Fannie, Freddie, and the New Red and Blue
It has become conventional wisdom, perhaps even cliche, to pin the origins of the credit crisis on the big banks or, AIG or even the practice of financial modeling. Certainly, these actors have received the most play in the media, and have now endured the focus of populist ire for more than a year. We now think that the analysis leading commentators to focus blame on these entities is fatally flawed.
via Origins of an American Kleptocracy | zero hedge.
Over the Christmas holiday a nasty thing happened: Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department decided to lift the cap on aid to the Government-Sponsored Entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, apparently in response to Obama administration fears that the two agencies would become insolvent. The cap was raised from $200 billion on each and government backstopping of the mortgage market will apparently now extend into infinity for at least three years, through 2012.
The move has already inspired a mini-firestorm, with several outlets delving deeply into the recent history of the GSEs and uncovering some disturbing new facts. Chief among those were an analysis of the GSEs by a former chief credit officer of Fannie named Edward Pinto, who found that Fannie and Freddie routinely mismarked subprime or Alt-A (a sort of purgatory class of nonprime risky mortgage, resting between subprime and prime) mortgages as prime. The Wall Street Journal explains:
In general, a subprime mortgage refers to the credit of the borrower. A FICO score of less than 660 is the dividing line between prime and subprime, but Fannie and Freddie were reporting these mortgages as prime, according to Mr. Pinto. Fannie has admitted this in a third-quarter 10-Q report in 2008.
This is a damning fact and if true certainly supports the Journal claim that the GSE actions were a “principal cause of the financial crisis.” But having established this, the Journal then goes in this direction:
Market observers, rating agencies and investors were unaware of the number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages infecting the financial system in late 2006 and early 2007. Of the 26 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding in 2008, 10 million were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, 5.2 million by other government agencies, and 1.4 million were on the books of the four largest U.S. banks.
Sometimes I’m amazed at the speed with which highly provocative information like this GSE business can be converted into distracting propaganda in this country. In the right hands Pinto’s analysis of the GSEs — just like the revelations in the past few years about practices at AIG, Moody’s, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, the Fed, and, hell, let’s add the offices of Senator Chris Dodd — would have been a starting point for a deeper investigation into a financial system that is clearly a complex and intimate symbiosis of state and private corruption.
For what we’ve learned in the last few years as one scandal after another spilled onto the front pages is that the bubble economies of the last two decades were not merely monstrous Ponzi schemes that destroyed trillions in wealth while making a small handful of people rich. They were also a profound expression of the fundamentally criminal nature of our political system, in which state power/largess and the private pursuit of (mostly short-term) profit were brilliantly fused in a kind of ongoing theft scheme that sought to instant-cannibalize all the wealth America had stored up during its postwar glory, in the process keeping politicians in office and bankers in beach homes while continually moving the increasingly inevitable disaster to the future.
That is a terrible story and it is also sort of a taboo story, since we don’t really have a system of media now that is willing or even able to digest that dark and complicated truth. Instead, our media — which has always been at best an inadvertent accomplice to these messes — is basically set up to take every revelation about the underlying truth and split it down the middle, feeding half to one side of the political spectrum and one half to the other, where the actual point is then burned up in the useless smoke of a blame game.
The essentially complicit nature of the two ruling political parties was in this way covered up for decades, as the crimes of the Democrats were greedily consumed as entertainment by the Limbaugh crowd while the crimes of the Bushies became hot-selling t-shirts and bumper stickers for the Air America listenership. The abiding mutual hatred the red/blue groups shared consistently prevented any kind of collective realization about the structure of the overall scheme.
What worries me is that we’re now reverting to the same old pattern with the financial crisis story. We’re starting to see fault lines develop, where one side blames the government while another side blames Wall Street for the messes of the last two decades. The side blaming the government tends to belong to the free-marketeer class and divines in safety-net purveyors like the GSEs and in the Fed’s money-printing fundamental corruptions of the capitalist ideal, while the side blaming the bankers tends to belong to the left-liberal tradition that focuses on greed and seeming absence of community conscience among the CEO class as primary corruptors of the social contract.
In the former view the government is to blame for punting on its oversight responsibilities and for corrupting the financial bloodstream with market-altering guarantees, while in the latter view the bankers are at fault for lobbying the politicians to make exactly the same moves. The antigovernment folks like to focus on the irresponsible (and typically low-income or minority) home-borrower and their political allies in Washington as chief villains, while the anti-banker crowd looks at the massive personal profits and outsized influence of the executive class and waves the Cui bono? stick in that direction.
Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. I know that sounds like pox-on-both-their-houses pundit sophistry. But the point is that if you focus on one side and not the other, you miss the entire point. That’s why I get freaked out when I see an important story like this GSE thing come out, and have it be immediately accompanied by arguments that “market observers, rating agencies and investors were unaware of the number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages infecting the financial system,” as though the irresponsibility of the government agency precluded similar (and, I might add, intimately related) abuses on the private side.
I mean, really — market observers were unaware of the number of subprime mortgages infecting the system? Are we to understand that nobody caught on when outstanding mortgage debt grew by $3.7 trillion between 2003 and 2005, nearly equaling the entire value of all American real estate in the year 1990? They didn’t notice when subprime mortgages went from 3% of all mortgage lending in 1997 to 20% of the market in 2003? They didn’t notice when the volume of Alt-A loans and home equity loans surged through the early part of last decade?
Now I know that that’s not what Peter Wallison of the Journal is saying here; he’s saying that even if the market saw that increase in subprime loans, even those numbers were understated thanks to Fannie and Freddie’s deceptions. But the inference that the market was hoodwinked by the GSEs is absurd. It was plain to most everyone in the financial services industry that there was a bubble going on last decade, that something deeply fucked up was going on with the mortgage markets — just as it was plain to everyone in the late nineties that something was wrong with the stock markets, when companies like Theglobe.com with annual sales under $5 million could have a $5 billion stock valuation.
Everyone was involved in the mortgage scam. At the lender level the deceptions were myriad; liar’s loans, fraudulent income documentation, negative amortization loans, HELOCs, etc. The rush to get as many loans written as possible and then get those hot potatoes moved to the next sucker in the line was furious and extended from coast to coast, sinking one lender after another in Ponzoid debt and indictments.
Then there were the countless deceptions that emerged from the securitization process, the bad math that allowed banks like Goldman to do $474 million mortgage deals where the average equity in the home was just 0.71 percent, and sell 93% of that deal as investment grade paper.
Are we really to believe that the people who did those deals didn’t know what total crap they were selling? That the people who used CDO-squareds to magically turn BBB investments into AAA investments didn’t know how nuts that was?
There were the ratings agencies, who accepted all that bad math and slapped AAA ratings on crap mortgage-backed securities in exchange for the continued largess of the banks upon whom they were financially dependent — the same ratings agencies that later sputtered and coughed up bullshit my-dog-ate-my-homework excuses for mismarking mortgages, with the Moody’s revelation that a computer error caused them to misapply AAA ratings to billions’ worth of MBS being the comic low point.
Then further along in the chain you had crooks like the folks at AIG, who took advantage of the basic nonexistence of derivatives regulation to issue billions in guarantees for these mortgage investments that they had never had any intention of paying off, to say nothing of actually having the ability to do so. And of course underwriting the entire enterprise was the implicit guarantee of Alan Greenspan’s Fed, which made it known time and time again that its modus operandi was to refuse to recognize the existence of bubbles until after they blew up, at which point it would rush in and clean up the mess, bailing out all the chief actors out with easy money.
Everyone had a hand in the bubble, from the congressmen who killed regulatory initiatives to the regulators who snoozed at the wheel to the GSEs to the Fed to the banks to the ratings agencies to the lenders. I don’t think it’s really controversial to say that, but it does seem like there’s an argument brewing about what that across-the-board complicity means.
My own personal feeling is that our recent bubbles weren’t much different than pyramid scams and lotteries; they’re the handiwork of an essentially regressive and deeply cynical political organization that systematically hoovers up taxes and investment money mainly from middle-class suckers, where it eventually gets eaten in short-term cashouts and mostly blown on sports cars and tropical vacations and eye jobs for the trophy wives of Wall Street executives. Crackonomics: take literally all the spare money from four square city blocks and turn it into one tricked-out Escalade.
For me the basic dynamic of the mortgage bubble is some Ivy League dickwad hawking a billion dollars of securitized subprime mortgages to a pension fund, and then Hobie-sailing off into the sunset with a bonus after they all blow up. Of course my seeing it that way might have a lot to do with my own personal psychological prejudices, and I get that some other person with different hangups might choose to focus on Barney Frank deciding to “roll the dice on home ownership” with the GSEs.
But what I don’t see is how anybody can say that all of this happened because Fannie and Freddie rigged the game to get Mexicans in homes, and then the banks and the ratings agencies just reacted organically to the corrupted market and helped the bubble along through no fault of their own. That’s just another (albeit more convincing) version of the early attempt to pin the disaster on the Community Reinvestment Act, which in turn is just another way of playing the red-blue blame game, which in turn is missing the point.
This GSE story is a big one, but if it gets used as a path back to a “The Market Reacted Rationally” version of history, we’re screwed. It has to be looked at as an important part of a diabolical whole, a symbiotic scheme in which the banks and the state were irreversibly intertwined in an enterprise that on both sides was never about market economics, but crime. Because otherwise… the diversionary notion that one side or the other is wholly to blame is part of what makes the whole scam possible.
p.s. Just to get this out of the way, I love Zero Hedge, and Marla Singer has been really nice to me personally. I just don’t completely agree with this particular thing. I don’t see any reason why focusing blame on the banks and the ratings agencies and AIG was “fundamentally flawed,” because, well, shit, they were to blame. The fact that Fannie and Freddie now get to jump in the pigpen with them doesn’t change that for me.
I think in the end what we’re going to find is that all the relevant actors had their own motivations for getting involved in the bubble. Two and now three presidential administrations let the Fed overheat the economy for political reasons that should be obvious. Alan Greenspan, hell, he did it because he loves seeing himself on magazine covers and wanted to keep getting invited to the right Manhattan parties. There were congressmen that converted the expansion of cheap credit into low-income votes. The bankers and lenders went along because the system of compensation on Wall Street is fucked and rewards short-term thinking while ignoring long-term consequences.
To me all of these people were equally guilty of making bad decisions to benefit themselves in the here and now at the expense of the whole in the future. When it comes to bubbles, It Takes a Village, and blaming the whole mess on the “socialist” aims of a pair of government agencies seems off base — particularly since the Randian protocapitalists running the banks benefited every bit as much from this socialism as actual homeowners, and perhaps even more, when one considers that homeowners get foreclosed upon, while bonuses are forever.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/04/fannie-freddie-and-the-new-red-and-blue/
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
America is losing the free world By Gideon Rachman
America is losing the free world
By Gideon Rachman
gideon.rachman@ft.com
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ef8f012-f969-11de-8085-00144feab49a.html
By Gideon Rachman
gideon.rachman@ft.com
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ef8f012-f969-11de-8085-00144feab49a.html
Monday, January 4, 2010
Welcome to Qaedastan Yemen's coming explosion will make today's problems seem tame.
Welcome to Qaedastan
Yemen's coming explosion will make today's problems seem tame.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/welcome_to_qaedastan
Yemen's coming explosion will make today's problems seem tame.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/welcome_to_qaedastan
Why Did AQAP Upstage Bin Laden With Xmas Bomb? By James Gordon Meek
Why Did AQAP Upstage Bin Laden With Xmas Bomb?
By James Gordon Meek
As Washington’s response to the attempted Christmas bombings descends into the spin cycle of recrimination without true accountability, a major question has emerged about the motive behind Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s martyrdom operation. President Obama in his weekly radio address said the 23-year-old Nigerian suspect in custody “joined” Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an “affiliate” of Osama Bin Laden’s Pakistan-based group, which “trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”
But why did Al Qaeda’s small franchise - which formed in Saudi Arabia in 2003, staged a bombing spree, fought losing gun battles in Saudi streets, but gained strength after a 2006 jailbreak in Yemen, where it has relocated - launch an “external” operation against the U.S. homeland?
Terrorism analysts are wondering what the answer to this question may be, and “so are we,” a top White House aide told me Sunday.
So for whatever Team Obama is certain of, in terms of the suspect’s ties to what had previously been a regionally focused terror group, they are much less certain why AQAP is suddenly trying to upstage “core” Al Qaeda, headed by Bin Laden, with a U.S. strike. Past attacks by AQAP had targeted U.S. interests such as our embassy in Sanaa - which Obama closed on Sunday - but never on American soil.
The President’s counterterror chief John Brennan told NBC’s “Meet The Press” that, “Now it’s very clear that they’re trying to bring these attacks to the homeland. We’re not gonna let them do that. So, we’re gonna take strong action against them.”
Brennan said “everything is possible” as far as retaliation goes - including U.S. military strikes, which I’m told took place Dec. 17 and 24 during Yemeni government raids prior to the Christmas attack by Abdulmutallab. A third set of raids occurred last week north of Yemen’s city Bajil. A senior Yemeni government official told me that the operation was supposed to go down last Thursday but was moved up one day.
“There’s a mosque there we’ve been keeping an eye on” as an AQAP hideout, the top Yemeni official told the New York Daily News last week. “Three raids in 12 days - we’re on a roll.”
The raid last week by Yemen’s special forces and fighter jets came a day after Obama raised the profile of America’s clandestine counterterror war in the Horn of Africa region by stating America will hunt jihadis “whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.”
