconvenience substitutes for real targeted security measures.

Considerably more (deliciously) acid is Christopher Hitchens, who bemoans the willingness of passengers to be mauled based upon the false belief that their being searched is making them safer:

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can't—or won't. The answer to the second question is: Because we can. The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to "feel safe." The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens' toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.

Family Security Matters posted a series of Flight #253 video interviews; peruse at your leisure.  I strongly recommend (a) the 11-minute Dennis Miller clip with a passenger who witnessed how the Flight #253 terrorist was shepherded through Schipol Airport (Amsterdam) security by a well-dressed man (of apparent Indian descent)--precisely the kind of red flag that Israeli security would have nailed; the witness told his story to authorities here.  Then (b) watch Janet Napolitano walk back from her "the system worked" under Matt Lauer's questions (3:43).  Then (c) watch a passenger video of JetBlue in-flight Mickey-Mouse harassment as the pilot apologizes and passengers giggle incredulously(1:22).

Meanwhile, the WSJ editors detail the flap over Sen. Jim DeMint (R-NC) holding up 44's nominee to head TSA.  44 nominated the guy in September, and only in November did Democrats clear his nomination for consideration on the floor.  DeMint put a senatorial hold on because the nominee favors unionizing homeland security workers.  This issue, which Democrats lost big time to Bush 43 in the 2002 off-year elections (it cost Georgia Democrat Max Cleland his Senate seat) is legitimate.  Unionization is to security as mustard is to pancakes--you've got to be kidding....

Finally, a black mark for Team Bush: Note the FSM posting (no video) that two Gtimo detainees released to Yemen in 2007 have returned to terrorism, and sponsored this latest attack; it seems that the--per Dave Barry, I am NOT making this up!!!--"art therapy rehabilitation program" they entered did not take.

OOPS!  Defendant purchased his ticket Dec. 15, two days before the first of the Yemen air-strikes that al-Qaeda said were the reasons for the attempted bombing.

I must add this nugget I missed in earlier LFTC posts: the Christmas terrorist managed to board the plane without a passport.

Bottom Line.  It is tempting to start by getting Team Obama to fire Janet Napolitano.  But they will not do so, for the same reason they will not fire Eric Holder.  They are all peas on a legalist pod,  Three forces above all are standing in the way of safer skies (and safer streets, too): (1) bureaucratic sloth, which everyone recognizes as a problem; (2) politically correct objections to profiling, which many do not grasp; (3) civil libertarians, whose "suicide-pact" legalism handcuffs authorities and prevents our deploying vital tools to counter terror threats.  To take an analogy from air power, instead of area bombing by searching everyone regardless of threat level, we need more focus on potential terrorists, such being the homeland security equivalent of precision-guided munitions.

LFTC - Special Terror Update: Al-Qaeda Claims Flight #253; Perp Claims "The Fifth"

Al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) now claims responsibility for the attempted Christmas bombing of NWS Flight #253.  AQAP linked the attack to a recent Predator air-strike that killed key AQAP HVTs (High-Value Targets).

Meanwhile, the perp, who was talking a blue streak before being hit with criminal charges, is now safely "Mirandized" and "lawyered up."  And thus, such matters as what AQAP knows about penetrating screening, what its plans might be, what kind of training recruits receive, how recruiting is conducted, all these matters that a proper interrogation of said perp might yield--i.e., useful intelligence data of national security value--are now foreclosed by Team Obama's myopic focus on proving the worth of our criminal justice system.

President Obama's Dec. 28 Hawaii terror remarks yesterday were scatter-shot.  He called the attempt an act of terrorism:

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely.  The suspect is now in custody and had been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.  And a full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.

This was a serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who threaten our homeland.  Had the suspect succeeded in bringing down that plane it could have killed nearly 300 passengers and crew, innocent civilians preparing to celebrate the holidays with their families and friends.

But then he prematurely called the terrorist an "isolated extremist":

Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident.  Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans.  This incident, like several that have preceded it demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.

The privilege against self-incrimination we have foolishly given unlawful combatants will, in this case, take precedence over the need to obtain information to prevent future attacks by AQAP.  OK, maybe prosecutors will cut a deal.  But we likely could have gotten the information WITHOUT promising the perp anything, since he was talking furiously upon his arrest.  While he was off balance, we could have gotten lots of stuff that now we will have to pay for, and perhaps let a would-be mass murder off with a wrist-slap to get the data we were entitled to get from him as an unlawful combatant without giving way.

BUT KARL ROVE REALLY NAILED IT ON FOX NEWS LAST NIGHT: PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS WOKEN UP INSTANTLY TO BE INFORMED HE HAD WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.  BUT HE WAS ALLOWED TO SLEEP AN EXTRA THREE HOURS BEFORE BEING TOLD OF THE CHRISTMAS TERROR ATTACK.

One other dark spot in the WP story: With 40 advanced millimeter-wave (extremely short wavelength radio waves that sketches out silhouette shapes without photographic detail) scanners installed at 19 of America's 430 major airports, there are only 150 currently on order for early delivery, and there are 2,200 security lanes at the major airports.  Which means 2,000 uncovered lanes for years to come.  Enjoy flying the friendly skies!

Bottom Line.  The President's policy is simply put, schizophrenic and partially delusional: He recognizes that an act of terrorism was attempted, but frames the issues in terms of criminal prosecution.  And he hastened to label the attacker "isolated"--even as today AQAP claimed a role.  Factor in that Yemen is now officially a battleground--AQAP having sponsored this retaliatory attack--and Team Obama is trying to shoehorn terrorist acts of war into garden-variety criminal cases.  Symbolic of the confusion Team Obama finds itself in, is that nearly half the remaining detainees held at Guantanamo were Yemenis, slated to be repatriated to Yemen, now clearly a terrorist haven for al-Qaeda.

LFTC - Special Terror Post: A Neo-Shoe-Bomb Near Miss

Of Friday's near airliner KA-BOOM! Homeland Insecurity Secretary Janet Napolitano said on several Sunday talk shows: "The system worked."  Despite White House spin that Jihad-Unseeing Janet meant only what happened after the near-disaster, it seems that our security system remains in no small measure: "Let the passengers do it."  While screening thousands of tips & culling vast watch lists is a daunting task, Britain managed to deny the would-be terror bomber a visa.  Why did we fail to do the same?

The Washington Post reports that the authorities get thousands of bits of information weekly:

The existing system was established by the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. It was designed to close gaps in intelligence-sharing that allowed a number of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers to enter the United States, although the CIA had identified them overseas as terrorism suspects.

The reforms set up the National Counterterrorism Center, which administers a huge database of terrorism information called the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE.

Each day, thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world -- field assessments, captured documents, news from foreign allies and the media, and reports from worried fathers -- pour into the NCTC computers in McLean. At 11 each night, selected information from TIDE is downloaded into the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, administered by the FBI. Overnight entries are examined each morning by an interagency team drawn from across the government.

Under FBI direction, individuals assessed as significant risks are then "nominated" to specific watch lists, each of which has different criteria. In addition to the "no-fly" and "selectee" lists, the State Department maintains a list of people who should not be granted visas; other lists single out people who cross land borders and domestic fugitives.

In Abdulmutallab's case, a single, non-specific entry in TIDE was not enough to send his information to the TSDB, so he was never considered for a watch list. Among the gaps in the system already being addressed by computer technicians, officials said, is the absence of an "automatic feedback loop" that would have let TIDE know that the random report from Nigeria referred to a man who already had a valid U.S. entry visa, issued more than a year before.

At Human Events, publisher Jed Babbin calls situational awareness and the willingness to employ physical self-defense a duty on flights.  He suggests questions for Napolitano:

Congressional Republicans should be asking Napolitano some pointy-type questions right now. Such as:

1. Abdulmutallab’s father apparently reported him to the embassy in Lagos, saying he'd turned radical. Who shared that information and with whom? Was there any follow-up?

2. What is the function of the so-called “Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment,” which listed Abdulmatullab, other than to keep DHS bureaucrats employed?

3. What does it take to be promoted from the “TIDE” list to the “no-fly” list? 

4.  Abdulmutallab has apparently claimed that Yemeni al-Queda planned the attack and provided him with the means.  Are those claims true?

5. What preventive actions are being taken while Abdulmutallab’s claims are being investigated?

6.  In light of Abdulmutallab’s claims, will the administration delay or cancel plans to release some Gitmo inmates to Yemen?

7. The flight reportedly had no Federal Air Marshals aboard.  Why? Schipol is notoriously lax in security. 

8.  How much has Homeland Security spent on new passenger and baggage-screening technologies?  What do we have to show for it?

Here is a summary of the General Accountability Office's Nov. 10 2009 aviation security report, which says that Homeland Security has fielded ten technologies in airports since 9/11, none fully deployed.

The New York Times story recounting the history of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the wealthy Nigerian terrorist whose Christmas bomb did not detonate on board Delta/Northwest #253 coming into Detroit, informs us that the would-be successor to shoe-bomber Richard Reid used a similar explosive.  His mother is of Yemeni descent and his father a Nigerian banker.  His father turned him in, and Britain, where the son lived in a sumptuous townhouse, had refused him a visa.  Here is the federal criminal complaint reciting the statutes the terrorist is charged with.  (As he was subdued on the flight in the terror act I will dispense with "alleged" in my references--indeed, the terrorist told a flight attendant that he had an explosive device in his pocket, after being subdued.)