Ex-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told NBC that Yemen has been on the counterterror radar screen since Bin Laden’s thugs blew a hole in the Navy destroyer USS Cole right before the 2000 presidential election.
“As pressures increased on Al Qaeda in the tribal region of Pakistan, we always looked to Yemen and Somalia as a place where the senior leadership could flee to,” Hayden said Sunday. But, “the senior leadership has not gone there.”
Looking at the operational tempo of CIA armed drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas over the past 17 months, it’s easy to see why Bin Laden’s compañeros might eye Yemen as a safer locale. A year ago, the Daily News's Mouth of the Potomac Blog and the Counterterrorism Blog posted my exclusive on the CIA’s AfPak hit list. There have been 50 drone strikes since Obama’s inauguration, according to Long War Journal’s Bill Roggio, and a counterterror source provided me with an updated list of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders added to the “involuntary martyrdom” rolls in the past year:
* Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan - Linked to the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
* Abu Sulaiman al-Jaziri - A senior trainer and external operations plotter
* Baitullah Mehsud — Leader of the Pakistani Taliban
* Yahyo - A leader of the Islamic Jihad Union
* Saleh al-Somali - A senior Al Qaeda external operations planner
Yemen’s battlespace - if that’s the appropriate term - falls under the Pentagon’s Central Command (CENTCOM) and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. The CJTF-HOA website doesn’t list Yemen officially as part of its hearts and minds humanitarian mission, but a map of its “operating area” includes the oil-rich desert nation on the opposite side of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
“I was in Yemen in August. And we have a growing presence there … of Special Operations, Green Berets, intelligence,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Fox News last week.
Last February, Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri asked in a speech, “How, oh noble and defiant tribes of the Yemen, can you agree to let the Yemen be a supply center for the Crusade against the Muslim countries? How can you agree to let the ruling authority in Yemen be the CIA?”
Apparently many jihadis heard Zawahiri loud and clear. Last month’s raids against Al Qaeda targets by Yemen’s security forces with American drones, and what Brennan confirmed was U.S. intelligence support, came as a result of two developments.
“We’ve witnessed [Al Qaeda] operatives coming from the Horn of Africa across the Red Sea, from South Asia in the Hindu Kush and Pakistan, and from our northern borders this year,” the Yemeni official told me last week. “Secondly, Al Qaeda has started killing our best intelligence and top criminal investigation officials in the local areas.”
“Yemen has always been on our radar — we’ve had advisers there,” says retired Army Special Forces Lt. Col. Jim Gavrilis. But as far as aggressive counterterror operations go, the U.S. has fallen short and Obama hasn’t deployed the full capabilities of the Special Operations community. “They’ve got stallions in the stable but they don’t let them run that often,” Gavrilis says.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/01/wh...e_bin_laden.php
By James Gordon Meek
As Washington’s response to the attempted Christmas bombings descends into the spin cycle of recrimination without true accountability, a major question has emerged about the motive behind Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s martyrdom operation. President Obama in his weekly radio address said the 23-year-old Nigerian suspect in custody “joined” Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an “affiliate” of Osama Bin Laden’s Pakistan-based group, which “trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”
But why did Al Qaeda’s small franchise - which formed in Saudi Arabia in 2003, staged a bombing spree, fought losing gun battles in Saudi streets, but gained strength after a 2006 jailbreak in Yemen, where it has relocated - launch an “external” operation against the U.S. homeland?
Terrorism analysts are wondering what the answer to this question may be, and “so are we,” a top White House aide told me Sunday.
So for whatever Team Obama is certain of, in terms of the suspect’s ties to what had previously been a regionally focused terror group, they are much less certain why AQAP is suddenly trying to upstage “core” Al Qaeda, headed by Bin Laden, with a U.S. strike. Past attacks by AQAP had targeted U.S. interests such as our embassy in Sanaa - which Obama closed on Sunday - but never on American soil.
The President’s counterterror chief John Brennan told NBC’s “Meet The Press” that, “Now it’s very clear that they’re trying to bring these attacks to the homeland. We’re not gonna let them do that. So, we’re gonna take strong action against them.”
Brennan said “everything is possible” as far as retaliation goes - including U.S. military strikes, which I’m told took place Dec. 17 and 24 during Yemeni government raids prior to the Christmas attack by Abdulmutallab. A third set of raids occurred last week north of Yemen’s city Bajil. A senior Yemeni government official told me that the operation was supposed to go down last Thursday but was moved up one day.
“There’s a mosque there we’ve been keeping an eye on” as an AQAP hideout, the top Yemeni official told the New York Daily News last week. “Three raids in 12 days - we’re on a roll.”
The raid last week by Yemen’s special forces and fighter jets came a day after Obama raised the profile of America’s clandestine counterterror war in the Horn of Africa region by stating America will hunt jihadis “whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.”
Ex-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told NBC that Yemen has been on the counterterror radar screen since Bin Laden’s thugs blew a hole in the Navy destroyer USS Cole right before the 2000 presidential election.
“As pressures increased on Al Qaeda in the tribal region of Pakistan, we always looked to Yemen and Somalia as a place where the senior leadership could flee to,” Hayden said Sunday. But, “the senior leadership has not gone there.”
Looking at the operational tempo of CIA armed drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas over the past 17 months, it’s easy to see why Bin Laden’s compañeros might eye Yemen as a safer locale. A year ago, the Daily News's Mouth of the Potomac Blog and the Counterterrorism Blog posted my exclusive on the CIA’s AfPak hit list. There have been 50 drone strikes since Obama’s inauguration, according to Long War Journal’s Bill Roggio, and a counterterror source provided me with an updated list of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders added to the “involuntary martyrdom” rolls in the past year:
* Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan - Linked to the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
* Abu Sulaiman al-Jaziri - A senior trainer and external operations plotter
* Baitullah Mehsud — Leader of the Pakistani Taliban
* Yahyo - A leader of the Islamic Jihad Union
* Saleh al-Somali - A senior Al Qaeda external operations planner
Yemen’s battlespace - if that’s the appropriate term - falls under the Pentagon’s Central Command (CENTCOM) and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. The CJTF-HOA website doesn’t list Yemen officially as part of its hearts and minds humanitarian mission, but a map of its “operating area” includes the oil-rich desert nation on the opposite side of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
“I was in Yemen in August. And we have a growing presence there … of Special Operations, Green Berets, intelligence,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Fox News last week.
Last February, Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri asked in a speech, “How, oh noble and defiant tribes of the Yemen, can you agree to let the Yemen be a supply center for the Crusade against the Muslim countries? How can you agree to let the ruling authority in Yemen be the CIA?”
Apparently many jihadis heard Zawahiri loud and clear. Last month’s raids against Al Qaeda targets by Yemen’s security forces with American drones, and what Brennan confirmed was U.S. intelligence support, came as a result of two developments.
“We’ve witnessed [Al Qaeda] operatives coming from the Horn of Africa across the Red Sea, from South Asia in the Hindu Kush and Pakistan, and from our northern borders this year,” the Yemeni official told me last week. “Secondly, Al Qaeda has started killing our best intelligence and top criminal investigation officials in the local areas.”
“Yemen has always been on our radar — we’ve had advisers there,” says retired Army Special Forces Lt. Col. Jim Gavrilis. But as far as aggressive counterterror operations go, the U.S. has fallen short and Obama hasn’t deployed the full capabilities of the Special Operations community. “They’ve got stallions in the stable but they don’t let them run that often,” Gavrilis says.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/01/wh...e_bin_laden.php
Freed Guantánamo inmates are heading for Yemen to join al-Qaeda fight
Freed Guantánamo inmates are heading for Yemen to join al-Qaeda fight
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6975971.ece
At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre.
The Obama Administration promised to close the Guantánamo facility by January 22, a deadline that it will be unable to meet. The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.
Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year.
The country’s mountainous terrain, poverty and lawless tribal society make it, in the opinion of many analysts, a close match for Afghanistan as a new terrorist haven.
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, voiced concern about the growing strength of al-Qaeda in Yemen. “Obviously, we see global implications from the war in Yemen and the ongoing efforts by al-Qaeda in Yemen to use it as a base for terrorist attacks far beyond the region,” she said.
A Yemeni, Hani Abdo Shaalan, who was released from Guantánamo in 2007, was killed in an airstrike on December 17, the Yemeni Government reported last week. The deputy head of al-Qaeda in the country is Said Ali al-Shihri, 36, who was released in 2007. Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish, who was released in 2006, is a prominent ideologue featured on Yemeni al-Qaeda websites.
Geoff Morrell, the spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “This is a large question that goes beyond the issue of transferring detainees. The bulk of the remaining detainees are from Yemen and that has been the case for a long time. We are trying to work with the Yemeni Government on this.”
The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leader”. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008.
The number believed to have “returned to the fight” in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified.
“There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,” Mr Morrell said.
Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme.
Chris Boucek, an expert on the region for the Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said that up-to-date figures for Saudi Arabia showed that 26 of the 120 Saudis released from Guantánamo were either in jail, wanted by the authorities or dead.
Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said evidence showed that al-Qaeda was seeking to use Yemen to mount a renewed campaign into Saudi Arabia. He cited a recent incident in which two Saudi militants, one the brother-in-law of alShihri, were killed while trying to cross the border in women’s clothing. Martyrdom videos were subsequently posted on militant websites.
The Saudi Government had boasted previously of a zero reoffence rate for Guantánamo detainees who were put through its widely praised rehabilitation programme for al-Qaeda members.
Robert Lacey, who writes about Saudi Arabia, made numerous visits to the Prince Mohammad bin Naif rehabilitation facility north of Riyadh.
“I know a number of young men from Guantánamo who were successfully reintegrated,” he told The Times. “The programme involves the whole family with a mixture of religious re-education, patriotism, guilt and co-opting in terms of being given a car, job and a nice wife.”
However, other analysts suggested that the claims for the Saudi programme were exaggerated. Mr Johnsen pointed out that an attack that nearly killed Prince Mohammad bin Naif, the Saudi head of counterterrorism, in August was mounted by a Yemen-based al-Qaeda terrorist who had offered to join the reintegration programme to get near his target.
“The Saudi programme is nothing but bureaucratised bribery. The ideologically committed terrorists simply won’t listen,” Mr Johnsen said.
The Yemen reintegration programme for terrorists was abandoned on December 10, 2005.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6975971.ece
At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre.
The Obama Administration promised to close the Guantánamo facility by January 22, a deadline that it will be unable to meet. The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.
Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year.
The country’s mountainous terrain, poverty and lawless tribal society make it, in the opinion of many analysts, a close match for Afghanistan as a new terrorist haven.
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, voiced concern about the growing strength of al-Qaeda in Yemen. “Obviously, we see global implications from the war in Yemen and the ongoing efforts by al-Qaeda in Yemen to use it as a base for terrorist attacks far beyond the region,” she said.
A Yemeni, Hani Abdo Shaalan, who was released from Guantánamo in 2007, was killed in an airstrike on December 17, the Yemeni Government reported last week. The deputy head of al-Qaeda in the country is Said Ali al-Shihri, 36, who was released in 2007. Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaish, who was released in 2006, is a prominent ideologue featured on Yemeni al-Qaeda websites.
Geoff Morrell, the spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “This is a large question that goes beyond the issue of transferring detainees. The bulk of the remaining detainees are from Yemen and that has been the case for a long time. We are trying to work with the Yemeni Government on this.”
The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leader”. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008.
The number believed to have “returned to the fight” in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified.
“There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,” Mr Morrell said.
Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme.
Chris Boucek, an expert on the region for the Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said that up-to-date figures for Saudi Arabia showed that 26 of the 120 Saudis released from Guantánamo were either in jail, wanted by the authorities or dead.
Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said evidence showed that al-Qaeda was seeking to use Yemen to mount a renewed campaign into Saudi Arabia. He cited a recent incident in which two Saudi militants, one the brother-in-law of alShihri, were killed while trying to cross the border in women’s clothing. Martyrdom videos were subsequently posted on militant websites.
The Saudi Government had boasted previously of a zero reoffence rate for Guantánamo detainees who were put through its widely praised rehabilitation programme for al-Qaeda members.
Robert Lacey, who writes about Saudi Arabia, made numerous visits to the Prince Mohammad bin Naif rehabilitation facility north of Riyadh.
“I know a number of young men from Guantánamo who were successfully reintegrated,” he told The Times. “The programme involves the whole family with a mixture of religious re-education, patriotism, guilt and co-opting in terms of being given a car, job and a nice wife.”
However, other analysts suggested that the claims for the Saudi programme were exaggerated. Mr Johnsen pointed out that an attack that nearly killed Prince Mohammad bin Naif, the Saudi head of counterterrorism, in August was mounted by a Yemen-based al-Qaeda terrorist who had offered to join the reintegration programme to get near his target.
“The Saudi programme is nothing but bureaucratised bribery. The ideologically committed terrorists simply won’t listen,” Mr Johnsen said.
The Yemen reintegration programme for terrorists was abandoned on December 10, 2005.
Signaling Terrorists from Think Tank
Signaling Terrorists
from Think Tank
Since the failed bombing attempt against Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas, the Obama Administration’s public rhetoric has slid from its immortal opening error—“the system worked”—back toward the American mainstream of signaling toward terrorists. Since the Reagan Administration, this has generally involved public resolve and threats of retaliation, to reassure Americans that their government is on the case and to warn terrorists that they inevitably will face death or capture if they plot against the United States. On Saturday, Obama spoke to Americans and presumably also to Al Qaeda recruits in Yemen when he threatened, “All those involved in the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas must know: You too will be held to account.”