The explosive, called PETN, which the would-be bomber said he obtained in Yemen, was used in an attempted assassination of a senior Saudi security official recently; here is more detail on security procedures and PETN detection.  On CNN Weekend Newsroom yesterday, anchor Fredericka Whitfield was told by an FBI agent that PETN is a hard-to-handle high-grade military explosive, akin to nitroglycerin, and "not something you take home and mix in your bathtub."  This New York Times piece has more detail on the origin and tricky nature of PETN.  Here is a YouTube PETN video (22 sec.) showing PETN at work.

Seated in Seat 19A, he was next to a wing & fuel tank.  He was on the Terror Watch list, but not others, as the Times details:

The suspect’s name was inserted last month into the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or Tide. About 550,000 individuals are registered in the database. A subset of that is the Terrorist Screening Data Base, or T.S.D.B., which has about 400,000.

By contrast, fewer than 4,000 names from the T.S.D.B. are on the “no-fly” list, and an additional 14,000 on a “selectee” list that calls for mandatory secondary screening, an Obama administration official said. At the time Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name was recorded in the Tide database in November, the official said, “there was insufficient derogatory information available” to warrant putting him in the T.S.D.B., no-fly or selectee lists, and so he was not on any watch list when he boarded the plane bound for Detroit.

President Obama has ordered a review of airport security procedures.  Rep. Peter King (R-NY), prominent in terror issues, called for a thorough investigation not only re security procedures on airlines, but also visa screening.  Senator Joe Lieberman called for use of advanced body-scanning devices now used experimentally in 19 of the nation's 430 major airports, dismissing privacy concerns as minimal; such machines--40 in use today, with 878 planned by 2014--are the only ones who could have found this kind of device.  And as the Washington Post reports, get ready for a thorough mauling when traveling to America from international airports.  Australia has already sharply tightened security procedures, including body pat-downs.  European airports are also stepping up screening and limiting on-board luggage.

Author Gerald Posner adds detail on failure to follow up on suspected terrorists, once again in this case.  Get this:

The first goal of government investigators this Christmas weekend? “Trying to figure out if the guy is a nut or an operator,” a senior U.S. intelligence official, referring to 23-year-old Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national who unsuccessfully tried to ignite an explosive device on an incoming Northwest airlines flight to Detroit on Christmas Day. Al Qaeda or angry loner?

The second goal is almost as urgent. How did someone whose father, the recently retired chairman of Nigeria’s First Bank, apparently warned American embassy officials several weeks ago that his son’s religious views had become increasingly extreme and militant, gain access to a plane heading to the United States?

Although his father’s warning got Abdulmutallab on the a broad list, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment repository, along with 550,000 other people, the Daily Beast has learned that no one evidently tagged the information from the Lagos embassy as a priority and then highlighted it so he would be placed into a more active suspect database (the Terrorist Screening Data Base). If they had, according to one counter-terrorism official who spoke me on the condition of anonymity, security procedures could have promptly moved Abdulmutallab to a no-fly list. (The information passed from Lagos was so generic that, according to what an unnamed U.S. administration official told Reuters on Saturday, it was not negative enough to include him on any banned flying list.)

On ABC News Sunday, Napolitano bobbed & weaved, but at least White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered useful aviation surveillance metrics: OF 550,000 TIDE names, 400,000 are used to screen for shorter lists, with 14,000 making the Selectee List (enhanced screening) and 4,000 the no-fly list.  NRO's Corner offers a menu of quick-reaction postings from its stable of stellar contributors, well worth a read.

Bill Kristol noted Sunday that because the act is being treated as a "one-off" criminal case defendant has lawyered up and is not talking, let alone, being interrogated as an unlawful enemy combatant.  (As Posner notes, however, the arrestee did talk a bit, at least, before lawyering up; it may not, however, be admissible in court for use by the prosecution.)  Thorough interrogation under Army Field Manual rules should of course have been done even if the bomber is viewed as a lone wolf terrorist.  Instead, he gets Miranda rules.

As for Yemen, where Team Obama plans to send 97 Gitmo detainees, the Washington Post reports that the failed state is now a mecca for al-Qaeda activities.  The Sun (UK) reports that Scotland Yard believes 25 British Muslims are being trained for terror attacks now in Yemen.  The US has stepped up combat activities (notably, Predator strikes) there.  Senator Lieberman quoted a security expert: "Iraq was yesterday's war, Afghanistan is today's war and Yemen, if we do not do something, will be tomorrow's war."  Alas, it already is: "tomorrow's war" is here today.

Bottom Line.  Terrorists must be treated as unlawful combats and interrogated thoroughly, not as criminal suspects ISO lawyers and silence.  Body-scanning machines should be installed in major airports before civil liberties extremists get some of us killed.  Visa procedures should flag anyone on the terror watch list and deny entry until (if) they are cleared.  Behavioral profiling should be sharply stepped up at airports, using the vast resource of retired police officers, who have the training to spot people behaving suspiciously--few terrorists have the sang froid to hide signs of undue stress.  Security personnel need not maul the rest of us: Every search of a low-risk or zero-risk passenger (think: former VPs, Medal of Honor winners) diverts security personnel from those with higher-risk profiles; thus, searching everyone only makes sense given infinite resources.

In sum: Machine-screen everyone, supplemented by targeted behavioral vetting of elevated-risk passengers, plus, at most, a thin sliver of pure random screenings to inject extra unpredictability into the process.

LFTC - Holiday Music Special: Best Wishes, LFTC Readers

Jazz up your holiday season with the late, all-time great Oscar Peterson going super boogie (4:27)!!!!  Gone two years already, Oscar, we miss you--I mean, we really, really miss you!!

My own holiday season was jazzed up by the epic record snowstorm that blanketed the District of Columbia over the weekend.  It forced President Obama to take surface transport from Andrews Air Force Base into DC, a concession to the Weather Gods that even global warming types must make.  (Let's send Al Gore a zero-carbon-emission sled for XMAS!)

LFTC is taking a holiday break and will return Monday, January 4, 2010.

Best Wishes to LFTC Readers.  That said, may all readers of Letter From The Capitol have a happy, healthy holiday season and may the New Year bring all friends of freedom and civilization a year of pleasant surprises.  And just as the first decade of the new century turned out far worse than expected, may the coming decade turn out to be far more pleasant than now appears in prospect.

LFTC - Index 12/18/09

One post: Tale of Two 20th Century Cities and Two 21st Century Decades--"It's the Earth Stupid!".

BONUS POSTING: Fenton Report published my "Climate Change: Tale of Three Computer Models" this week; it is timely, as the Copenhagen Climate Carbonfest draws to a close today--to the sight of snow falling.

LFTC - Tale of Two 20th Century Cities and Two 21st Century Decades

This Hiroshima - Detroit 1945 v. 2009 set of images says much about the state of government policy, as the first decade of the 21st century draws to a close.  The devastation wreaked by nuclear weapons in 1945 vastly exceeded in direct destructiveness and searing emotional, societal impact the destruction wreaked by failed government policies.  But the point these photos make is two-fold: (a) the remarkable effects of the resilience of the human spirit, guided by policies promoting growth and enterprise; (b) the sadly equally remarkable effects of the sapping of the human spirit, under decades of misgovernment that discouraged growth and enterprise. 

And there is more sapping of enterprise & spirit: Anne Applebaum notes that the anti-humanism & nihilism of the warmists is filtering down to her child.  Charles Krauthammer sees in militant environmentalism per Copenhagen a "shakedown" seizure of the "commanding heights" of the global economy:

....[T]he idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

We face grave challenges as we enter 2010: (a) the nuclear quest of Iran, which could bring a new "rain of ruin" on a scale vastly greater than Hiroshima & Nagasaki suffered; (b) governmental policies proposed that, if adopted, could well lead to making the United States, in a generation, more closely resemble today's Detroit than today's Hiroshima.  Mortimer Zuckerman's five-pager on the bleak employment outlook captures the grim future likely awaiting America.

Team Obama exhibits the same kind of hubris that led Lyndon Johnson's Great Society over economic and social cliffs: the belief that compassion coupled with government programs can lead to societal prosperity.  Coupled with feckless diplomacy that Iran, marching eagerly towards joining the nuclear club, laughs at, 2010 shapes up as a tense, dangerous year.

Indeed, 2010's somber approach stands in stark contrast to the stunning debut of 2000, at a time of global prosperity and relative peace, with images of spectacle and celebration.

Bottom Line for 2000's First Decade:

People matter.  And the governance choices people make matter too.  The government that governs best harnesses the energies of its people in a positive way.  And governments do this by, per Mr. Jefferson, when they govern least.

LFTC - Index 12/17/09

4 posts: (1) Surveillance Game-Changer--Us v. Them; (2) ObamaCare: Meet the Mammogram "Death Panel"--The Home Front (3) Lawfare at Home: Constitutionalizing Criminality--The Home Front: (4) Iraq's Fossil Fuel Future--and Ours--"It's the Earth Stupid!".

LFTC - Surveillance Game-Changer

Fox News reports that Lockheed, home of Stealth technology, has developed a stealth surveillance-only drone.  Sounds like another triumph of American technology.  Silent, low-observable drones offer better chances of spotting bin Laden and also hidden facilities.