The language caught my ear because over the holiday break I have been reading an excellent academic study of American strategic communication toward Al Qaeda, “U.S. Counter-Terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signaling and the Terrorist World-View,” by Joshua Alexander Geltzer, who is now a law student at Yale, after earning a doctoral degree in war studies at King’s College, London, under the tutelage of James Gow, one of the better academic security analysts of his generation. Warning: The book is very expensive; probably best for those who can charge it to the office somehow.
The purpose of Geltzer’s study is to analyze American communication with Al Qaeda, by deed and word, particularly since 9/11, and to explore the degree to which American signaling to terrorists has been self-conscious; what the hypotheses behind this communication strategy seem to be; how the strategy has conceptualized the intended terrorist audience; and, of course, whether it has been effective. (I don’t think I’m giving away the ending by reporting that the author’s conclusion is … um, no.)
Geltzer not only reviewed the public record—speeches by Presidents Clinton and Bush, and by other key actors such as former Vice-President Cheney—but he also conducted a number of on-the-record interviews with intelligence officials and counterterrorism policymakers from both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Among other things, he has produced a fascinating and chilling thread of narrative history of the Iraq war’s casus belli. He documents richly the consensus among Bush Administration decision-makers, outside of a few realists such as Richard Armitage, that among other purposes, it was necessary to invade Iraq in order to send a general deterrent signal to all terrorists in the Middle East. Geltzer quotes Henry Kissinger’s rationale for advising Bush to carry out the Iraq invasion: “We had to go in there … to make clear that challenging the United States had disastrous consequences…. Afghanistan was not enough to make that point.”
To a great extent, Geltzer argues, the Bush Administration fashioned its terrorist signaling strategy in reaction to what Cheney, in particular, considered to be the “provocative weakness” of Clinton Administration signaling; that is, Cheney and others of like mind truly believed that the United States had meaningfully invited 9/11 by failing to respond more forcefully to the 1998 Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa and the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. (Al Qaeda’s rhetoric does take note of the American withdrawal from Lebanon during the nineteen-eighties, ordered by President Reagan, and America’s retreat from Somalia, ordered by President Clinton.) At the same time, however, Bush Administration signaling contained much continuity from Clinton-era signaling, Geltzer shows. In this combination of change and continuity, he finds that the Bush Administration’s “basic framework for counter-terrorist signaling” involved ten elements:
taking action, signaling a change, using force, demonstrating capability, showing resolve, exhibiting relentlessness, intimidating state sponsors, promoting democracy, visibly hardening defenses and showing success.
Geltzer notes that it is “worth considering” what sort of audience would have been most responsive to the Bush Administration’s approach:
Such an audience would have been deterred or dissuaded by an active America, and intimidated by a changed America. That audience would have been eager to avoid America’s use of military force, and would have been impressed by America’s demonstration of its massive capability. Resolve on America’s part would have suggested to that audience that opposing the U.S.A. was bound to prove futile, and relentlessness on America’s part would have led that audience to seek any way to avoid America’s fury. America’s focus on state sponsors suggest that the audience would have possessed a state-centric perspective, and America’s efforts to promote democracy imply an audience characterized by a democratic vision of government…
What type of audience do these characteristics describe?….The audience would have been, or resembled, a state… [and even more so] the U.S.A. itself. That is, the audience that appears to have been in the minds of American policymakers as they crafted their counter-terrorist signals was one akin to America as audience.
This is a rhetorical tour de force. Perhaps it’s also a little too neat to be completely convincing. Terrorists do interact with states, including Al Qaeda terrorists. Terrorists can be deterred and intimidated. Al Qaeda operatives have certainly changed their decision-making at times because of the hardened defenses they confront, notwithstanding their repeated return to civil aviation, even as that task gets harder. But as a breath-catching take on the problem of unexamined, ineffective, domestic-driven American signaling to terrorists, whether of the nascent Obama or entrenched Cheney type, Geltzer’s work is very impressive.
Obama is obviously a gifted communicator; he is also said to be an enthusiastic poker player. Surely we have a President who is qualified to think through more productively than his predecessors the conundrums of his own signaling, intended and unintended, to the terrorists whose actions will do much to shape his Presidency.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2010/01/signaling-terrorists.html
from Think Tank
Since the failed bombing attempt against Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas, the Obama Administration’s public rhetoric has slid from its immortal opening error—“the system worked”—back toward the American mainstream of signaling toward terrorists. Since the Reagan Administration, this has generally involved public resolve and threats of retaliation, to reassure Americans that their government is on the case and to warn terrorists that they inevitably will face death or capture if they plot against the United States. On Saturday, Obama spoke to Americans and presumably also to Al Qaeda recruits in Yemen when he threatened, “All those involved in the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas must know: You too will be held to account.”
The language caught my ear because over the holiday break I have been reading an excellent academic study of American strategic communication toward Al Qaeda, “U.S. Counter-Terrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda: Signaling and the Terrorist World-View,” by Joshua Alexander Geltzer, who is now a law student at Yale, after earning a doctoral degree in war studies at King’s College, London, under the tutelage of James Gow, one of the better academic security analysts of his generation. Warning: The book is very expensive; probably best for those who can charge it to the office somehow.
The purpose of Geltzer’s study is to analyze American communication with Al Qaeda, by deed and word, particularly since 9/11, and to explore the degree to which American signaling to terrorists has been self-conscious; what the hypotheses behind this communication strategy seem to be; how the strategy has conceptualized the intended terrorist audience; and, of course, whether it has been effective. (I don’t think I’m giving away the ending by reporting that the author’s conclusion is … um, no.)
Geltzer not only reviewed the public record—speeches by Presidents Clinton and Bush, and by other key actors such as former Vice-President Cheney—but he also conducted a number of on-the-record interviews with intelligence officials and counterterrorism policymakers from both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Among other things, he has produced a fascinating and chilling thread of narrative history of the Iraq war’s casus belli. He documents richly the consensus among Bush Administration decision-makers, outside of a few realists such as Richard Armitage, that among other purposes, it was necessary to invade Iraq in order to send a general deterrent signal to all terrorists in the Middle East. Geltzer quotes Henry Kissinger’s rationale for advising Bush to carry out the Iraq invasion: “We had to go in there … to make clear that challenging the United States had disastrous consequences…. Afghanistan was not enough to make that point.”
To a great extent, Geltzer argues, the Bush Administration fashioned its terrorist signaling strategy in reaction to what Cheney, in particular, considered to be the “provocative weakness” of Clinton Administration signaling; that is, Cheney and others of like mind truly believed that the United States had meaningfully invited 9/11 by failing to respond more forcefully to the 1998 Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa and the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. (Al Qaeda’s rhetoric does take note of the American withdrawal from Lebanon during the nineteen-eighties, ordered by President Reagan, and America’s retreat from Somalia, ordered by President Clinton.) At the same time, however, Bush Administration signaling contained much continuity from Clinton-era signaling, Geltzer shows. In this combination of change and continuity, he finds that the Bush Administration’s “basic framework for counter-terrorist signaling” involved ten elements:
taking action, signaling a change, using force, demonstrating capability, showing resolve, exhibiting relentlessness, intimidating state sponsors, promoting democracy, visibly hardening defenses and showing success.
Geltzer notes that it is “worth considering” what sort of audience would have been most responsive to the Bush Administration’s approach:
Such an audience would have been deterred or dissuaded by an active America, and intimidated by a changed America. That audience would have been eager to avoid America’s use of military force, and would have been impressed by America’s demonstration of its massive capability. Resolve on America’s part would have suggested to that audience that opposing the U.S.A. was bound to prove futile, and relentlessness on America’s part would have led that audience to seek any way to avoid America’s fury. America’s focus on state sponsors suggest that the audience would have possessed a state-centric perspective, and America’s efforts to promote democracy imply an audience characterized by a democratic vision of government…
What type of audience do these characteristics describe?….The audience would have been, or resembled, a state… [and even more so] the U.S.A. itself. That is, the audience that appears to have been in the minds of American policymakers as they crafted their counter-terrorist signals was one akin to America as audience.
This is a rhetorical tour de force. Perhaps it’s also a little too neat to be completely convincing. Terrorists do interact with states, including Al Qaeda terrorists. Terrorists can be deterred and intimidated. Al Qaeda operatives have certainly changed their decision-making at times because of the hardened defenses they confront, notwithstanding their repeated return to civil aviation, even as that task gets harder. But as a breath-catching take on the problem of unexamined, ineffective, domestic-driven American signaling to terrorists, whether of the nascent Obama or entrenched Cheney type, Geltzer’s work is very impressive.
Obama is obviously a gifted communicator; he is also said to be an enthusiastic poker player. Surely we have a President who is qualified to think through more productively than his predecessors the conundrums of his own signaling, intended and unintended, to the terrorists whose actions will do much to shape his Presidency.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2010/01/signaling-terrorists.html
Obama loses Newsweek over the Pants Bomber from Shadow Government by Peter Feaver
Obama loses Newsweek over the Pants Bomber
from Shadow Government by Peter Feaver
By Peter Feaver
Of all the reporting, commentary, and bombast on the Christmas Day terrorist incident that I have read in recent weeks, I have to think that the stream that is getting the most attention in the White House is trickling out of perhaps the least-likely place: reliably pro-Obama Newsweek. In recent days, Newsweek has posted two well-reported stories that provide an ominous answer to the perennial question: who knew what and when did they know it?
The first story had the alarming headline: "Exclusive: Obama Got Pre-Christmas Intelligence Briefing About Terror Threats to 'Homeland.'" Even partisan defenders of Obama could not help but notice the similarities to the warning President Bush received in August 2001 about al Qaeda's desire to strike U.S. targets. To be sure, if the Newsweek article is accurate, the warning President Obama received was maddeningly vague, certainly not specific enough to pinpoint the abortive underwear bombing. For that matter, the warning President Bush received was also not precise enough to pinpoint the 9/11 attacks, which is why the intelligence community was primarily focused on possible attacks on U.S. targets overseas (as in the Fall 2000 bombing of the USS Cole). But the August 2001 PDB was hard to explain, and put the Bush administration on the defensive when it was released. The December 2009 warning may similarly wrong-foot the Obama Administration, especially if it is the tip of an iceberg.
Which brings us to the second story, a report that White House counterterrorism czar John Brennan was briefed on the method allegedly used by the Nigerian would-be terrorist: the infamous underwear bomb. Again, this has echoes to the run-up to the 9/11 attacks and raises just the sort of questions that are awkward for any White House to answer: Who received this briefing? What did they do with that information? Why didn't you do more? What other warnings have you received? And so on.
If the rough treatment Brennan received on the Sunday shows is any indication (see, for instance, Brennan dance through the questions here), the media does not seem inclined to give the Obama administration a pass on this story.
Indeed, my hunch is that there will be more such leaks in the coming days. I base this hunch on no inside information beyond this: the knowledge that ever since 9/11 the warning stream coming out of the intelligence community has been much, much larger than most people realize. There are bound to be many vague warnings that now, with hindsight, seem more portentous than they seemed at the time. Just as assuredly, there were many vague warnings that now, with hindsight, proved to be mere noise. But it is the first set of warnings that reporters are so adept at wresting from the system, especially if they can be traced to the White House.
I will be following the Newsweek thread more closely in the coming days and I would bet that the Obama White House is, too.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/04/obama_loses_newsweek_over_the_pants_bomber
from Shadow Government by Peter Feaver
By Peter Feaver
Of all the reporting, commentary, and bombast on the Christmas Day terrorist incident that I have read in recent weeks, I have to think that the stream that is getting the most attention in the White House is trickling out of perhaps the least-likely place: reliably pro-Obama Newsweek. In recent days, Newsweek has posted two well-reported stories that provide an ominous answer to the perennial question: who knew what and when did they know it?
The first story had the alarming headline: "Exclusive: Obama Got Pre-Christmas Intelligence Briefing About Terror Threats to 'Homeland.'" Even partisan defenders of Obama could not help but notice the similarities to the warning President Bush received in August 2001 about al Qaeda's desire to strike U.S. targets. To be sure, if the Newsweek article is accurate, the warning President Obama received was maddeningly vague, certainly not specific enough to pinpoint the abortive underwear bombing. For that matter, the warning President Bush received was also not precise enough to pinpoint the 9/11 attacks, which is why the intelligence community was primarily focused on possible attacks on U.S. targets overseas (as in the Fall 2000 bombing of the USS Cole). But the August 2001 PDB was hard to explain, and put the Bush administration on the defensive when it was released. The December 2009 warning may similarly wrong-foot the Obama Administration, especially if it is the tip of an iceberg.
Which brings us to the second story, a report that White House counterterrorism czar John Brennan was briefed on the method allegedly used by the Nigerian would-be terrorist: the infamous underwear bomb. Again, this has echoes to the run-up to the 9/11 attacks and raises just the sort of questions that are awkward for any White House to answer: Who received this briefing? What did they do with that information? Why didn't you do more? What other warnings have you received? And so on.
If the rough treatment Brennan received on the Sunday shows is any indication (see, for instance, Brennan dance through the questions here), the media does not seem inclined to give the Obama administration a pass on this story.
Indeed, my hunch is that there will be more such leaks in the coming days. I base this hunch on no inside information beyond this: the knowledge that ever since 9/11 the warning stream coming out of the intelligence community has been much, much larger than most people realize. There are bound to be many vague warnings that now, with hindsight, seem more portentous than they seemed at the time. Just as assuredly, there were many vague warnings that now, with hindsight, proved to be mere noise. But it is the first set of warnings that reporters are so adept at wresting from the system, especially if they can be traced to the White House.