LFTC - ObamaCare: Meet the Mammogram "Death Panel"

A radiologist writes in a recent Human Events piece noting inexpert composition of the mammogram panel, whose recent recommendation to defer screening until age 50 sparked a firestorm.  She writes up statistics and the panel's now-abandoned proposal:

The five-year breast cancer survival in the U.S. is 90.1%. The five-year survival for breast cancer in Europe is 79%. American women must ask themselves one question: Is cutting the budget for screening mammograms in half worth this 11.1% drop in breast cancer survival? 

Patients must realize not even one member on the task force that made this recommendation was a radiologist, an oncologist, or a surgeon -- the specialists that actually diagnose and treat breast cancer every day. As a result, the recommendations will not save lives. However, these recommendations will save the government money.

One in 1,900 mammograms diagnoses cancer in women ages 40 to 49. Given that statistic, the US Preventive Services Task Force determined that screening mammography for this age group was not “cost effective.” However, only one in 1300 mammograms diagnoses cancer in women 50 to 59. As the budget tightens in the wake of soaring deficit spending, will screening mammograms for these women be cut as well? Who decides if one in 1,300 is “cost effective” where one in 1,900 is not? Who determines what care is needed?

As a radiologist, I have diagnosed hundreds of cancers in women between the ages of 30 and 49. Imagine if an asymptomatic breast cancer (detected only on mammography) in a 43-year-old woman continues to grow undetected. Most likely, that woman will not live to see her first government-sanctioned exam.

Robert Samuelson describes America as "health care nation": driven by soaring health care costs that crowd out alternative uses of federal dollars inexorably.

Bottom Line.  Any government panel--and panel in the private sector, too--necessarily will make essentially arbitrary line-drawing judgments like the 1,900 v. 1,300 example given above, if cost containment is a major policy objective.  The only antidote to this is patient choice taking precedence over green-eye-shade health care economics.

LFTC - Lawfare at Home: Constitutionalizing Criminality

A New York federal district judge has ruled unconstitutional a House vote to cut off funding for the community activist group ACORN.  Interestingly enough, the House vote, by a whopping 345-75 margin, came on September 17, which is the anniversary date for adoption of the federal Constitution.  The judge--Nina Gershon, a 1996 Clinton appointee-- held in ACORN v. USA (21 pages Dec. 11, 2009) that the House's action amounted to a Bill of Attainder, a form of legislative punishment prohibited by the Constitution.  The Constitutional Online Dictionary defines attainder as " the loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime."

There is, needless to say, no civil right to receive taxpayer, taken away in this case for ACORN having been caught on-camera engaging in criminal acts (counseling how to conduct illegal business and evade tax liability for same).  Judge Gershon's opinion (link above) evades the plain understanding of civil and political rights, citing one like-minded judge in Florida, by characterizing as a "right" that of applying for funding from the legislature.  This slight-of-legalese gets around what the judge concedes, in her opinion, is "the discretionary nature of governmental funding" (my italics).  (I leave it to LFTC readers to sift through the cases she cites, all of which are somewhat different than this case; LFTC posts are not law review articles.)

Civil rights of course include property rights, but there is zero property right to receive government funds.  Nor, as the judge ruled, do legislators have to follow regular, uniform procedures.  Bureaucracies, part of the executive branch, must do so per the Administrative Procedure Act.  Legislators can--indeed often do--act on whims of the moment.  Thus, there is zero right to have one's applications for federal funding considered on an equal basis by Congress.  It may not produce felicitous results when our Solons do (though in this case, it did), but they can so act.  There are certain clear limitations, such as Congress not being able to fund anything on a "whites only" or "men" only basis, which would be grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  But ACORN clearly fails to so qualify.

The judge's ruling granted ACORN a preliminary injunction, so the case goes to trial, where the government may well prevail if it pursues the case.  Or possibly the government may try a direct appeal to a federal appeals panel in the Second Circuit, which hears appeals from New York (and other) federal district courts.

Bottom Line.  For the good of serious Constitutional governance, this case should be overruled.  Establishing any precedent in law giving applicants for federal funds any kind of rights to receive or even to apply for funds amounts to government by judicial fiat.  Pray this outrageous case is overruled.

LFTC - Iraq's Fossil Fuel Future--and Ours

BBC reports that within 6 years Iraq might produce as much as 12 million barrels of oil per day.  This nearly matches Saudi Arabia's current production.  Meanwhile, back home Exxon invested $29 billion to buy a natural gas producer, placing a business bet that carbon-emission free natural gas will supplant petroleum, as new technology enables extraction from oil shale at competitive prices.

LFTC - Index 12/16/09

3 posts: (1) North Korean Sudden Sunset?--Us v. Them; (2) Palestinian Progress--Us v. Them; (3) Obama's Poland SOFA Sale--Wobble Watch

LFTC - North Korean Sudden Sunset?

Ace journalist Claudia Rosett alerts us to a possible surprise: severe unrest in North Korea that just possibly might bring down the regime.  The source of rising popular anger is currency confiscation, hidden, as eve in such regimes, under the mantle of reform.  Meanwhile, Foggy Bottom has a top diplomat over there, trying to prop up a rogue regime.  Instead, as CR urges, we should be doing everything to hasten its collapse.  Read CR's excellent column in full.  The Washington Post reports that a Foggy Bottom envoy's visit to Pyongyang produced no commitment from the North to return to nuclear talks (surprise, surprise...).  Indeed, while this was going on a huge air cargo of weaponry (including missiles) from the North was seized in Bangkok.

LFTC - Palestinian Progress

Ex-Sunday Telegraph columnist Tom Gross sees Palestinian progress without Obama, in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.  Nablus & Ramallah, major cities on the West Bank, are thriving economically.  Even Gaza is not a complete basket case.  The reason, writes Gross, is that progress is being made from the ground up, with help from--yes, I mean it--Israel.  This is being ignored by most media, which may be a good thing.  Let progress be made under the radar screen (as LFTC noted last week in chastising the Gray Lady).  Gross sums thing up aptly:

The truth is that an independent Palestine is now quietly being built, with Israeli assistance. So long as the Obama administration and European politicians don't clumsily meddle as they have in the past and make unrealistic demands for the process to be completed more quickly than it can be, I am confident the outcome will be a positive one. (The last time an American president—Bill Clinton in 2000—tried to hurry things along unrealistically, it merely resulted in blowing up in everybody's faces—literally—and set back hopes for peace by some years.)

Israelis and Palestinians may never agree on borders that will satisfy everyone. But that doesn't mean they won't live in peace. Not all Germans and French agree who should control Alsace Lorraine. Poles and Russians, Slovenes and Croats, Britons and Irish, and peoples all over the world, have border disputes. But that doesn't keep them from coexisting with one another. Nor—so long as partisan journalists and human rights groups don't mislead Western politicians into making bad decisions—will it prevent Israelis and Palestinians from doing so.

As it happens, recently, to little notice, Israeli PM Netanyahu froze new settlements construction on the West Bank.  Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, explained his PM's rationale in s recent WSJ op-ed.

Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson, who appears to me a moderate liberal, takes a similar perspective:

These accomplishments provide a foundation for what could be a new American approach. Last summer, Fayyad announced that — instead of waiting for political negotiations to reach a final agreement on a Palestinian state — he would simply work to build the institutions of such a state right away. His aim was to create conditions that within two years would convince the world, including the Israelis, that the entity should be granted statehood. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed a similar approach. He wants to provide both sides with security by building the Palestinian economy, and he has lifted some of the checkpoints in the West Bank.

Private groups have been helping this process. In partnership with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Palestine Investment Fund, the Aspen Institute created the Middle East Investment Initiative, which uses loan guarantees to provide financing for medium-size Palestinian businesses. In two years it has facilitated 210 loans totaling $45 million, generating 3,514 new jobs. In addition, the group has created an affordable mortgage facility, which will help more than 10,000 families purchase homes. Aspen's U.S.-Palestinian Partnership is also helping create a venture-capital fund run by Israeli and Palestinian investors to finance technology start-ups.

The Bush Administration energetically supported these efforts. So did National Security Adviser Jim Jones when he served as a Middle East envoy during the Bush Administration. When Jones wanted to make the town of Jenin a model of how security could be improved, he worked closely with those of us who were encouraging private investments.

US News & World Report publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, ever astute on Mideast matters, sees "Hints of Palestinian Progress" in recent events:

In yet another effort to find peace, the Israelis risked their own security by dismantling security barriers and checkpoints—down from 147 to 14 in the West Bank—and so providing mobility for people in commerce. They have "not been getting much credit for it," in the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but the economic results are dramatic. Wages in the West Bank were up 24 percent in 2008 over 2007; agricultural exports from the Palestinian Authority to Israel increased from 30,000 tons in 2007 to 92,000 tons in 2008; the number of permits for Palestinians to work in Israel rose from 21,000 to 23,000.

This has not come to pass, MZ writes, because of The One captivating Palestinians: One in 6 Palestinians have a positive opinion of America, and one of 4 have such of President Obama.

Netanyahu has pushed the bottom-up approach:

Netanyahu's approach holds that peace will come from the bottom up, not the top down. It is both about economic development and about bringing security under control. The PA had been paralyzed, its security organizations scattered and ineffective, so it was left to the Israeli Defense Forces to control things on the ground while the terrorists hid. Several hundred gang leaders created chaos in the territories, holding back commercial and economic life, demanding protection money, killing and wounding Arabs and Jews alike. The PA simply didn't have the capacity to deal with these gangs.