I will be following the Newsweek thread more closely in the coming days and I would bet that the Obama White House is, too.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/04/obama_loses_newsweek_over_the_pants_bomber
More Commentary on Terrorism
The dove that dare not speak its name -- Power Line
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025303.php
O's aide terror-fying: Top expert full of puzzling excuses -- Charles Hurt, New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/aide...uPTuLJGiEzeeetI
Merge the 'Terror' Lists to Prevent the Next Attack -- Jed Babbin, Human Events
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35044
Terrorism's triumphant techniques -- Ralph Peters, New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...sts/terrorism_t
The cult of counterinsurgency -- Michael Crowley, New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/coin-toss
Obama is moving America Right -- Examiner Editorial
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...1-80544477.html
Will Disappointment on the Left Hurt Obama and Dems in 2010? -- David Corn, Politics Daily
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/wi...d-dems-in-2010/
The West Is Choked by Fear -- Editorial by Henryk M. Broder, Spiegel online
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe...,669888,00.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025303.php
O's aide terror-fying: Top expert full of puzzling excuses -- Charles Hurt, New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/aide...uPTuLJGiEzeeetI
Merge the 'Terror' Lists to Prevent the Next Attack -- Jed Babbin, Human Events
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35044
Terrorism's triumphant techniques -- Ralph Peters, New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...sts/terrorism_t
The cult of counterinsurgency -- Michael Crowley, New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/coin-toss
Obama is moving America Right -- Examiner Editorial
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...1-80544477.html
Will Disappointment on the Left Hurt Obama and Dems in 2010? -- David Corn, Politics Daily
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/wi...d-dems-in-2010/
The West Is Choked by Fear -- Editorial by Henryk M. Broder, Spiegel online
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe...,669888,00.html
John Brennan's disgraceful performance
John Brennan's disgraceful performance
January 3, 2010 Posted by Paul at 8:36 PM
Scott and John have already eviscerated the dreadful performance of Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan on FOX News Sunday. Before his appearance, the Washington Post had reported that "the normally reclusive Brennan is scheduled to appear on several Sunday TV talk shows." We now have a pretty good idea of why Brennan is "normally reclusive."
By departing from his norm, Brennan has shown himself to be a hack and has undermined any lingering confidence that the Obama administration has a clue about how to fight terrorism. His statement, in response to a question about what the downside might be to treating Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant -- "there are no downsides or upsides in particular cases" -- should be placed in front of CIA headquarters (Brennan spent decades at the CIA and was a senior official there) as a testament to the agency's mindset. Perhaps the statement can be amended to read: "There are no downsides or upsides to a given approach to dealing with a terrorist or with terrorism; there is only implementing and trying to defend the policy preferences of the politicians until such time as it becomes convenient to undermine them through leaks."
Brennan attempted to defend the decision to treat Abdulmutallab like an ordinary criminal defendant through the normal Obama dodge: Bush did it too. This is weak enough coming from an administration flack -- the issue is whether the administration's policy is sound, not whether it resembles the policy of the previous administration. Coming from the adminstration's counterterrorism chief, this dodge is sickening.
Worse yet, it is dishonest in this instance. In response to questiioning by Chris Wallace about why Abdulmutallab was allowed to "lawyer up" as if he were an ordinary criminal defendant, Brennan responded: "There were people who were arrested during the previous administration -- Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Zacarias Moussaoui; Padilla; Lyman Faris; others -- all were charged and tried in criminal court and sentenced, some cases to life imprisonment."
But Wallace wasn't raising the issue of how Abdulmutallab should be tried; rather the issue was how he should be interrogated. Padilla was removed from the ordinary criminal system, treated as an enemy combatant, and harshly interrogated. Abdulmutallab was not. Thus, Brennan was not being candid in pretending that Abdulmutallab's treatment is the same, in the key respect Wallace was asking about, as Padilla's. In addition, as Marc Thiessen has pointed out, Reid was captured early in the war on terrorism, before the mechanisms used in the case of Reid were fully operational. Moussaoui was arrested before 9/11.
At the back end of the process, after foreign terrorists have been interrogated, It is a serious mistake and something of a travesty to try them in federal court (Padilla is not a foreigner, though). But it is close to criminal, at the front end, to give foreign terrorists rights enjoyed by ordinary defendants that make it more difficult for us to obtain information from them that might well prevent future attacks and save lives.
In the most telling moment of his interview with Wallace, Brennan was unable to deny that this is what the adminstration has done in this case.
WALLACE: But wait, wait. Let me ask you specifically. After Abdulmutallab got lawyered up, did he stop cooperating with authorities? Did he stop talking?
BRENNAN: I'm not going to address exactly what he did before or after he was -- talked with his lawyer. We got information. We continue to have opportunities to do that.
Maybe the CIA should put that exchange up at its Langley headquarters too.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025307.php
January 3, 2010 Posted by Paul at 8:36 PM
Scott and John have already eviscerated the dreadful performance of Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan on FOX News Sunday. Before his appearance, the Washington Post had reported that "the normally reclusive Brennan is scheduled to appear on several Sunday TV talk shows." We now have a pretty good idea of why Brennan is "normally reclusive."
By departing from his norm, Brennan has shown himself to be a hack and has undermined any lingering confidence that the Obama administration has a clue about how to fight terrorism. His statement, in response to a question about what the downside might be to treating Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant -- "there are no downsides or upsides in particular cases" -- should be placed in front of CIA headquarters (Brennan spent decades at the CIA and was a senior official there) as a testament to the agency's mindset. Perhaps the statement can be amended to read: "There are no downsides or upsides to a given approach to dealing with a terrorist or with terrorism; there is only implementing and trying to defend the policy preferences of the politicians until such time as it becomes convenient to undermine them through leaks."
Brennan attempted to defend the decision to treat Abdulmutallab like an ordinary criminal defendant through the normal Obama dodge: Bush did it too. This is weak enough coming from an administration flack -- the issue is whether the administration's policy is sound, not whether it resembles the policy of the previous administration. Coming from the adminstration's counterterrorism chief, this dodge is sickening.
Worse yet, it is dishonest in this instance. In response to questiioning by Chris Wallace about why Abdulmutallab was allowed to "lawyer up" as if he were an ordinary criminal defendant, Brennan responded: "There were people who were arrested during the previous administration -- Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Zacarias Moussaoui; Padilla; Lyman Faris; others -- all were charged and tried in criminal court and sentenced, some cases to life imprisonment."
But Wallace wasn't raising the issue of how Abdulmutallab should be tried; rather the issue was how he should be interrogated. Padilla was removed from the ordinary criminal system, treated as an enemy combatant, and harshly interrogated. Abdulmutallab was not. Thus, Brennan was not being candid in pretending that Abdulmutallab's treatment is the same, in the key respect Wallace was asking about, as Padilla's. In addition, as Marc Thiessen has pointed out, Reid was captured early in the war on terrorism, before the mechanisms used in the case of Reid were fully operational. Moussaoui was arrested before 9/11.
At the back end of the process, after foreign terrorists have been interrogated, It is a serious mistake and something of a travesty to try them in federal court (Padilla is not a foreigner, though). But it is close to criminal, at the front end, to give foreign terrorists rights enjoyed by ordinary defendants that make it more difficult for us to obtain information from them that might well prevent future attacks and save lives.
In the most telling moment of his interview with Wallace, Brennan was unable to deny that this is what the adminstration has done in this case.
WALLACE: But wait, wait. Let me ask you specifically. After Abdulmutallab got lawyered up, did he stop cooperating with authorities? Did he stop talking?
BRENNAN: I'm not going to address exactly what he did before or after he was -- talked with his lawyer. We got information. We continue to have opportunities to do that.
Maybe the CIA should put that exchange up at its Langley headquarters too.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025307.php
Chomsky says Israel 'U.S. military base'
Chomsky says Israel 'U.S. military base'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/...tary-base-.html
Noam Chomsky says Israel functions as Washington's main weapons storage base in the Middle East.
"Israel is essentially a U.S. military base, the U.S. positions weapons there, that's a very close military and intelligence tie," the Jewish academic told Press TV on Wednesday while explaining the complexity of relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.
Commenting on the weapons that Israel received from the U.S.before launching its 2007-2008 offensive in the Gaza Strip, Chomsky said that the exchange of weapons between the two sides was not surprising.
"[Israel] is receiving weapons constantly. In fact, weapons were sent during the invasion of Gaza. They tried to send them, they were supposed to send them from Greece, and Greece refused to ship them," he said.
"When pentagon was asked about this, they responded (I think correctly) that the weapons were not being sent for the Gaza invasion which was underway with the U.S. weapons of course; rather, the U.S.was positioning weapons in Israel," he added.
The professor, who was taking part in an interview with Press TV after delivering a speech at Boston University, said that although Israel had influence over the U.S. foreign policy, it still had to act within the boundaries of what Washington allowed.
"Take for example Israeli threats against Iran or U.S. threats for that matter, in which if anybody cares it is a violation of the UN charter,” said Chomsky.
"Last summer in 2008, right in the middle of the presidential election… Israeli lobbyists tried very hard to push through a resolution in congress calling for a blockade on Iran which essentially would have been an act of war.
"They were rounding up quite lot of senators… and all of a sudden the effort terminated, presumably what happened is the White House… wanted to have a word with them, so they pulled back, that happens over and over, Israel can not go beyond what the U.S. permits," he added.
During his address at Boston University, the recognized professor also warned of the threat that the U.S. and Israel posed to the world and said people may have more to fear from the two than those that Washington tries to associate with terrorism.
"[The U.S. and Israel] consistently and regularly… resort to force and the threat of force… carry out aggression regularly and repeatedly… invade other countries, occupy other countries, [and] invoke terror and violence," he said.
Chomsky also pointed out that the U.S. government and its media had spread exaggerated reports about Iran's nuclear program.
"There has been a massive propaganda campaign that demonizes Iran, that portrays it as a major threat to world peace that has been going on for the past three years," he said.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/...tary-base-.html
Noam Chomsky says Israel functions as Washington's main weapons storage base in the Middle East.
"Israel is essentially a U.S. military base, the U.S. positions weapons there, that's a very close military and intelligence tie," the Jewish academic told Press TV on Wednesday while explaining the complexity of relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.
Commenting on the weapons that Israel received from the U.S.before launching its 2007-2008 offensive in the Gaza Strip, Chomsky said that the exchange of weapons between the two sides was not surprising.
"[Israel] is receiving weapons constantly. In fact, weapons were sent during the invasion of Gaza. They tried to send them, they were supposed to send them from Greece, and Greece refused to ship them," he said.
"When pentagon was asked about this, they responded (I think correctly) that the weapons were not being sent for the Gaza invasion which was underway with the U.S. weapons of course; rather, the U.S.was positioning weapons in Israel," he added.
The professor, who was taking part in an interview with Press TV after delivering a speech at Boston University, said that although Israel had influence over the U.S. foreign policy, it still had to act within the boundaries of what Washington allowed.
"Take for example Israeli threats against Iran or U.S. threats for that matter, in which if anybody cares it is a violation of the UN charter,” said Chomsky.
"Last summer in 2008, right in the middle of the presidential election… Israeli lobbyists tried very hard to push through a resolution in congress calling for a blockade on Iran which essentially would have been an act of war.
"They were rounding up quite lot of senators… and all of a sudden the effort terminated, presumably what happened is the White House… wanted to have a word with them, so they pulled back, that happens over and over, Israel can not go beyond what the U.S. permits," he added.
During his address at Boston University, the recognized professor also warned of the threat that the U.S. and Israel posed to the world and said people may have more to fear from the two than those that Washington tries to associate with terrorism.
"[The U.S. and Israel] consistently and regularly… resort to force and the threat of force… carry out aggression regularly and repeatedly… invade other countries, occupy other countries, [and] invoke terror and violence," he said.
Chomsky also pointed out that the U.S. government and its media had spread exaggerated reports about Iran's nuclear program.
"There has been a massive propaganda campaign that demonizes Iran, that portrays it as a major threat to world peace that has been going on for the past three years," he said.
It's who you know
It's who you know
Perhaps the best way to summarize 2009 would be to look at the obvious winners, such as Wall Street and Big Government, against less obvious losers, such as taxpayers, the unemployed and small businessmen globally. The year could be remembered as sowing the seeds of the longest depression the world has seen. (Dec 23, '09)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KL24Dj06.html
Perhaps the best way to summarize 2009 would be to look at the obvious winners, such as Wall Street and Big Government, against less obvious losers, such as taxpayers, the unemployed and small businessmen globally. The year could be remembered as sowing the seeds of the longest depression the world has seen. (Dec 23, '09)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KL24Dj06.html
US spies walked into al-Qaeda's trap
US spies walked into al-Qaeda's trap
The United States Central Intelligence Agency's plan to step up its efforts against al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan went disastrously wrong when an Afghan National Army officer, planted by an elite al-Qaeda unit, was invited into a CIA base, where he blew up himself and seven agents. For the first time in many years, the winter season in Afghanistan is hot. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Jan 4, '10)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA05Df01.html
The United States Central Intelligence Agency's plan to step up its efforts against al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan went disastrously wrong when an Afghan National Army officer, planted by an elite al-Qaeda unit, was invited into a CIA base, where he blew up himself and seven agents. For the first time in many years, the winter season in Afghanistan is hot. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Jan 4, '10)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA05Df01.html
Cheney Was Right by Peter Beinart
Cheney Was Right
by Peter Beinart
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
BS Top - Beinart Cheney Was Right Karin Cooper / AP Photo Obama isn’t at war with jihadist terrorism—and that’s a good thing. Peter Beinart on why the left needs to stop the linguistic dithering—and win the only battle that can vanquish al Qaeda.
It was your garden-variety partisan smackdown. After the underwear-bomber attack, Dick Cheney accused President Obama of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with jihadist terrorism. The White House responded by quoting Obama’s inaugural address, in which the president declared that “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” and his Nobel Prize speech, in which he reiterated that “we are at war.” Democrats congratulated themselves for making Cheney look like an ass, again.
We can no more militarily defeat jihadist terrorism than we could militarily defeat Soviet communism. The way to win is by using military force sparingly, and massively leveraging America’s greatest assets, which are economic, diplomatic and ideological.
But they missed the larger point, which is that while America is obviously at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it isn’t actually at war with jihadist terrorism. Rather than proving Cheney wrong, the White House should have done something more audacious: Prove him right.
To understand why America is not at war with jihadist terrorism, it helps to start by defining “war.” At its most basic, war is a state of military conflict between nations or other organized groups. But not every struggle that involves some military conflict is a war. Consider the Cold War. From the late 1940s through the late 1980s, the U.S. and the USSR tried to destroy each other’s economic and political systems. They killed millions in proxy wars. Occasionally, American and Soviet soldiers even shot directly at each other. But “Cold War” was an oxymoron: The Cold War wasn’t really a war because the struggle was not primarily military. That was the fundamental insight underlying George Kennan’s strategy of containment. Kennan recognized that the best way to defeat the Kremlin was to limit armed confrontation and instead leverage America’s economic and ideological power. America didn’t need to destroy the Red Army, he argued, because if it convinced the world that the U.S. and its allies offered a more dynamic and humane economic and political system, Soviet power would eventually crumble from within.
Right-wingers like Barry Goldwater, James Burnham, and Norman Podhoretz vehemently disagreed. At various points, they proposed preventive (or what Dick Cheney would call “preemptive”) attacks against the USSR and its allies. Rather than “Cold War,” they often employed the term “World War III,” which implied direct military action.
When people like Cheney insist that the “war on terror” is really a war, they’re making the same point: that this is a primarily military struggle. (In fact, having called the Cold War “World War III,” Podhoretz and other hawks now often call the war on terror “World War IV.”) Once again, the debate is more than semantic. Just as the debate between “Cold War” and “World War III” was a debate over whether the U.S. should attack—rather than contain—the USSR (and later China, Cuba, and Nicaragua), the debate over whether the war on terror is really a war is, among other things, a veiled debate over whether the U.S. (or Israel) should attack—or contain—Iran.
Why doesn’t the White House recognize this? Because while Cheney and company love the word “war” precisely because they define it as military conflict, Americans in recent decades have gotten used to employing the word to mean something more like “national mobilization.” As a result of Washington’s “wars” on poverty, drugs and cancer, the word’s meaning has grown fuzzy. It is this fuzziness that allows the Obama administration to try to have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim that for them, war means mobilizing the economic, diplomatic, and ideological aspects of American power, with the military playing only a supporting role. On the other, they can brandish the macho-sounding “war” to deflect Republican charges that they’re soft on national security.
But it’s too clever by half. For one thing, the kinder, gentler, non-military definition of “war” being employed by the White House doesn’t translate outside the United States. Americans find it easy to sanitize the word because we have little memory of foreign bombers destroying our cities or foreign armies marching across our soil. Among people who do, however, “war” connotes something savage, humiliating, and terrifying. And as a result, using the term undermines the Obama administration’s effort to reduce the anti-American hatred that breeds terrorism. Liberals must make a linguistic choice. If we really do see war as savage, degrading, and terrible, we must stop whitewashing it by applying it to struggles against poverty, cancer, and the like, which are not savage or terrible at all.
Calling the anti-al Qaeda struggle a war is also a disaster for civil liberties. From military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay to warrantless wiretapping, Bush and Cheney repeatedly used the claim that America was at war against terror to justify their claims of unfettered executive power. The linguistic struggle over whether the U.S. is really at war is inevitably a legal struggle over the degree to which government can infringe on individual freedom. If the Obama administration is serious about challenging the “imperial presidency” reestablished after the 9/11 attacks, it has to challenge the concept of a “war” on terror as well.
The underwear-bomber attack underscores all this rather well. We can’t defeat men like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab by invading Yemen or Nigeria. Nor can we defeat them by sending drones to kill dozens of terrorists and thousands of civilians, thus producing more terrorists than we destroy. While military action may sometimes be unavoidable, we can no more militarily defeat jihadist terrorism than we could militarily defeat Soviet communism. The way to win is by using military force sparingly, and massively leveraging America’s greatest assets, which are economic, diplomatic, and ideological. When people in countries like Yemen and Nigeria see America and its allies as a force for progress and dignity and al Qaeda as a force for misery and oppression, America will win the struggle against al Qaeda where it won the struggle against the USSR: on the battlefield of hearts and minds. Winning the “war on terror,” like winning the Cold War, starts by recognizing that what we’re fighting isn’t really a war at all.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-03/why-cheney-was-right/2/"]http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...ey-was-right/2/[/url]
by Peter Beinart
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
BS Top - Beinart Cheney Was Right Karin Cooper / AP Photo Obama isn’t at war with jihadist terrorism—and that’s a good thing. Peter Beinart on why the left needs to stop the linguistic dithering—and win the only battle that can vanquish al Qaeda.
It was your garden-variety partisan smackdown. After the underwear-bomber attack, Dick Cheney accused President Obama of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with jihadist terrorism. The White House responded by quoting Obama’s inaugural address, in which the president declared that “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” and his Nobel Prize speech, in which he reiterated that “we are at war.” Democrats congratulated themselves for making Cheney look like an ass, again.
We can no more militarily defeat jihadist terrorism than we could militarily defeat Soviet communism. The way to win is by using military force sparingly, and massively leveraging America’s greatest assets, which are economic, diplomatic and ideological.
But they missed the larger point, which is that while America is obviously at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it isn’t actually at war with jihadist terrorism. Rather than proving Cheney wrong, the White House should have done something more audacious: Prove him right.
To understand why America is not at war with jihadist terrorism, it helps to start by defining “war.” At its most basic, war is a state of military conflict between nations or other organized groups. But not every struggle that involves some military conflict is a war. Consider the Cold War. From the late 1940s through the late 1980s, the U.S. and the USSR tried to destroy each other’s economic and political systems. They killed millions in proxy wars. Occasionally, American and Soviet soldiers even shot directly at each other. But “Cold War” was an oxymoron: The Cold War wasn’t really a war because the struggle was not primarily military. That was the fundamental insight underlying George Kennan’s strategy of containment. Kennan recognized that the best way to defeat the Kremlin was to limit armed confrontation and instead leverage America’s economic and ideological power. America didn’t need to destroy the Red Army, he argued, because if it convinced the world that the U.S. and its allies offered a more dynamic and humane economic and political system, Soviet power would eventually crumble from within.
Right-wingers like Barry Goldwater, James Burnham, and Norman Podhoretz vehemently disagreed. At various points, they proposed preventive (or what Dick Cheney would call “preemptive”) attacks against the USSR and its allies. Rather than “Cold War,” they often employed the term “World War III,” which implied direct military action.
When people like Cheney insist that the “war on terror” is really a war, they’re making the same point: that this is a primarily military struggle. (In fact, having called the Cold War “World War III,” Podhoretz and other hawks now often call the war on terror “World War IV.”) Once again, the debate is more than semantic. Just as the debate between “Cold War” and “World War III” was a debate over whether the U.S. should attack—rather than contain—the USSR (and later China, Cuba, and Nicaragua), the debate over whether the war on terror is really a war is, among other things, a veiled debate over whether the U.S. (or Israel) should attack—or contain—Iran.
Why doesn’t the White House recognize this? Because while Cheney and company love the word “war” precisely because they define it as military conflict, Americans in recent decades have gotten used to employing the word to mean something more like “national mobilization.” As a result of Washington’s “wars” on poverty, drugs and cancer, the word’s meaning has grown fuzzy. It is this fuzziness that allows the Obama administration to try to have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim that for them, war means mobilizing the economic, diplomatic, and ideological aspects of American power, with the military playing only a supporting role. On the other, they can brandish the macho-sounding “war” to deflect Republican charges that they’re soft on national security.
But it’s too clever by half. For one thing, the kinder, gentler, non-military definition of “war” being employed by the White House doesn’t translate outside the United States. Americans find it easy to sanitize the word because we have little memory of foreign bombers destroying our cities or foreign armies marching across our soil. Among people who do, however, “war” connotes something savage, humiliating, and terrifying. And as a result, using the term undermines the Obama administration’s effort to reduce the anti-American hatred that breeds terrorism. Liberals must make a linguistic choice. If we really do see war as savage, degrading, and terrible, we must stop whitewashing it by applying it to struggles against poverty, cancer, and the like, which are not savage or terrible at all.
Calling the anti-al Qaeda struggle a war is also a disaster for civil liberties. From military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay to warrantless wiretapping, Bush and Cheney repeatedly used the claim that America was at war against terror to justify their claims of unfettered executive power. The linguistic struggle over whether the U.S. is really at war is inevitably a legal struggle over the degree to which government can infringe on individual freedom. If the Obama administration is serious about challenging the “imperial presidency” reestablished after the 9/11 attacks, it has to challenge the concept of a “war” on terror as well.
The underwear-bomber attack underscores all this rather well. We can’t defeat men like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab by invading Yemen or Nigeria. Nor can we defeat them by sending drones to kill dozens of terrorists and thousands of civilians, thus producing more terrorists than we destroy. While military action may sometimes be unavoidable, we can no more militarily defeat jihadist terrorism than we could militarily defeat Soviet communism. The way to win is by using military force sparingly, and massively leveraging America’s greatest assets, which are economic, diplomatic, and ideological. When people in countries like Yemen and Nigeria see America and its allies as a force for progress and dignity and al Qaeda as a force for misery and oppression, America will win the struggle against al Qaeda where it won the struggle against the USSR: on the battlefield of hearts and minds. Winning the “war on terror,” like winning the Cold War, starts by recognizing that what we’re fighting isn’t really a war at all.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-03/why-cheney-was-right/2/"]http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...ey-was-right/2/[/url]
Saturday, January 2, 2010
5 myths about keeping America safe from terrorism
5 myths about keeping America safe from terrorism
By Stephen Flynn
Sunday, January 3, 2010; B03
With President Obama declaring a "systemic failure" of our security system in the wake of the attempted Christmas bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner, familiar arguments about what can and should be done to reduce America's vulnerabilities are again filling the airwaves, editorial pages and blogosphere. Several of these arguments are based on assumptions that guided the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and unfortunately, they are as unfounded now as they were then. The biggest whopper of all? The paternalistic assertion that the government can keep us all safe without our help.
1. Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people.
Americans are at far greater risk of being killed in accidents or by viruses than by acts of terrorism. In 2008, more than 37,300 Americans perished on the nation's highways, according to government data. Even before H1N1, a similar number of people died each year from the seasonal flu. Terrorism is a real and potentially consequential danger. But the greatest threat isn't posed by the direct harm terrorists could inflict; it comes from what we do to ourselves when we are spooked. It is how we react -- or more precisely, how we overreact -- to the threat of terrorism that makes it an appealing tool for our adversaries. By grounding commercial aviation and effectively closing our borders after the 2001 attacks, Washington accomplished something no foreign state could have hoped to achieve: a blockade on the economy of the world's sole superpower. While we cannot expect to be completely successful at intercepting terrorist attacks, we must get a better handle on how we respond when they happen.
2. When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a good offense.
The cornerstone of the Bush administration's approach to dealing with the terrorist threat was to take the battle to the enemy. But offense has its limits. We still aren't generating sufficiently accurate and timely tactical intelligence to adequately support U.S. counterterrorism efforts overseas. And going after terrorists abroad hardly means they won't manage to strike us at home. Just days before the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the United States collaborated with the Yemeni government on raids against al-Qaeda militants there. The group known as al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula is now claiming responsibility for having equipped and trained Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to blow up the flight. The group is also leveraging the raids to recruit militants and mount protests against Yemen's already fragile central government.
At the same time, an emphasis on offense has often come at the expense of investing in effective defensive measures, such as maintaining quality watch lists, sharing information about threats, safeguarding such critical assets as the nation's food and energy supplies, and preparing for large-scale emergencies. After authorities said Abdulmutallab had hidden explosives in his underwear, airline screeners held up flights to do stepped-up passenger pat-downs at boarding gates -- pat-downs that inevitably avoided passengers' crotches and buttocks. This kind of quick fix only tends to fuel public cynicism about security efforts. But if we can implement smart security measures ahead of time (such as requiring refineries next to densely populated areas to use safer chemicals when they manufacture high-octane gas), we won't be incapacitated when terrorists strike. Strengthening our national ability to withstand and rapidly recover from terrorism will make the United States a less appealing target. In combating terrorism, as in sports, success requires both a capable offense and a strong defense.
3. Getting better control over America's borders is essential to making us safer.
Our borders will never serve as a meaningful line of defense against terrorism. The inspectors at our ports, border crossings and airports have important roles when it comes to managing immigration and the flow of commerce, but they play only a bit part in stopping would-be attackers. This is because terrorist threats do not originate at our land borders with Mexico and Canada, nor along our 12,000 miles of coastline. They originate at home as well as abroad, and they exploit global networks such as the transportation system that moved 500 million cargo containers through the world's ports in 2008. Moreover, terrorists' travel documents are often in perfect order. This was the case with Abdulmutallab, as well as with shoe-bomber Richard Reid in 2001. Complaints about porous borders may play well politically, but they distract us from the more challenging task of forging international cooperation to strengthen safeguards for our global transportation, travel and financial systems. They also sidestep the disturbing fact that the number of terrorism-related cases involving U.S. residents reached a new high in 2009.