A new approach came from Israel's General Security Services in 2007. The GSS director approached the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, offering the wanted men a deal. If they ended their involvement in terrorism and violence, gave up their weapons, and placed themselves under the protection of the PA, they would be taken off the wanted list and would neither be arrested nor killed.

There was to be a three-stage trial period. First, the wanted men would be under the protection of the security services, restricting their movements; second, they would be given relative freedom of movement in the area; and third, they would be allowed to return home and live a normal life as long as they adhered to the terms of the agreement.

Results to date are impressive: nearly 80 percent of terrorists & gang leaders on the original roundup list have gone straight.  And support for PA political leadership is rising.

Bottom Line.  Let grandiose bargaining marathons like Camp David & Annapolis fall by the wayside, and send the special envoys home.  For the longer Palestinian progress stays a secret--and the longer the US State Department, European and UN meddlers are kept at bay--the better chance for progress and defeat of terrorism.

LFTC - Obama's Poland SOFA Sale

The Christian Science Monitor reports that as part of a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Poland, America will deploy limited missile defense on Polish soil.  These missiles will not be, as the earlier system was, capable of intercepting ICBMs, which travel much faster than shorter range systems.  The new SOFA is better than nothing, but that Moscow was given even a partial veto last September remains a huge mistake.

LFTC - Index 12/15/09

5 posts: (1) IRAN: Obama, Israel See Nuclear Endgame--Us v. Them; (2) "Kalifornistan": Nuclear Jihad Comes to the DVD Silver Screen--9/11, 3/11 & N/11; (3) The EPA's Regulatory Jihad: Copenhagen Bypasses Senate--The Home Front; (4) Jihad at Home: Moderate Parents, Islamist Children--The Home Front; (5) "The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma": An Expert Speaks--Us v. Them.

LFTC - IRAN: Obama, Israel See Nuclear Endgame

Newsweek reports that President Obama has concluded that Iran will spurn America's "outstretched hand."  44's weapon of choice will be Stuart Levey, Bush-43's undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, reappointed by 44 in February, to strong protest from Iran.  44's plan:

So Stuart Levey's moment on the world stage has arrived once again. The White House has approved an aggressive plan to squeeze Iran's economy, and Levey will be at the center of it, the senior administration official says. One key target will be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the force that has largely taken control of the country and its economy. Since the election in June, the hated IRGC has become notorious for harassing and killing pro-democracy protesters. But the Guards have also bought a controlling interest in the Telecommunication Company of Iran—an $8 billion deal that potentially enables it to tighten its grip over the country's telephone and Internet systems. The IRGC has expanded its reach into Iran's financial and energy industries as well—both the subjects of an intensive investigation by Levey's office. "The IRGC is taking over larger swaths of the Iranian economy, pushing out other businesses and getting preferential treatment in terms of no-bid contracts—thereby being potentially resented by the rest of the population in Iran," Levey said in an interview.

While the Revolutionary Guards pretend to be the incorruptible shield of the Islamic Revolution, individual commanders are believed to be wealthy private investors, especially in neighboring countries like Dubai. "What will cause the Guards their demise is their corruption," an Iranian intelligence official told NEWSWEEK on condition that his name not be used. "For the past 20 years, they've been allowed by the Supreme Leader and consecutive governments to make money in a shadowy world." The West's new approach, Levey indicated, is to focus on the IRGC as "the face of repression," thereby supporting democracy activists in Iran without arousing Iranian national pride over their nuclear program.

The plan is for Levey's office to publicly identify "dozens" of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps front companies and then pressure suppliers and trading partners to cut off ties—or risk being sanctioned by the U.S. government, says the senior administration official. "There will be a big effort by Stuart to work with like-minded countries to target IRGC front companies," the official says. "We know which ones [the IRGC] are affiliated with and we know which ones they control." Levey says he wants to make the foreign firms understand that "if they're dealing with Iran it's nearly impossible to protect themselves from being entangled in that country's illicit conduct."

Western diplomats rejected as grossly inefficient Iran's latest pseudo-offer.  WSJ pundit Bret Stephens writes of the Tehran-Caracas Nuclear Axis; riffing off JFK's tenure, he sees a possible Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 in our neo-Camelot future.  Iran, for its part, plans to put on trial the three Americans who strayed over Iran's border with Iraq.  This is the hostage trump card, so often effective at the expense of Western governments, being played once again.

Amir Taheri writes that Europe may this time be tougher than Obama re sanctioning Iran.  But even strong financial sanctions likely cannot work immediately, and Iran has lots of experience in circumventing sanctions.  Meanwhile, the Times Online reports that Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu sees about a 6-month window in which Israel must act:

Israeli experts believe the point of no return may be only six months away when Iran’s nuclear programme will have — if it has not already — metastasised into a multitude of smaller, difficult-to-trace facilities in deserts and mountains, while its main reactor at Bushehr will have come online and bombing it would send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf nations.

CNN World reports on a new protest movement emerging in Iran.  Men are appearing on camera wearing veils, forced upon unwilling women by Islamofascist clerics.  The Financial Times reports that Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has ordered a stronger crackdown on protesters.  Der Speigel reports that the German government is investigating whether mega-conglomerate Siemens violated high-technology export control laws in shipping equipment to Iran.  The New York Times reports that the regime is going after protesters for the heinous crime of defacing pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini, creator of today's ghastly regime.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) calls in an op-ed for immediate passage of a strong unilateral sanctions law she co-sponsors, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, and calls for an end to engagement efforts.

Bottom Line.  The Iranian nuclear clock keeps on ticking....

LFTC - "Kalifornistan": Nuclear Jihad Comes to the DVD Silver Screen

This "Kalifornistan" trailer (2:49) is for an "indie" (independent film) release on nuclear terrorism in Los Angeles.  This Human Events article gives more background--conservative film-makers who could not get studio backing made this film.  At the movie's website you can buy the DVD.

LFTC - The EPA's Regulatory Jihad: Copenhagen Bypasses Senate

Ross Kaminsky writes in Human Events on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting what amounts to regulatory jihad on behalf of Copenhagen climate hawks.  Kaminsky details how the EPA ignored contrary evidence, relied on suspect data and suppressed internal dissent.  The EPA's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rules aim, in effect, to impose by regulatory fiat what Team Obama could not win via Senate ratification of a new global climate treaty.  If you wish to wade through the EPA's Dec. 7, 2009 Endangerment Finding, which targets motor vehicle emission, be prepared for several thousand pages of regulatory techno-gobbledegook.  I prefer to pass.  Climategate and computer modeling frailty suffices for me.

In a weekly Republican Address, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN) slams Democratic plans to impose Draconian Green rules (5:03) upon Americans.  She cites the crushing economic burden of cap & trade, multiple huge Democratic spending programs, notes Climategate and warns that given India & China not intending to comply with Copenhagen rules, America would thus "unilaterally disarm" at massive domestic economic cost were it to follow such mandates.

BTW, though the EPA could care less, a few days ago it snowed in Melbourne, Australia.  It is the austral summer--think June.  True, a single odd instance is hardly evidence of anything, but as LFTC has often noted, every time a hot day has come up over the past two decades, Al Gore & friends cited it as further evidence of warming.  And such citations are equally low in evidentiary value.  But it is fun to tweak the warmists with these climate chill items!!

One other factor convinces me that warmist alarmism is bunk: Whenever everyone agrees something will happen, it almost certainly will not happen.

LFTC - Jihad at Home: Moderate Parents, Islamist Children

A New York Times front-pager reports on fears of growing Muslim radicalization via the Internet, despite America treating its Muslim communities far more liberally than countries in Europe do.  The good news: While five youths were arrested in Pakistan for plotting jihad, their parents turned them in to the FBI.

LFTC - "The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma": An Expert Speaks

What with all the agonized debates over American forces overseas and what to do to secure America at home it is nice to see that the enemy's problems--at least, for now--may be even worse.  Stratfor co-founder George Friedman has penned a sharp essay well worth reading.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma

Dec. 7, 2009

By George Friedman

With U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement of his strategy in Afghanistan, the U.S.-jihadist war has entered a new phase. With its allies, the United States has decided to increase its focus on the Afghan war while continuing to withdraw from Iraq. Along with focusing on Afghanistan, it follows that there will be increased Western attention on Pakistan. Meanwhile, the question of what to do with Iran remains open, and is in turn linked to U.S.-Israeli relations. The region from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush remains in a war or near-war status. In a fundamental sense, U.S. strategy has not shifted under Obama: The United States remains in a spoiling-attack state.

Related Special Topic Page

• The Devolution of Al Qaeda

As we have discussed, the primary U.S. interest in this region is twofold. The first aspect is to prevent the organization of further major terrorist attacks on the United States. The second is to prevent al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups from taking control of any significant countries.

U.S. operations in this region mainly consist of spoiling attacks aimed at frustrating the jihadists’ plans rather than at imposing Washington’s will in the region. The United States lacks the resources to impose its will, and ultimately doesn’t need to. Rather, it needs to wreck its adversaries’ plans. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary American approach consists of this tack. That is the nature of spoiling attacks. Obama has thus continued the Bush administration’s approach to the war, though he has shifted some details.