4. Investing in new technology is key to better security.
Not necessarily. Technology can be helpful, but too often it ends up being part of the problem. Placing too much reliance on sophisticated tools such as X-ray machines often leaves the people staffing our front lines consumed with monitoring and troubleshooting these systems. Consequently, they become more caught up in process than outcomes. And as soon procedures become routine, a determined bad guy can game them. We would do well to heed two lessons the U.S. military has learned from combating insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan: First, don't do things in rote and predictable ways, and second, don't alienate the people you are trying to protect. Too much of what is promoted as homeland security disregards these lessons. It is true that technology such as full-body imaging machines, which have received so much attention in the past week, are far more effective than metal detectors at screening airline passengers. But new technologies are also expensive, and they are no substitute for well-trained professionals who are empowered and rewarded for exercising good judgment.
5. Average citizens aren't an effective bulwark against terrorist attacks.
Elite pundits and policymakers routinely dismiss the ability of ordinary people to respond effectively when they are in harm's way. It's ironic that this misconception has animated much of the government's approach to homeland security since Sept. 11, 2001, given that the only successful counterterrorist action that day came from the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93. These passengers didn't have the help of federal air marshals. The Defense Department's North American Aerospace Defense Command didn't intercept the plane -- it didn't even know the airliner had been hijacked. But by charging the cockpit over rural Pennsylvania, these private citizens prevented al-Qaeda terrorists from reaching their likely target of the U.S. Capitol or the White House. The government leaders whose constitutional duty is "to provide for the common defense" were defended by one thing alone -- an alert and heroic citizenry.
This misconception is particularly reckless because it ends up sidelining the greatest asset we have for managing the terrorism threat: the average people who are best positioned to detect and respond to terrorist activities. We have only to look to the attempted Christmas Day attack to validate this truth. Once again it was the government that fell short, not ordinary people. A concerned Nigerian father, not the CIA or the National Security Agency, came forward with crucial information. And the courageous actions of the Dutch film director Jasper Schuringa and other passengers and crew members aboard Flight 253 thwarted the attack.
Stephen Flynn is the president of the Center for National Policy and author of "The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101159_pf.html
By Stephen Flynn
Sunday, January 3, 2010; B03
With President Obama declaring a "systemic failure" of our security system in the wake of the attempted Christmas bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner, familiar arguments about what can and should be done to reduce America's vulnerabilities are again filling the airwaves, editorial pages and blogosphere. Several of these arguments are based on assumptions that guided the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and unfortunately, they are as unfounded now as they were then. The biggest whopper of all? The paternalistic assertion that the government can keep us all safe without our help.
1. Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people.
Americans are at far greater risk of being killed in accidents or by viruses than by acts of terrorism. In 2008, more than 37,300 Americans perished on the nation's highways, according to government data. Even before H1N1, a similar number of people died each year from the seasonal flu. Terrorism is a real and potentially consequential danger. But the greatest threat isn't posed by the direct harm terrorists could inflict; it comes from what we do to ourselves when we are spooked. It is how we react -- or more precisely, how we overreact -- to the threat of terrorism that makes it an appealing tool for our adversaries. By grounding commercial aviation and effectively closing our borders after the 2001 attacks, Washington accomplished something no foreign state could have hoped to achieve: a blockade on the economy of the world's sole superpower. While we cannot expect to be completely successful at intercepting terrorist attacks, we must get a better handle on how we respond when they happen.
2. When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a good offense.
The cornerstone of the Bush administration's approach to dealing with the terrorist threat was to take the battle to the enemy. But offense has its limits. We still aren't generating sufficiently accurate and timely tactical intelligence to adequately support U.S. counterterrorism efforts overseas. And going after terrorists abroad hardly means they won't manage to strike us at home. Just days before the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the United States collaborated with the Yemeni government on raids against al-Qaeda militants there. The group known as al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula is now claiming responsibility for having equipped and trained Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to blow up the flight. The group is also leveraging the raids to recruit militants and mount protests against Yemen's already fragile central government.
At the same time, an emphasis on offense has often come at the expense of investing in effective defensive measures, such as maintaining quality watch lists, sharing information about threats, safeguarding such critical assets as the nation's food and energy supplies, and preparing for large-scale emergencies. After authorities said Abdulmutallab had hidden explosives in his underwear, airline screeners held up flights to do stepped-up passenger pat-downs at boarding gates -- pat-downs that inevitably avoided passengers' crotches and buttocks. This kind of quick fix only tends to fuel public cynicism about security efforts. But if we can implement smart security measures ahead of time (such as requiring refineries next to densely populated areas to use safer chemicals when they manufacture high-octane gas), we won't be incapacitated when terrorists strike. Strengthening our national ability to withstand and rapidly recover from terrorism will make the United States a less appealing target. In combating terrorism, as in sports, success requires both a capable offense and a strong defense.
3. Getting better control over America's borders is essential to making us safer.
Our borders will never serve as a meaningful line of defense against terrorism. The inspectors at our ports, border crossings and airports have important roles when it comes to managing immigration and the flow of commerce, but they play only a bit part in stopping would-be attackers. This is because terrorist threats do not originate at our land borders with Mexico and Canada, nor along our 12,000 miles of coastline. They originate at home as well as abroad, and they exploit global networks such as the transportation system that moved 500 million cargo containers through the world's ports in 2008. Moreover, terrorists' travel documents are often in perfect order. This was the case with Abdulmutallab, as well as with shoe-bomber Richard Reid in 2001. Complaints about porous borders may play well politically, but they distract us from the more challenging task of forging international cooperation to strengthen safeguards for our global transportation, travel and financial systems. They also sidestep the disturbing fact that the number of terrorism-related cases involving U.S. residents reached a new high in 2009.
4. Investing in new technology is key to better security.
Not necessarily. Technology can be helpful, but too often it ends up being part of the problem. Placing too much reliance on sophisticated tools such as X-ray machines often leaves the people staffing our front lines consumed with monitoring and troubleshooting these systems. Consequently, they become more caught up in process than outcomes. And as soon procedures become routine, a determined bad guy can game them. We would do well to heed two lessons the U.S. military has learned from combating insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan: First, don't do things in rote and predictable ways, and second, don't alienate the people you are trying to protect. Too much of what is promoted as homeland security disregards these lessons. It is true that technology such as full-body imaging machines, which have received so much attention in the past week, are far more effective than metal detectors at screening airline passengers. But new technologies are also expensive, and they are no substitute for well-trained professionals who are empowered and rewarded for exercising good judgment.
5. Average citizens aren't an effective bulwark against terrorist attacks.
Elite pundits and policymakers routinely dismiss the ability of ordinary people to respond effectively when they are in harm's way. It's ironic that this misconception has animated much of the government's approach to homeland security since Sept. 11, 2001, given that the only successful counterterrorist action that day came from the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93. These passengers didn't have the help of federal air marshals. The Defense Department's North American Aerospace Defense Command didn't intercept the plane -- it didn't even know the airliner had been hijacked. But by charging the cockpit over rural Pennsylvania, these private citizens prevented al-Qaeda terrorists from reaching their likely target of the U.S. Capitol or the White House. The government leaders whose constitutional duty is "to provide for the common defense" were defended by one thing alone -- an alert and heroic citizenry.
This misconception is particularly reckless because it ends up sidelining the greatest asset we have for managing the terrorism threat: the average people who are best positioned to detect and respond to terrorist activities. We have only to look to the attempted Christmas Day attack to validate this truth. Once again it was the government that fell short, not ordinary people. A concerned Nigerian father, not the CIA or the National Security Agency, came forward with crucial information. And the courageous actions of the Dutch film director Jasper Schuringa and other passengers and crew members aboard Flight 253 thwarted the attack.
Stephen Flynn is the president of the Center for National Policy and author of "The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101159_pf.html
Patrick Cockburn: Threats to Yemen prove America hasn't learned the lesson of history
Patrick Cockburn: Threats to Yemen prove America hasn't learned the lesson of history
Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan
Thursday, 31 December 2009
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
DARREN DISS
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
We are the nails that go into the rock
We are the sparks of hell
He who defies us will be burned
This is the tribal chant of the powerful Awaleq tribe of Yemen, in which they bid defiance to the world. Its angry tone conveys the flavour of Yemeni life and it should give pause to those in the US who blithely suggest greater American involvement in Yemen in the wake of the attempt to destroy a US plane by a Nigerian student who says he received training there.
Yemen has always been a dangerous place. Wonderfully beautiful, the mountainous north of the country is guerrilla paradise. The Yemenis are exceptionally hospitable, though this has its limits. For instance, the Kazam tribe east of Aden are generous to passing strangers, but deem the laws of hospitality to lapse when the stranger leaves their tribal territory, at which time he becomes "a good back to shoot at".
The Awaleq and Kazam tribes are not exotic survivals on the margins of Yemeni society but are both politically important and influential. The strength of the central government in the capital, Sanaa, is limited and it generally avoids direct confrontations with tribal confederations, tribes, clans and powerful families. Almost everybody has a gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but tribesmen often own heavier armament.
I have always loved the country. It is physically very beautiful with cut stone villages perched on mountain tops on the sides of which are cut hundreds of terraces, making the country look like an exaggerated Tuscan landscape. Yemenis are intelligent, humorous, sociable and democratic, infinitely preferable as company to the arrogant and ignorant playboys of the Arab oil states in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is very much a country of direct action. Once when I was there a Chinese engineer was kidnapped as he drove along the main road linking Sanaa to Aden. The motives of the kidnappers were peculiar. It turned out they came from a bee-keeping tribe (Yemen is famous for its honey) whose bees live in hives inside hollow logs placed on metal stilts to protect them from ants. The police had raided the tribe's village and had damaged hives for which the owners were demanding compensation. The government had been slow in paying up so the tribesmen had decided to draw attention to their grievance by kidnapping the next foreigner on the main road and this turned out to be the Chinese engineer.
Yemen is a mosaic of conflicting authorities, though this authority may be confined to a few villages. Larger communities include the Shia around Sanaa in the north of the country near Saada, with whom the government has been fighting a fierce little civil war. The unification of North and South Yemen in 1990 has never wholly gelled and the government is wary of southern secessionism. Its ability to buy off its opponents is also under threat as oil revenues fall, with the few oilfields beginning to run dry.
It is in this fascinating but dangerous land that President Barack Obama is planning to increase US political and military involvement. Joint operations will be carried out by the US and Yemeni military. There will be American drone attacks on hamlets where al-Qa'ida supposedly has its bases.
There is ominous use by American politicians and commentators of the phrase "failed state" in relation to Yemen, as if this some how legitimised foreign intervention. It is extraordinary that the US political elite has never taken on board that its greatest defeats have been in just such "failed states"', not least Lebanon in 1982, when 240 US Marines were blown up; Somalia in the early 1990s when the body of a US helicopter pilot was dragged through the streets; Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and Afghanistan after the supposed fall of the Taliban.
Yemen has all the explosive ingredients of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But the arch-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, was happily confirming this week that the Green Berets and the US Special Forces are already there. He cited with approval an American official in Sanaa as telling him that, "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If you don't act pre-emptively Yemen will be tomorrow's war." In practice pre-emptive strikes are likely to bring a US military entanglement in Yemen even closer.
The US will get entangled because the Yemeni government will want to manipulate US action in its own interests and to preserve its wilting authority. It has long been trying to portray the Shia rebels in north Yemen as Iranian cats-paws in order to secure American and Saudi support. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) probably only has a few hundred activists in Yemen, but the government of long time Yemeni President Ali Abdulah Salih will portray his diverse opponents as somehow linked to al-Qa'ida.
In Yemen the US will be intervening on one side in a country which is always in danger of sliding into a civil war. This has happened before. In Iraq the US was the supporter of the Shia Arabs and Kurds against the Sunni Arabs. In Afghanistan it is the ally of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara against the Pashtun community. Whatever the intentions of Washington, its participation in these civil conflicts destabilises the country because one side becomes labelled as the quisling supporter of a foreign invader. Communal and nationalist antipathies combine to create a lethal blend.
Despite sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties in the countries where the US has intervened in the Middle East, they usually have a strong sense of national identity. Yemenis are highly conscious of their own nationality and their identity as Arabs. One of the reasons the country is so miserably poor, with almost half its 22 million people trying to live on $2 a day, is that in 1990 Yemen refused to join the war against Iraq and Saudi Arabia consequently expelled 850,000 Yemeni workers.
It is extraordinary to see the US begin to make the same mistakes in Yemen as it previously made in Afghanistan and Iraq. What it is doing is much to al-Qa'ida's advantage. The real strength of al-Qa'ida is not that it can "train" a fanatical Nigerian student to sew explosives into his underpants, but that it can provoke an exaggerated US response to every botched attack. Al-Qa'ida leaders openly admitted at the time of 9/11 that the aim of such operations is to provoke the US into direct military intervention in Muslim countries.
In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa'ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were "too big to fail," so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole superpower.
In Iraq the US is getting out more easily than seemed likely at one stage because Washington has persuaded Americans that they won a non-existent success. The ultimate US exit from Afghanistan may eventually be along very similar lines. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead it repeats them by fresh interventions in countries like Yemen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-threats-to-yemen-prove-america-hasnt-learned-the-lesson-of-history-1853847.html
Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan
Thursday, 31 December 2009
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
DARREN DISS
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
We are the nails that go into the rock
We are the sparks of hell
He who defies us will be burned
This is the tribal chant of the powerful Awaleq tribe of Yemen, in which they bid defiance to the world. Its angry tone conveys the flavour of Yemeni life and it should give pause to those in the US who blithely suggest greater American involvement in Yemen in the wake of the attempt to destroy a US plane by a Nigerian student who says he received training there.