The Jihadist Viewpoint

It is therefore time to consider the war from the jihadist point of view. This is a difficult task given that the jihadists do not constitute a single, organized force with a command structure and staff that could express that view. It is compounded by the fact that al Qaeda prime, our term for the original al Qaeda that ordered and organized the attacks on 9/11 and in Madrid and London, is now largely shattered.

While bearing this in mind, it must be remembered that this fragmentation is both a strategic necessity and a weapon of war for jihadists. The United States can strike the center of gravity of any jihadist force. It naturally cannot strike what doesn’t exist, so the jihadist movement has been organized to deny the United States that center of gravity, or command structure which, if destroyed, would leave the movement wrecked. Thus, even were Osama bin Laden killed or captured, the jihadist movement is set up to continue.

So although we cannot speak of a jihadist viewpoint in the sense that we can speak of an American viewpoint, we can ask this question: If we were a jihadist fighter at the end of 2009, what would the world look like to us, what would we want to achieve and what might we do to try to achieve that?

We must bear in mind that al Qaeda began the war with a core strategic intent, namely, to spark revolutions in the Sunni Muslim world by overthrowing existing regimes and replacing them with jihadist regimes. This was part of the jihadist group’s long-term strategy to recreate a multinational Islamist empire united under al Qaeda’s interpretation of Shariah.

The means toward this end involved demonstrating to the Muslim masses that their regimes were complicit with the leading Christian power, i.e., the United States, and that only American backing kept these Sunni regimes in power. By striking the United States on Sept. 11, al Qaeda wanted to demonstrate that the United States was far more vulnerable than believed, by extension demonstrating that U.S. client regimes were not as powerful as they appeared. This was meant to give the Islamic masses a sense that uprisings against Muslim regimes not dedicated to Shariah could succeed. In their view, any American military response — an inevitability after 9/11 — would further incite the Muslim masses rather than intimidate them.

The last eight years of war have ultimately been disappointing to the jihadists, however. Rather than a massive uprising in the Muslim world, not a single regime has been replaced with a jihadist regime. The primary reason has been that Muslim regimes allied with the United States decided they had more to fear from the jihadists than from the Americans, and chose to use their intelligence and political power to attack and suppress the jihadists. In other words, rather than trigger an uprising, the jihadists generated a strengthened anti-jihadist response from existing Muslim states. The spoiling attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in other countries in the Horn of Africa and North Africa, generated some support for the jihadists, but that support has since diminished and the spoiling attacks have disrupted these countries sufficiently to make them unsuitable as bases of operation for anything more than local attacks. In other words, the attacks tied the jihadists up in local conflicts, diverting them from operations against the United States and Europe.

Under this intense pressure, the jihadist movement has fragmented, though it continues to exist. Incapable of decisive action at the moment, it has goals beyond surviving as a fragmented entity, albeit with some fairly substantial fragments. And it is caught on the horns of a strategic dilemma.

Operationally, jihadists continue to be engaged against the United States. In Afghanistan, the jihadist movement is relying on the Taliban to tie down and weaken American forces. In Iraq, the remnants of the jihadist movement are doing what they can to shatter the U.S.-sponsored coalition government in Baghdad and further tie down American forces by attacking Shiites and key members of the Sunni community. Outside these two theaters, the jihadists are working to attack existing Muslim governments collaborating with the United States — particularly Pakistan — but with periodic attacks striking other Muslim states.

These attacks represent the fragmentation of the jihadists. Their ability to project power is limited. By default, they have accordingly adopted a strategy of localism, in which their primary intent is to strike existing governments while simultaneously tying down American forces in a hopeless attempt to stabilize the situation.

The strategic dilemma is this: The United States is engaged in a spoiling action with the primary aim of creating conditions in which jihadists are bottled up fighting indigenous forces rather than being free to plan attacks on the United States or systematically try to pull down existing regimes. And the current jihadist strategy plays directly into American hands. First, the attacks recruit Muslim regimes into deploying their intelligence and security forces against the jihadists, which is precisely what the United States wants. Secondly, it shifts jihadist strength away from transnational actions to local actions, which is also what the United States wants. These local attacks, which kill mostly Muslims, also serve to alienate many Muslims from the jihadists.

The jihadists are currently playing directly into U.S. hands because, rhetoric aside, the United States cannot regard instability in the Islamic world as a problem. Let’s be more precise on this: An ideal outcome for the United States would be the creation of stable, pro-American regimes in the region eager and able to attack and destroy jihadist networks. There are some regimes in the region like this, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The probability of creating such stable, eager and capable regimes in places like Iraq or Afghanistan is unlikely in the extreme. The second-best outcome for the United States involves a conflict in which the primary forces battling — and neutralizing — each other are Muslim, with the American forces in a secondary role. This has been achieved to some extent in Iraq. Obama’s goal is to create a situation in Afghanistan in which Afghan government forces engage Taliban forces with little or no U.S. involvement. Meanwhile, in Pakistan the Americans would like to see an effective effort by Islamabad to suppress jihadists throughout Pakistan. If they cannot get suppression, the United States will settle for a long internal conflict that would tie down the jihadists.

A Self-Defeating Strategy

The jihadists are engaged in a self-defeating strategy when they spread out and act locally. The one goal they must have, and the one outcome the United States fears, is the creation of stable jihadist regimes. The strategy of locally focused terrorism has proved ineffective. It not only fails to mobilize the Islamic masses, it creates substantial coalitions seeking to suppress the jihadists.

The jihadist attack on the United States has failed. The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has reshaped the behavior of regional governments. Fear of instability generated by the war has generated counteractions by regional governments. Contrary to what the jihadists expected or hoped for, there was no mass uprising and therefore no counter to anti-jihadist actions by regimes seeking to placate the United States. The original fear, that the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would generate massive hostility, was not wrong. But the hostility did not strengthen the jihadists, and instead generated anti-jihadist actions by governments.

From the jihadist point of view, it would seem essential to get the U.S. military out of the region and to relax anti-jihadist actions by regional security forces. Continued sporadic and ineffective action by jihadists achieves nothing and generates forces with which they can’t cope. If the United States withdrew, and existing tensions within countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan were allowed to mature undisturbed, new opportunities might present themselves.

Most significantly, the withdrawal of U.S. troops would strengthen Iran. The jihadists are no friends of Shiite Iran, and neither are Iran’s neighbors. In looking for a tool for political mobilization in the Gulf region or in Afghanistan absent a U.S. presence, the Iranian threat would best serve the jihadists. The Iranian threat combined with the weakness of regional Muslim powers would allow the jihadists to join a religious and nationalist opposition to Tehran. The ability to join religion and nationalism would turn the local focus from something that takes the jihadists away from regime change to something that might take them toward it.

The single most powerful motivator for an American withdrawal would be a period of open quiescence. An openly stated consensus for standing down, in particular because of a diminished terrorist threat, would facilitate something the Obama administration wants most of all: a U.S. withdrawal from the region. Providing the Americans with a justification for leaving would open the door for new possibilities. The jihadists played a hand on 9/11 that they hoped would prove a full house. It turned into a bust. When that happens, you fold your hand and play a new one. And there is always a hand being dealt so long as you have some chips left.

The challenge here is that the jihadists have created a situation in which they have defined their own credibility in terms of their ability to carry out terrorist attacks, however poorly executed or counterproductive they have become. Al Qaeda prime’s endless calls for action have become the strategic foundation for the jihadists: Action has become an end in itself. The manner in which the jihadists have survived as a series of barely connected pods of individuals scattered across continents has denied the United States a center of gravity to strike. It has also turned the jihadists from a semi-organized force into one incapable of defining strategic shifts.

The jihadists’ strategic dilemma is that they have lost the 2001-2008 phase of the war but are not defeated. To begin to recoup, they must shift their strategy. But they lack the means for doing so because of what they have had to do to survive. At the same time, there are other processes in play. The Taliban, which has even more reason to want the United States out of Afghanistan, might shift to an anti-jihadist strategy: It could liquidate al Qaeda, return to power in Afghanistan and then reconsider its strategy later. So, too, in other areas.

From the U.S. point of view, an open retreat by the jihadists would provide short-term relief but long-term problems. The moment when the enemy sues for peace is the moment when the pressure should be increased rather than decreased. But direct U.S. interests in the region are so minimal that a more distant terrorist threat will be handled in a more distant future. As the jihadists are too fragmented to take strategic positions, U.S. pressure will continue in any event.

Oddly enough, as much as the United States is uncomfortable in the position it is in, the jihadists are in a much worse position.

LFTC - Index 12/14/09

4 posts: (1) IRAN: "Smoking Gun" Nuclear Trigger?--Us v. Them; (2) IRAN: Can Popular Fusion Cause Regime Fission?--Us v. Them; (3) Pakistan: Obama "Drones" Past Bush--Us v. Them; (4) Conan the Comedian: Shatner's Star Trek Duel with Sarah Palin!--Class & Crass.

LFTC - IRAN: "Smoking Gun" Nuclear Trigger?

Times Online, consistently at the forefront of disclosing new information about Iran's nuclear progress, reports today that a document obtained by British intelligence reveal Iran's continuing work on a nuclear trigger for a bomb:

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

"Deuteride" is chemistry-speak for how deuterium--in English parlance, "heavy water"--interacts with uranium; it is used in nuclear weapons, but also in nuclear reactors.  What is NOT used in reactors--only used in weapons--is the neutron initiator that sets off the chain of neutron collisions necessary to create a nuclear explosion.  Times Online continues:

Western intelligence sources say that by 2003 Iran had already assembled the technical know-how it needed to build a bomb, but had yet to complete the necessary testing to be sure such a device would work. Iran also lacked sufficient fissile material to fuel a bomb and still does — although it is technically capable of producing weapons-grade uranium should its leaders take the political decision to do so.

The documents detail a plan for tests to determine whether the device works — without detonating an explosion leaving traces of uranium detectable by the outside world. If such traces were found, they would be taken as irreversible evidence of Iran’s intention to become a nuclear-armed power.

Experts say that, if the 2007 date is correct, the documents are the strongest indicator yet of a continuing nuclear weapons programme in Iran. Iran has long denied a military dimension to its nuclear programme, claiming its nuclear activities are solely focused on the production of energy for civilian use.

The article quotes one analyst suggesting that this document may well be the "smoking gun" that shows unmistakable Iranian intent to build a nuclear bomb.

Bottom Line.  The Iranian nuclear weapon clock is approaching midnight.

LFTC - IRAN: Can Popular Fusion Cause Regime Fission?

In his December 9 Nobel Address President Obama condemned human rights violators:

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Fair enough.  But today his hopes for negotiating Iran away from nuclear capability have come no naught.  But 44 is right that these tyrannies "fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation."

And opportunity may come knocking once again, giving the President a chance to improve on his dismal showing during June's post-election crackdown on post-election protests.  Amnesty International, this time on the side of the angels, slammed as "sham"  Iran's pseudo-investigation of violence by regime thugs.

More significantly, Iranian intelligence sees fissures opening up in the regime, after the worst protest violence in months.  Read closely these stunning paragraphs:

Iran's top intelligence official denounced senior clerics who he said support the country's opposition, an acknowledgment of the split in the leadership amid the postelection turmoil and a sign of growing pressure by hard-liners within the government to extend the crackdown.

The comments, reported Thursday by the state news agency IRNA, came after this week's widespread student protests, the biggest anti-government rallies in months. The unrest appears to have raised authorities' frustration that a wave of arrests since the June election has failed to crush the opposition.

Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi spoke to a gathering of pro-government clerics in the holy city of Qom and warned that the opposition movement — which authorities label as a foreign-backed plot to overthrow clerical rule — extended into the country's high ranks.

"Unfortunately, based on precise intelligence, a lot of forces that were expected to defend the supreme leader instead went with those who rose against the supreme leader, he said, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who stands at the top of Iran's clerical leadership.

"The recent plot is like an iceberg floating in the ocean. Its larger part is under the water, while a small part of it is visible," he said in the address Wednesday evening.

Foreign Policy sees a "conservative crackup" in which Ahmadinejad is losing support within the regime.  FP reports that Admadinutjob is losing support even in rural areas, while conservatives protest alongside students:

The demonstrations that erupted on Dec. 7 in cities across Iran included not only Westernized students but conservative Iranians as well. The Islamic Republic attempted to thwart the rally by shutting down Internet access, but thousands of Iranians nevertheless marched in the streets. The protests included not only Westernized students, but religious and conservative Iranians as well -- evidence that conservative Iranians are becoming more and more opposed to the state, even if their response is not usually to participate in social unrest.

It's not just protesters, either. A groundbreaking Iranian survey, first published on insideIRAN.org, shows that, in provinces where Ahmadinejad once held widespread support, Iranians now say they wished they had not voted for him.

Amir Taheri sees protesters shifting--ominously for the ruling class-from protesting fraud to denying the regime's very legitimacy:

Most significantly, the movement that started as a protest against the alleged rigging of the election that gave a second term to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been evolving. The crowds' initial slogan was "Where Is My Vote?" and the movement's accidental leaders, including former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, tried hard to keep the protest confined to demands such as a recount of the votes and, ultimately, a runoff in accordance with the law.

The slogans of the protestors are no longer about election fraud. Today they include "Death to the Dictator," "Freedom Now," and "Iranian Republic, Not Islamic Republic!" One slogan is a direct message to President Barack Obama: "Obama, Are You With Us or With Them?"

In short, the protestors no longer regard the present regime as the legitimate government of the country.

Both Mr. Mousavi and Ayatollah Mahdi Karroubi, another defeated presidential candidate, tried to prevent attacks on the "Supreme Guide" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the hope of eventually making a deal with him. As part of such a deal, they promised to defend the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, according to sources close to the opposition. The crowds have rejected that by shouting: "Abandon uranium enrichment! Do something about the poor!"

Shia clerics are turning against the clerical fascist Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei, a Twelver Shia (Twelfth Imam as messiah retuning after 11 centuries to bring final judgment).  And while opposition leader Hossein Mousavi committed to see the nuclear program through, protesters do not seem to care.

Here is a more detailed assessment of dissent within Iran.  Opposition is hardening, and resolution of the struggle will take a long time, with outcome unclear.

One way America and a coalition of the willing (European Allies, not Russia or China) can help, writes AEI scholar Danielle Pletka, is by imposing very tough financial sanctions that would instantly bite:

Are there other sanctions that could cause a wholesale shift—even a tactical one—in the Iranian regime's thinking about its options? Achieving international consensus on some kinds of draconian measures may well be impossible.

But that may not be necessary, if the U.S. is willing to throw its full might behind a truly tough sanctions regime. And if, as diplomats suggest privately, there is now significant enthusiasm in Britain and France for an ad hoc coalition pressing forward with new sanctions, even more is possible. This week, the notoriously timid government of Austria suggested that absent international consensus on sanctions, the European Union would move ahead unilaterally—something the U.K has already done in sanctioning Iranian banks—ahead of both the United Nations and the EU.

Among possible new options: a complete travel ban for all regime officials (a similar ban was in place on Saddam Hussein's Iraq), a ban on all correspondent relationships with Iranian banks (which facilitate letters of credit and foreign financing of Iranian business and trade), and an end to all export financing (which remains in the billions of dollars per annum to this day). Also: denial of landing rights to Iran Air (in addition to IranAir Cargo, something already under consideration), and denial of access to capital markets for Iran's most important investors and commercial partners.

Some disapprove of diplomatic interference in business and finance. Yet it is undeniable that financial measures like the 2007 crackdown on North Korean account holder Banco Delta Asia have been extremely effective.

The U.S. has not begun to exercise its leverage in that area. Consider that in the last two years, Brazil's Petrobras, China's Sinopec, Italy's Eni, Japan's Mitsui Petrochemical and Norway's Statoil have all reportedly made deals worth more than $10 million each in Iran's energy sector. All are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (except for Mitsui's parent, which is on the Nasdaq). Should Iran's economic enablers be listed on American exchanges?

Last Thursday SecDef Robert Gates predicted new sanctions would be imposed upon Iran:

“I think you’re going to see some significant additional sanctions imposed by the international community, assuming that the Iranians don’t change course and agree to do the things that they signed up to do at the beginning of October,” Mr. Gates said during a question-and-answer session with American troops in Kirkuk, an oil-rich region north of Baghdad. He spoke before flying to Irbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan.

Gates considers a military strike of marginal value, because it would only delay by a few years Iran's program:

Mr. Gates, as he has in the past, discounted the idea of a military strike against Iran. “You never take any options off the table, but the reality is that any military action would only buy some time, maybe two or three years,” he said.

It apparently escapes Gates that two or three added years' delay could be the difference in whether sanctions have sufficient time to work, versus Iran crossing the finish line before sanctions can bite.  In the event, such sanctions will not pass muster with Russia or China, so the UN remains a roadblock to applying serious pressure.

Sanctions Re-Briefing: Five Criteria for Success.  For sanctions to work, five conditions must be met: (1) all key suppliers on board; (2) targeted at a key source of regime power; (3) a regime weak enough to be vulnerable; (4) honest administration; (5) enough time to produce results.  Re Iran, at present: (1), (2) are not met, (3) is, (4) is dubious & (5) may not even be met with prompt action, because real sanctions have been delayed so long while Iran marches toward the Nuclear Club.  It may well take a military strike to delay Iran's accession sufficiently for sanctions meeting (1) through (4) to succeed; Israel alone might do this.

Bottom Line.  Iran's protest movement needs all the outside support America and willing allies can muster.  Here's hoping the President provides it & persuades allies, this second time around.

LFTC - Pakistan: Obama "Drones" Past Bush

Several TV shows this weekend reported that in his first near-11 months in office, Team Obama launched more Predator drone strikes than Team Bush did in 8 years.  Partly this reflects ramping up of the drone program during the Bush years--continued this year under President Obama.  Predators were not operational when George W. Bush took office, and had to be rushed into use after September 11, 2001.  But to be fair, President Obama deserves credit for stepping up drone strikes, nailing last week a senior al-Qaeda leader, despite escalated protests in Pakistan & Afghanistan.  Even applying strict standards for launching attacks, to minimize (properly) collateral casualties, Predators are an essential tool.  With several companies producing drones, they will play an increasingly central role in all future US combat operations.

LFTC - Conan the Comedian: Shatner's Star Trek Duel with Sarah Palin!