Yemen has always been a dangerous place. Wonderfully beautiful, the mountainous north of the country is guerrilla paradise. The Yemenis are exceptionally hospitable, though this has its limits. For instance, the Kazam tribe east of Aden are generous to passing strangers, but deem the laws of hospitality to lapse when the stranger leaves their tribal territory, at which time he becomes "a good back to shoot at".
The Awaleq and Kazam tribes are not exotic survivals on the margins of Yemeni society but are both politically important and influential. The strength of the central government in the capital, Sanaa, is limited and it generally avoids direct confrontations with tribal confederations, tribes, clans and powerful families. Almost everybody has a gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but tribesmen often own heavier armament.
I have always loved the country. It is physically very beautiful with cut stone villages perched on mountain tops on the sides of which are cut hundreds of terraces, making the country look like an exaggerated Tuscan landscape. Yemenis are intelligent, humorous, sociable and democratic, infinitely preferable as company to the arrogant and ignorant playboys of the Arab oil states in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is very much a country of direct action. Once when I was there a Chinese engineer was kidnapped as he drove along the main road linking Sanaa to Aden. The motives of the kidnappers were peculiar. It turned out they came from a bee-keeping tribe (Yemen is famous for its honey) whose bees live in hives inside hollow logs placed on metal stilts to protect them from ants. The police had raided the tribe's village and had damaged hives for which the owners were demanding compensation. The government had been slow in paying up so the tribesmen had decided to draw attention to their grievance by kidnapping the next foreigner on the main road and this turned out to be the Chinese engineer.
Yemen is a mosaic of conflicting authorities, though this authority may be confined to a few villages. Larger communities include the Shia around Sanaa in the north of the country near Saada, with whom the government has been fighting a fierce little civil war. The unification of North and South Yemen in 1990 has never wholly gelled and the government is wary of southern secessionism. Its ability to buy off its opponents is also under threat as oil revenues fall, with the few oilfields beginning to run dry.
It is in this fascinating but dangerous land that President Barack Obama is planning to increase US political and military involvement. Joint operations will be carried out by the US and Yemeni military. There will be American drone attacks on hamlets where al-Qa'ida supposedly has its bases.
There is ominous use by American politicians and commentators of the phrase "failed state" in relation to Yemen, as if this some how legitimised foreign intervention. It is extraordinary that the US political elite has never taken on board that its greatest defeats have been in just such "failed states"', not least Lebanon in 1982, when 240 US Marines were blown up; Somalia in the early 1990s when the body of a US helicopter pilot was dragged through the streets; Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and Afghanistan after the supposed fall of the Taliban.
Yemen has all the explosive ingredients of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But the arch-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, was happily confirming this week that the Green Berets and the US Special Forces are already there. He cited with approval an American official in Sanaa as telling him that, "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If you don't act pre-emptively Yemen will be tomorrow's war." In practice pre-emptive strikes are likely to bring a US military entanglement in Yemen even closer.
The US will get entangled because the Yemeni government will want to manipulate US action in its own interests and to preserve its wilting authority. It has long been trying to portray the Shia rebels in north Yemen as Iranian cats-paws in order to secure American and Saudi support. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) probably only has a few hundred activists in Yemen, but the government of long time Yemeni President Ali Abdulah Salih will portray his diverse opponents as somehow linked to al-Qa'ida.
In Yemen the US will be intervening on one side in a country which is always in danger of sliding into a civil war. This has happened before. In Iraq the US was the supporter of the Shia Arabs and Kurds against the Sunni Arabs. In Afghanistan it is the ally of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara against the Pashtun community. Whatever the intentions of Washington, its participation in these civil conflicts destabilises the country because one side becomes labelled as the quisling supporter of a foreign invader. Communal and nationalist antipathies combine to create a lethal blend.
Despite sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties in the countries where the US has intervened in the Middle East, they usually have a strong sense of national identity. Yemenis are highly conscious of their own nationality and their identity as Arabs. One of the reasons the country is so miserably poor, with almost half its 22 million people trying to live on $2 a day, is that in 1990 Yemen refused to join the war against Iraq and Saudi Arabia consequently expelled 850,000 Yemeni workers.
It is extraordinary to see the US begin to make the same mistakes in Yemen as it previously made in Afghanistan and Iraq. What it is doing is much to al-Qa'ida's advantage. The real strength of al-Qa'ida is not that it can "train" a fanatical Nigerian student to sew explosives into his underpants, but that it can provoke an exaggerated US response to every botched attack. Al-Qa'ida leaders openly admitted at the time of 9/11 that the aim of such operations is to provoke the US into direct military intervention in Muslim countries.
In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa'ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were "too big to fail," so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole superpower.
In Iraq the US is getting out more easily than seemed likely at one stage because Washington has persuaded Americans that they won a non-existent success. The ultimate US exit from Afghanistan may eventually be along very similar lines. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead it repeats them by fresh interventions in countries like Yemen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-threats-to-yemen-prove-america-hasnt-learned-the-lesson-of-history-1853847.html
Friday, January 1, 2010
Abdelmutalib's Act of War from Counterterrorism Blog by Walid Phares
Abdelmutalib's Act of War
from Counterterrorism Blog by Walid Phares
Abdulmutalib.jpg
Abdulmutalib
In the Arab world there is a saying: “Take their truth from their crazies.” I didn’t think it would fully apply in geopolitics until I heard Libya’s dictator, Moammar Qadhafi, claiming on al Jazeera few years ago that Bin Laden had acquired intercontinental missiles.
The “crazy boy,” as the late Egyptian President Sadat used to call him, argued sarcastically that al Qaeda has developed an unstoppable weapon: human transoceanic missiles (Sawareekh bashariyya abira lil qarrat). He meant by that Jihadists who were committed to istishaad (martyrdom) by blowing up commercial jets over targets in America.
The man who has been ruling Libya for the past forty years knows his region very well and despite his peculiar behavior, has predicted what most observers of the Jihadist movement have also projected: al Qaeda and its allies worldwide have discovered the Achilles heel of American defenses: the inability of its security apparatus to identify the readying of the new weapon, its deployment and its launching.
The situation is so bad, that a man who was on some “persons of interest” list was nearly able to massacre hundreds of passengers and possibly innocent people on the ground but for the failure of his underwear bomb and the courage of a citizen of the Netherlands who rose to defend humanity with his bare hands.
alg_delta_plane_detroit.jpg
Flight from Amsterdam
A Nigerian young man, educated in Europe, with no antecedent (and visible) involvement in “violent extremism” -- as defined by new US doctrines -- with a family wealthy enough to extract him from disenfranchisement and other so-called roots of radicalization, burned parts of his body as he was leaping into the “heaven of virgins.” Had he succeeded he would have accomplished a considerable feat: the second bloodiest terror act within US borders, pushing back the Fort Hood jihad to third position after 9/11.
The rapidly unfolding incident, a sheer and clear act of war, shocked and awed the American public to the core. Nine years after Mohammad Atta led an al Qaeda platoon into a genocidal attack against this country, Omar Farouq Abdelmutalib, an obscure person with no dramatic history brought hundreds of men, women and children to the edge of existence before they were bounced back to the world of the living, thanks to the instincts of ordinary individuals. How can that be possible after billions of dollars spent until now on homeland security, two overseas wars waged by the previous administration to end the terrorist threat?
Abdelmutalib’s act contrasts poorly with the Obama administration’s pledge to shut down Guantanamo by this administration in order to calm down “extremism” in addition to all the president’s speeches announcing retreats. If closing Guantanamo and ignoring democracy movements doesn’t satisfy the jihadists, what will? Why do they keep coming to kill more people?
The “Mujahid from Nigeria,” as described by al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen is the perpetrator of the 13th terrorist act on US soil in one single year. From the Arkansas murder of a US military, to the jihadists of North Carolina, New York, Illinois, Texas, all the way to Fort Hood, these are the precursors of a wider wave to slam our shores unavoidably.
Abdelmutalib, like all other suicide-to-be perpetrators is a human missile designed, programmed and set off by a jihadist war machine. Ironically, the responses uttered by US officials only deepen the conviction within the jihadi war rooms that we are trailing behind in understanding their threat.
When Major Hasan killed thirteen colleagues, the nation was urged “not to rush to judgment.” Days later, emails surfaced about links to Imam Awlaki, the bête noire of Yemen. In the wake of Abdelmutalib’s arrest we were told “there were no credible links to al Qaeda” just before a bold statement by the organization claimed the operation against the “American enemy.” By now, after the most active year in terrorism targeting the US since 2001, it would be advisable not to rush to judgment, but the other way around.
Do not claim that massacres -- those that happen and those that are stopped -- are inexplicable during a war with the jihadists. In World War II, every Nazi bomber that flew over Britain was an act of war. In this conflict, every jihadi-inspired attack is an act of warfare. Every rush to deny it and it treat it as a mere act of violence is a challenge to our national security, and eventually a threat to our defense.
******
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/01/abdelmutalibs_act_of_war.php
from Counterterrorism Blog by Walid Phares
Abdulmutalib.jpg
Abdulmutalib
In the Arab world there is a saying: “Take their truth from their crazies.” I didn’t think it would fully apply in geopolitics until I heard Libya’s dictator, Moammar Qadhafi, claiming on al Jazeera few years ago that Bin Laden had acquired intercontinental missiles.
The “crazy boy,” as the late Egyptian President Sadat used to call him, argued sarcastically that al Qaeda has developed an unstoppable weapon: human transoceanic missiles (Sawareekh bashariyya abira lil qarrat). He meant by that Jihadists who were committed to istishaad (martyrdom) by blowing up commercial jets over targets in America.
The man who has been ruling Libya for the past forty years knows his region very well and despite his peculiar behavior, has predicted what most observers of the Jihadist movement have also projected: al Qaeda and its allies worldwide have discovered the Achilles heel of American defenses: the inability of its security apparatus to identify the readying of the new weapon, its deployment and its launching.
The situation is so bad, that a man who was on some “persons of interest” list was nearly able to massacre hundreds of passengers and possibly innocent people on the ground but for the failure of his underwear bomb and the courage of a citizen of the Netherlands who rose to defend humanity with his bare hands.
alg_delta_plane_detroit.jpg
Flight from Amsterdam
A Nigerian young man, educated in Europe, with no antecedent (and visible) involvement in “violent extremism” -- as defined by new US doctrines -- with a family wealthy enough to extract him from disenfranchisement and other so-called roots of radicalization, burned parts of his body as he was leaping into the “heaven of virgins.” Had he succeeded he would have accomplished a considerable feat: the second bloodiest terror act within US borders, pushing back the Fort Hood jihad to third position after 9/11.
The rapidly unfolding incident, a sheer and clear act of war, shocked and awed the American public to the core. Nine years after Mohammad Atta led an al Qaeda platoon into a genocidal attack against this country, Omar Farouq Abdelmutalib, an obscure person with no dramatic history brought hundreds of men, women and children to the edge of existence before they were bounced back to the world of the living, thanks to the instincts of ordinary individuals. How can that be possible after billions of dollars spent until now on homeland security, two overseas wars waged by the previous administration to end the terrorist threat?
Abdelmutalib’s act contrasts poorly with the Obama administration’s pledge to shut down Guantanamo by this administration in order to calm down “extremism” in addition to all the president’s speeches announcing retreats. If closing Guantanamo and ignoring democracy movements doesn’t satisfy the jihadists, what will? Why do they keep coming to kill more people?
The “Mujahid from Nigeria,” as described by al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen is the perpetrator of the 13th terrorist act on US soil in one single year. From the Arkansas murder of a US military, to the jihadists of North Carolina, New York, Illinois, Texas, all the way to Fort Hood, these are the precursors of a wider wave to slam our shores unavoidably.
Abdelmutalib, like all other suicide-to-be perpetrators is a human missile designed, programmed and set off by a jihadist war machine. Ironically, the responses uttered by US officials only deepen the conviction within the jihadi war rooms that we are trailing behind in understanding their threat.
When Major Hasan killed thirteen colleagues, the nation was urged “not to rush to judgment.” Days later, emails surfaced about links to Imam Awlaki, the bête noire of Yemen. In the wake of Abdelmutalib’s arrest we were told “there were no credible links to al Qaeda” just before a bold statement by the organization claimed the operation against the “American enemy.” By now, after the most active year in terrorism targeting the US since 2001, it would be advisable not to rush to judgment, but the other way around.
Do not claim that massacres -- those that happen and those that are stopped -- are inexplicable during a war with the jihadists. In World War II, every Nazi bomber that flew over Britain was an act of war. In this conflict, every jihadi-inspired attack is an act of warfare. Every rush to deny it and it treat it as a mere act of violence is a challenge to our national security, and eventually a threat to our defense.