What with all the nasty political and other humor floating around these days, enjoy a surprise double appearance by William Shatner & Sarah Palin (approx. 2 min.) on Friday's Conan O'Brien "Tonight Show."  Shatner's look when Palin strolls on stage is alone worth the price of admission!!!!  Kudos for Conan!  (Strictly speaking, O'Brien is a comic, not a comedian, according to Milton Berle's dictum explaining the two, i.e., "A comic says funny things; a comedian says things funny."  But for alliterative title purposes I took poetic license.)  Palin posted nice backstage photos of her Tonight Show appearance, which include her appearing with Wounded Warriors, who were in the audience.

Enjoy as well these photos & excerpts of Palin's recent appearance at the annual Gridiron Dinner in Washington, DC.  Palin showed her sense of humor and delivered a few choice barbs at deserving targets.  The dinner is a production of elite journalists who comprise the Gridiron Club, with a tradition dating to its 1885 founding and where political leaders, including Presidents, are guests of honor and, in effect, roast themselves.

LFTC - Index 12/11/09

5 posts: (1) Nobel in Norway: "We--Talk" Words With "Me-Bomb" Manners--Wobble Watch; (2) Pakistan's Islamist Wild Card--Wobble Watch; (3) ACLU Catches (Financial) Cold--9/11, 3/11 & N/11; (4) China Rising Down Under; Down Under Rising in Asia--"It's the Earth Stupid!; (5) The Iceberg Cometh Down Under--"It's the Earth Stupid!".

LFTC - Nobel in Norway: "We-Talk" Words With "Me-Bomb" Manners

President Obama's Nobel Address.  There was much in the President's Nobel Address to admire.  He began modestly, by acknowledging that his award was for achievements hoped for, rather than completed:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Then he courageously affirmed the need for use of force--to a body whose awards have all too frequently gone to peacenik types:

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

He then affirmed the need, at times, to use violence to stop barbarian threats, and saluted our soldiers as peacemakers:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

He affirmed the right to use force unilaterally, but only if confined by rules:

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

(Here were two points I emphatically reject:  First, the world did not rally behind America after the 9/11 attacks--the Arab world was silent, except for the Palestinians, who danced in the streets.  Only in Tehran, where one million people rallied in America's support, and, of course, in Israel, did Mideast denizens rally to our side.  Second, abiding by the rules, as LFTC has often noted, undermines Geneva's principle of reciprocity--destroying Geneva in order to save it.  And torture to prevent a WMD catastrophe is hardly wrong--I would call it a moral imperative.)

He called holy wars always unjust, because they are inevitably fought without any civilized restraint:

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

He then affirmed three principles (I will use quote marks here):

1.  Develop Tough Alternatives to Violence.  "First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

2.  Lasting Peace is Based Upon Human Rights and Dignity.  "This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting."

3.  Basic Human Rights Include Economic Rights.  "Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want."

The President's first principle is, I believe, quixotic, as international institutions show little serious sign of being up to enforcing meaningful rules against the planet's worst regimes.  His second principle is absolutely correct.  His third principle restates what socialist Europe introduced into the UN's panoply of rights.  Such rights encourage justification for authoritarian governance to achieve such goals.   They are better termed legitimate aspirations.

"Me-Bomb" Manners.  The Guardian reports that "The One" has infuriated his Norwegian hosts by his cavalier treatment of his Peace Prize visit.  Get a load of this:

Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

Now, to be fair, The One (and spouse) also turned down dinner with the Sarkozys in Paris, while staying across the street from the Elysee Palace after the D-Day commemoration ceremonies.

As for those fine fellows on the Nobel Committee, what did they think they were getting?  Didn't they notice the "Hi, it's me!" Berlin rock-star speech of July 2008?  The fake Roman pillars at the August 2008 Denver Democratic Convention?  The snubbing of England's Prime Minister?  Skipping dinner with the Sarkozys?  True, The One did bow to the Japanese Emperor. But His Royal Highness is (well, almost) divine...as in, almost divine like the enlightened Nobel Ones who picked The One to snub The Cowboy.  The Cowboy, had he been chosen, would surely not have snubbed the Nobel Ones--but they, lefty to the core, would prefer being snubbed by The One.  In other words, the Nobel Ignobles got exactly what they deserved.

"Me-Bomb" Keyboard Coda.  Rock-star classical pianist Lang Lang played Franz Liszt's Liebestraum ("Lover's Dream") to finish the on-stage ceremony.  Here is an earlier clip (5:01) of Lang Lang playing the composition.  Both yesterday and in the earlier clip LL's histrionics are distracting, with extremes of "artistic ecstasy" crossing his visage.  Also he uses extremes of loud-soft ("dynamics" in pianist parlance).  For a far better version, with dignified presentation and superior interpretation in terms of pace and dynamics, listen to the legendary Artur Rubinstein's mid-1940s clip (4:50), taped at his home in Hollywood.

Bottom Line.  On balance, President Obama rose--more than rose--to the occasion.  While I would quarrel with many specific points, telling Scandinavian peaceniks--in Nobel Peacenik Paradise, no less--that lethal force--even, at times, its unilateral use--is necessary, is a worthy accomplishment.  Saluting America's military as peacemakers was terrific.  True, his delaying his Afghan War troop speech until last week forced him to say something in his Nobel address, but he did not have to be as forceful as he was.  OK, he wasn't Winston Churchill; but he wasn't Ward Churchill either.  For that he deserves credit.  Now, if we can only improve the President's manners when dealing with allies....

LFTC - Pakistan's Islamist Wild Card

This disturbing Globe & Mail op-ed by a Pakistani warns that pro-Isalmist elements in Pakistan's military are seeking to destabilize the elected civilian government.  The writer blames the US Congress for conditioning future US aid to Pakistan on a stepped-up effort against the Taliban & al-Qaeda.  Thus the US is between the ultimate strategic rock & hard place inside Pakistan: either let the civilian government cease its offensive against the Islamsits, or Islamist elements inside Pakistan's military will stage a coup and thus gain access to nuclear weapons.

LFTC - ACLU Catches (Financial) Cold

The War Against Overseas (and Homeland) Contingency Operations got a boost this week, when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that a big donor will not renew.  The donor had given $20M recently, and this loss will reduce ACLU funding by 25 percent.  If al-Qaeda had any sense, it would step in, as useful civil liberties types--grant them misguided patriotic intent, based upon flawed readings of the Constitution--are the principal Lawfare weapon terrorists have, in gaming our legal system.

LFTC - China Rising Down Under; Down Under Rising in Asia

Robyn Meredith, Forbes Hong Kong Bureau Chief, writes that China underpins Australian prosperity, much as it has done so for the US.  China is Down Under's largest trading partner, and its relationship is a "virtuous circle," writes RM, in stark contrast to the "vicious circle" that marks the US-China relationship.  Gregg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian and very astute, details how Aussie PM Kevin Rudd conducted high-level summitry with Asian leaders recently, thus continuing to play a leading role in the region.

LFTC - The Iceberg Cometh Down Under

News Flash!  A monster iceberg twice the size of Sydney Harbor is headed for Australia, detached from Antarctica. Not to worry, it will break up before it reaches Down Under.  Also not to worry: Antarctic ice melt, despite the monster bergs that break off periodically, is running about one percent every 6,000 years (a figure I recall from my own Antarctic travel days).

Too bad the berg was not headed for Copenhagen.

LFTC - Index 12/10/09

4 posts: (1) USA: Will It Lose AAA Credit?--The Home Front; (2) Transportation Stupidity Administration--9/11, 3/11 & N/11; (3) Biological WMD: Team Obama's Take--9/11, 31// & N/11; (4) IRAN: Nuclear-Stuffed Turkey--Wobble Watch.

LFTC - USA: Will it Lose AAA Credit?

Moody's warned this week that if the USA fails to get deficit spending under control it may lose is AAA credit rating by 2013.  Anyone think multi-trillion dollar cap & trade + health care bills will help?  Bet that the Chinese do not think so.  Neither should we.  Lose our AAA credit rating?  You do not want to go there.

LFTC - Transportation Stupidity Administration

TSA committed a beaut: It posted online its 93-page manual of airport security procedures, including information on the weaknesses in its procedures.  I wish I were making this up.  TSA, for its part, told senators at a hearing that the mistake was made in March, but that the information is now out of date.  A blogger discovered the error, not TSA; Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano says heads will roll (not hers, of course).

Oh, BTW, does this give you a warm & fuzzy feeling about sharing health care information with the federal government?

LFTC - Biologicial WMD: Team Obama's Take

The Washington Post reports that Team Obama will pursue a biological WMD policy similar in many respects to that of its predecessor.  Like Team Bush, the new Team will not support a global monitoring system, which it deems (rightly) unworkable.  But it will encourage countries to sign the unverifiable 1972 Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (163 nations have signed it to date).  That treaty, while refreshingly compact, can be violated in a lab that fits in a single room, without detection.  This poses no problem with Australia, which will comply nonetheless; but who fears bio-aggression by Australia?  North Korea would violate the Treaty in a heartbeat.  Cheaters will cheat, given no plausible chance of being caught.

LFTC - IRAN: Nuclear-Stuffed Turkey + Turkeys In Europe

Iran flatly rejected a diplomatic proposal for Turkey to mediate its nuclear dispute with the West.  This is yet another sign of Iranian contempt for what it perceives as the West's feckless appeasement.  Meanwhile, this Daily Star report says that Europeans think President Obama has gone too far in trying to engage Iranian leaders:

Europeans tend to feel that Obama’s “outreach” to Iran went too far too fast without seeing any return. That perception will affect their responses to the president’s promised policy “reassessment” at year’s end. So will detailed work on sanctions and their effect on the internal situation in Iran. What is unlikely to change in Europe is adamant opposition to any military action, by the United States or Israel.

In stark, noble contrast, as Amir Taheri reports, ordinary Iranians have crossed Caesar's Rubicon in their opposition to a brutal, totalitarian regime.

Bottom Line.  Secure now that it can weather sanctions even if made harsher, Iran shows resolve, America submissiveness and Europe--well, let us kindly call attitudes there simply...schizoid.  Obama is not being tough enough--this after Europe pined openly for Obama to replace George Bush, instead of tough-guy John McCain.  But please Mr. President (and Israeli PM too), do not rock the boat with military action.  Of such ostrich gestures one can say but one thing: When your head is stuck in the sand, you know exactly what is sticking up in the air.

LFTC - Index 12/9/09

5 posts: (1) Pressuring Pakistan--Wobble Watch; (2) IRAN: Marking Moms--Us v. Them; (3) Climate Hawks' Totalitarian Temptation--"It's the Earth Stupid!"; (4) Palin Chills Climategate in Washington Post; Al Waxes Low-Rent Poetic--"It's the Earth Stupid!"; (5) Afghan War Images--Us v. Them.

LFTC - Pressuring Pakistan

the New York Times reports that Team Obama is pressing Pakistan to attack two key groups hiding in the tribal frontier lands--Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani Network.  This reflects their conclusion--likely correct--that without more pressure on militants hiding inside Pakistan the Afghan War is not winnable.

LFTC - IRAN: Marking Moms

The Times of India reports on the arrest of 20 mothers of children killed in the June 2009 protests, as part of the latest crackdown from the mullahs.  I guess this is clerical fascism's version of marking Mothers' Day.

LFTC - Climate Hawks' Totalitarian Temptation

WSJ pundit Bret Stephens identifies the facets of totalitarian thinking and attitude that climate hawks exemplify.  It is quite a list: Revolutionary fervor; Utopianism; Anti-humanism; Intolerance; Monocausalism; Indifference to evidence; Grandiosity.  Read BS's superb column for details brilliantly presented, by perhaps the best pundit intellectual of his generation.

The read Tunku Varadarajan's witty "skeptic's guide" alphabetical listing of 26 aspects of the climate debate.

LFTC - Palin Chills Climategate in Washington Post; Al Waxes Low-Rent Poetic

Here is Sarah Palin's Dec. 9 op-ed in the Washington Post, going after Climategate and its defenders, including Team Obama.  SP's op-ed is well-written and persuasively argued.

Meanwhile, Wes Pruden's latest column waxes expansive at Al Gore's expense, using the time-honored tactic of quoting the target--in this case, quoting Gore's grade-school poetry, taken from his latest book:

One thin September soon

A floating continent disappears

In midnight sun.

Vapors rise as

Fever settles on an acid sea.

It is unclear whether Al is referring to the ice at the North or South Pole.  Antarctica ia s continent, and cannot disappear, as its ice-melt is infinitesimal and is elevation nearly two miles.  The Arctic icecap can disappear (it has during major warming periods), but it is not a continent.  And, as it is floating ice, its melt would not raise the water, any more than melting ice in your cocktail affects the level of liquid in your glass.

Bottom Line. Palin's snow-machine racing hubby should take Al for a 120 mph snow ride, to clear up the fog in Al's cranium.

LFTC - Afghan War Images

These Afghan War images posted October 30 give a vivid portrait of our intense counterinsurgency effort halfway around the world.  These are riveting images of America's greatest heroes.

LFTC - Index 12/8/09

4 posts: (1) White House Party Crashers: Did P.C. Muzzle Security?--9/11, 3/11 & N/11: (2) Guantanamo North: Rural Illinois--9/11, 3/11 & N/11; (3) Homegrown Islamism Rising--9/11, 3/11 & N/11; (4) SEALs Court-Martial: Will Lawfare Trump Warfare?--Wobble Watch.

BONUS (SECOND TRY, NEW FORMAT): Enjoy this caption set below (no link, just the image) for the recent White House gate crashers!!!!  IT SHOULD COME UP THIS TIME; LAST WEEK ONLY I COULD SEE IT.  FORMAT WAS WRONG LAST WEEK; I HOPE THIS TIME IT WORKS.

LFTC - White House Party Crashers: P.C. & Privilege

P.C. & Party Crashing.  Apropos of the above chuckle, anthropologist Lionel Tiger identifies one possible cause, overlooked to date, for the now infamous security lapse at the White House: political correctness:

The Salahis plunged zealously into the compote which has become reality. They sculpted an unreal invite to score their equivalent of the lie about Post-Its. Madam S donned a red sari, a costly hairdo, and confronted a Secret Service person who may very well have, because of their diversity-appropriate names, suffered a Maj. Hasan moment. Presumably he or she contemplated how offensive it would be to degrade someone named Salahi at the White House.

Salahigate Just the Latest WH Security Breach.  The Washington Post reported that the Secret Service tallies 91 security breaches dating back to the Carter Administration.

SNL Weighs In.  Enjoy this SNL Salahi gate-crashing video (4:21). 

Privilege & Party Crashing.  White House social security Desiree Rogers declined to appear at a Congressional hearing on L'Affaire Salahi, citing executive privilege.  Never before has a White House claimed executive privilege on behalf of a social secretary.  Though widely regarded (rightly) as risible on both sides of the aisle, Desiree's claim will get a pass.  And the courts will heave a sigh of relief at not being dragged into a frivolous fracas.  To be fair, Congress probably did not need to haul her up and grandstand; obviously the White House knows it slipped up.  And one can be sure that a social secretary's aide will check the list and make sure this does not happen again.

As for the precedent set, only one matters: It will be harder for Team Obama acolytes to criticize prior administrations over claims of executive privilege, as being excessive.  If only because this risible claim will dampen such talk it is a good thing the White House tried it.

LFTC - Guantanamo North: Rural Illinois

The Washington Post reports that Team Obama will soon select a rural Illinois state prison to house Guantanamo detainees.  The move is subject to approval from Congress.  It would commence mid-2010, as first the site must be secured and then upgraded to supermax level.  The WP quotes one GOP Congressional opponent's concerns:

One opponent of the move is Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.), whose district includes Thomson and the prison. A spokesman said Manzullo is seeking a threat assessment and is "just trying to get some questions answered."

"He doesn't think these guys will be able to get out, but he just wants to make sure the region is protected against outside activity," spokesman Rich Carter said. "You can't support this plan until we get these questions answered, and no one's answering the questions."

Visit the lovely website of Thomson, IL ("the melon capital of the world") to see where the detainees are headed.  It features a string of recycled famous quotations to go with scenery shots.  Some are witty, such as J. Paul Getty saying that if you can count your money you are not a billionaire; others, like lifelong Communist Pablo Picasso blaming Einstein for Hiroshima (Einstein explained the physics; he did not design or build the A-bomb), are stupid.  The site advertises the $145M maximum security prison (pictured in the WP article) as unopened.

The town population is 550; unemployment is 10.5 percent.  Team Obama boasts that 3,000 jobs will be created.  You do the math: 2,450 jobs, over 80 percent of the total, will be created for people who are not residents of Thomson.

LFTC - Homegrown Islamism Rising

The Los Angeles Times reports that homegrown Islamism is on the rise in America.  As predicted by the New York Police Department in an August 2007 report, "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat" (approx. 90 pages) the Internet has become the prime tool for radicalization of Muslims here, primarily due to their search for an identity, and not due to deprivation.

Yesterday brought news of another potentially major homegrown terrorist: An American already arrested for plotting to unleash terror against the Danish newspaper which published the 2005 Muhammad cartoons is now charged with aiding the Mumbai Massacre of 2008.  The New York Times article is well worth a read, as it illustrates how the son of a Pakistani diplomat & American socialite became radicalized after emigrating to America.  Anne Applebaum sees fear of Muslim militancy at home driving the recent Swiss vote to ban minarets; Muslims in Switzerland have been quiescent to date, but fear of Islamism is all over Europe.  

Bottom Line.  Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has finally gotten the message.  Alas, what can be dome to counter this is far from clear.  For a starter, though, how about chucking multicultural P.C. once and for all?

LFTC - SEALs Court-Martial: Will Lawfare Trump Warfare?

Human Events editor Jed Babbin urges superiors in the Navy to overrule the commander who plans to proceed with court-martial of three Navy SEALs accused of smacking a terrorist leader they captured.  JB details how at every stage when a mere reprimand might have settled the controversy, lawyers intervened to press for vindication of the legal system, regardless of the national security impact.  That no country ever won a war because it had a superior legal system escapes Lawfare advocates and, more dangerously, some military commanders too.

LFTC - Index 12/7/09

4 posts: (1) IRAN: Closing in on a Nuclear Pearl Harbor?--Wobble Watch; (2) Climategate: Palin Pounces; Copenhagen: Posse Bounces EU--"It's the Earth Stupid!; (3) Pakistan: Drone Drama--Wobble Watch; (4) Tora Bora Escape: Kerry Countered--The Home Front.