******
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/01/abdelmutalibs_act_of_war.php
Uncommon Commentary from Agence Global January 1, 2010
The Twin Challenges of Terror and Israel by Patrick Seale
Carrying war to Muslim countries by means of air strikes inevitably kills civilians with fighters and is not the best way to combat terror. This and confronting Netanyahu are Obama’s greatest challenges in the coming year.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2228
U.S. Concerns: First Germany, Now Japan? by Immanuel Wallerstein
As Germany moves closer to Russia, and Japan moves closer to China, the United States can no longer count in any way on the two solid rocks on which it built its geopolitical strategy as the hegemonic power of the world-system.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2227
Two Important Resolutions for Obama in 2010 by Patrick Seale
Obama’s initiatives in Iran and in the Afghan-Pakistan theatre of war -- together with the Arab-Israeli conflict -- are at the heart of the world crisis. How he chooses to tackle them will have a profound impact on the United States and on the states of the Middle East, friend and foe alike.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2226
When Does It Become Genocide? by Nadia Hijab
More people have started to apply the term “genocide” to what Israel is doing to Gaza. And not only is Israel being directly accused but also, increasingly, Egypt.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2225
From Yemen to Detroit, A Grim Year Ends by Rami G. Khouri
Just when we thought things could not get any worse in the Middle East, they do. Yemen: Here in one package, at the end of this year, we have all the major tension points of the contemporary Middle East converging in a single time and place.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2224
The Arab World’s New Year Resolutions by Patrick Seale
The end of the oil era comes closer, the gap between rich and poor grows larger, Arab populations grow older, and more young are unemployed -- as the New Year dawns, Arab leaders will have a great deal to worry about.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2223
A Year Later: Gaza and Israel Both Under Siege by Rami G. Khouri
Israel militarily attacked and laid siege to Gaza, but a year after its war Israel now finds itself under political siege by much of the world.
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2222
more...
Carrying war to Muslim countries by means of air strikes inevitably kills civilians with fighters and is not the best way to combat terror. This and confronting Netanyahu are Obama’s greatest challenges in the coming year.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2228
U.S. Concerns: First Germany, Now Japan? by Immanuel Wallerstein
As Germany moves closer to Russia, and Japan moves closer to China, the United States can no longer count in any way on the two solid rocks on which it built its geopolitical strategy as the hegemonic power of the world-system.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2227
Two Important Resolutions for Obama in 2010 by Patrick Seale
Obama’s initiatives in Iran and in the Afghan-Pakistan theatre of war -- together with the Arab-Israeli conflict -- are at the heart of the world crisis. How he chooses to tackle them will have a profound impact on the United States and on the states of the Middle East, friend and foe alike.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2226
When Does It Become Genocide? by Nadia Hijab
More people have started to apply the term “genocide” to what Israel is doing to Gaza. And not only is Israel being directly accused but also, increasingly, Egypt.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2225
From Yemen to Detroit, A Grim Year Ends by Rami G. Khouri
Just when we thought things could not get any worse in the Middle East, they do. Yemen: Here in one package, at the end of this year, we have all the major tension points of the contemporary Middle East converging in a single time and place.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2224
The Arab World’s New Year Resolutions by Patrick Seale
The end of the oil era comes closer, the gap between rich and poor grows larger, Arab populations grow older, and more young are unemployed -- as the New Year dawns, Arab leaders will have a great deal to worry about.
more...
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2223
A Year Later: Gaza and Israel Both Under Siege by Rami G. Khouri
Israel militarily attacked and laid siege to Gaza, but a year after its war Israel now finds itself under political siege by much of the world.
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2222
more...
Dick Cheney's lies about President Obama By Eugene Robinson
Dick Cheney's lies about President Obama
By Eugene Robinson
Thursday, December 31, 2009
It's pathetic to break a New Year's resolution before we even get to New Year's Day, but here I go. I had promised myself that I would do a better job of ignoring Dick Cheney's corrosive and nonsensical outbursts -- that I would treat them, more or less, like the pearls of wisdom one hears from homeless people sitting in bus shelters.
But he is a former vice president, which gives him a big stage for his histrionic Rottweiler-in-Winter act. It is never a good idea to let widely disseminated lies and distortions go unchallenged. And the shrill screed that Cheney unloosed Wednesday is so full of outright mendacity that, well, my resolution will have to wait.
In a statement to Politico, Cheney seemed to be trying to provide talking points for opponents of the Obama administration who -- incredibly -- would exploit the Christmas Day terrorist attack for political gain. Cheney's broadside opens with a big lie, which he then repeats throughout. It is as if he believes that saying something over and over again, in a loud enough voice, magically makes it so.
"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney begins.
Flat-out untrue.
The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists. He said it as a candidate. He said it in his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." He has said it since.
As Cheney well knows, unless he has lost even the most tenuous grip on reality, Obama's commitment to warfare as an instrument in the fight against terrorism has won the president nothing but grief from the liberal wing of his party, with more certainly to come. Hasn't anyone told Cheney that Obama is sharply boosting troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to avoid losing a war that the Bush administration started but then practically abandoned?
Cheney knows this. But he goes on to use the big lie -- that Obama is "trying to pretend we are not at war" -- to bludgeon the administration on a host of specific issues. Here is the one that jumps out at me: The president, Cheney claims, "seems to think that if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."
Interesting that Cheney should bring that up, because it now seems clear that the man accused of trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was given training -- and probably the bomb itself, which involved plastic explosives sewn into his underwear -- by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. It happens that at least two men who were released from Guantanamo appear to have gone on to play major roles as al-Qaeda lieutenants in Yemen. Who let these dangerous people out of our custody? They were set free by the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The former vice president expresses his anger that the Obama administration is bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to trial in New York. Cheney is also angry that Obama does not use the phrase "war on terror" all the time, the way the Bush administration used to. But Obama just specifies that we're at war against a network of terrorists, on the sensible theory that it's impossible to wage war against a tactic.
Toward the end of his two-paragraph statement, Cheney goes completely off the rails and starts fulminating about how Obama is seeking "social transformation -- the restructuring of American society." Somehow, this is supposed to be related to the president's alleged disavowal of war -- which, of course, isn't real anyway. It makes you wonder whether Cheney is just feeding the fantasies of the paranoid right or has actually joined the tea-party fringe.
I can find reasons to criticize the administration's response to the Christmas Day attack. Obama and his team were slow off the mark. Their initial statements were weak. Obama shouldn't have waited three days to speak publicly, and when he did he should have shown some emotion.
But using a terrorist attack to seek political gain? I have a New Year's resolution to suggest for Cheney: Ahead of your quest for personal vindication, put country first.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=104025
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
By Eugene Robinson
Thursday, December 31, 2009
It's pathetic to break a New Year's resolution before we even get to New Year's Day, but here I go. I had promised myself that I would do a better job of ignoring Dick Cheney's corrosive and nonsensical outbursts -- that I would treat them, more or less, like the pearls of wisdom one hears from homeless people sitting in bus shelters.
But he is a former vice president, which gives him a big stage for his histrionic Rottweiler-in-Winter act. It is never a good idea to let widely disseminated lies and distortions go unchallenged. And the shrill screed that Cheney unloosed Wednesday is so full of outright mendacity that, well, my resolution will have to wait.
In a statement to Politico, Cheney seemed to be trying to provide talking points for opponents of the Obama administration who -- incredibly -- would exploit the Christmas Day terrorist attack for political gain. Cheney's broadside opens with a big lie, which he then repeats throughout. It is as if he believes that saying something over and over again, in a loud enough voice, magically makes it so.
"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney begins.
Flat-out untrue.
The fact is that Obama has said many times that we are at war against terrorists. He said it as a candidate. He said it in his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." He has said it since.
As Cheney well knows, unless he has lost even the most tenuous grip on reality, Obama's commitment to warfare as an instrument in the fight against terrorism has won the president nothing but grief from the liberal wing of his party, with more certainly to come. Hasn't anyone told Cheney that Obama is sharply boosting troop levels in Afghanistan in an attempt to avoid losing a war that the Bush administration started but then practically abandoned?
Cheney knows this. But he goes on to use the big lie -- that Obama is "trying to pretend we are not at war" -- to bludgeon the administration on a host of specific issues. Here is the one that jumps out at me: The president, Cheney claims, "seems to think that if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."
Interesting that Cheney should bring that up, because it now seems clear that the man accused of trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was given training -- and probably the bomb itself, which involved plastic explosives sewn into his underwear -- by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. It happens that at least two men who were released from Guantanamo appear to have gone on to play major roles as al-Qaeda lieutenants in Yemen. Who let these dangerous people out of our custody? They were set free by the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The former vice president expresses his anger that the Obama administration is bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to trial in New York. Cheney is also angry that Obama does not use the phrase "war on terror" all the time, the way the Bush administration used to. But Obama just specifies that we're at war against a network of terrorists, on the sensible theory that it's impossible to wage war against a tactic.
Toward the end of his two-paragraph statement, Cheney goes completely off the rails and starts fulminating about how Obama is seeking "social transformation -- the restructuring of American society." Somehow, this is supposed to be related to the president's alleged disavowal of war -- which, of course, isn't real anyway. It makes you wonder whether Cheney is just feeding the fantasies of the paranoid right or has actually joined the tea-party fringe.
I can find reasons to criticize the administration's response to the Christmas Day attack. Obama and his team were slow off the mark. Their initial statements were weak. Obama shouldn't have waited three days to speak publicly, and when he did he should have shown some emotion.
But using a terrorist attack to seek political gain? I have a New Year's resolution to suggest for Cheney: Ahead of your quest for personal vindication, put country first.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=104025
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
More News On The Attack Against A CIA Base In Afghanistan
More News On The Attack Against A CIA Base In Afghanistan
President Obama's Letter to CIA Employees -- ABC News
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/president-obamas-letter-to-cia-employees.html
Pakistan Taliban say they carried out CIA attack -- Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010100632.html
Reports: Taliban Suicide Bombing Hit CIA Nerve Center -- Voice of America
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Reports-Taliban-Suicide-Bombing-Hit-CIA-Nerve-Center-80464112.html
CIA Base Attacked in Afghanistan Supported Airstrikes Against al-Qaeda, Taliban -- Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123100541.html?hpid=topnews
U.S. seeks answers after Afghanistan bombing that killed 7 CIA operatives -- L.A. Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-base-attack1-2010jan01,0,6436365.story
Taliban infiltrator who killed 7 from CIA wore Afghan uniform -- McClatchy News
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/81543.html
Afghanistan Suicide Bomber May Have Been Helped by CIA Informant -- Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126235171131012657.html?mod=article-outset-box
Afghan suicide bomber kills seven CIA agents after attacking base -- Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6972266.ece
CIA Takes On Bigger and Riskier Role on Front Lines -- New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/world/asia/01khost.html?hp
The CIA Takes a Big Hit in the Afghan War -- Yahoo News/Time
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100101/wl_time/08599195089000
Attacked CIA base oversees air strikes -- Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/world/attacked-cia-base-oversees-air-strikes-20100101-llsc.html
Afghan CIA bomber 'was courted as potential informant' -- BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8437054.stm
CIA suicide bomber was invited on base, report claims -- The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6918912/CIA-suicide-bomber-was-invited-on-base-report-claims.html
Source: CIA Suicide Bomber Invited on Base -- CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/31/world/main6042742.shtml?tag=stack
CIA deaths will be avenged, official says -- UPI
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/01/CIA-deaths-will-be-avenged-official-says/UPI-23941262350065/
CIA: Bombing of U.S. base won't daunt us -- Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-afghan-base-1231-0101jan01,0,5043901.story
Suicide bombing at CIA camp in Afghanistan likely revenge attack by Taliban warlord - a former ally -- New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/01/2010-01-01_suicide_bombing_at_cia_camp_in_afghanistan_likely_revenge_attack_by_taliban_warl.html
CIA bombing raises question about safety protocols -- Yahoo News/AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_afghan_attack;_ylt=ApKRf2haef0cNkJJmHCAR1qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrdTRmaWthBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTAxL3VzX2NpYV9hZmdoYW5fYXR0YWNrBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNARwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDY2lhYm9tYmluZ3Jh
After CIA Deaths, Should Afghans Guard US Bases? -- Sphere
http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/attack-calls-into-question-the-practice-of-using-afghans-to-guard-us-bases/19299603
The CIA's Loss, and Ours -- Robert Richer, Washington Post opinion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102101.html
CIA deaths on the job
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002875.html
President Obama's Letter to CIA Employees -- ABC News
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/president-obamas-letter-to-cia-employees.html
Pakistan Taliban say they carried out CIA attack -- Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010100632.html
Reports: Taliban Suicide Bombing Hit CIA Nerve Center -- Voice of America
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Reports-Taliban-Suicide-Bombing-Hit-CIA-Nerve-Center-80464112.html
CIA Base Attacked in Afghanistan Supported Airstrikes Against al-Qaeda, Taliban -- Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123100541.html?hpid=topnews
U.S. seeks answers after Afghanistan bombing that killed 7 CIA operatives -- L.A. Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-base-attack1-2010jan01,0,6436365.story
Taliban infiltrator who killed 7 from CIA wore Afghan uniform -- McClatchy News
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/81543.html
Afghanistan Suicide Bomber May Have Been Helped by CIA Informant -- Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126235171131012657.html?mod=article-outset-box
Afghan suicide bomber kills seven CIA agents after attacking base -- Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6972266.ece
CIA Takes On Bigger and Riskier Role on Front Lines -- New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/world/asia/01khost.html?hp
The CIA Takes a Big Hit in the Afghan War -- Yahoo News/Time
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100101/wl_time/08599195089000
Attacked CIA base oversees air strikes -- Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/world/attacked-cia-base-oversees-air-strikes-20100101-llsc.html
Afghan CIA bomber 'was courted as potential informant' -- BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8437054.stm
CIA suicide bomber was invited on base, report claims -- The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6918912/CIA-suicide-bomber-was-invited-on-base-report-claims.html
Source: CIA Suicide Bomber Invited on Base -- CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/31/world/main6042742.shtml?tag=stack
CIA deaths will be avenged, official says -- UPI
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/01/01/CIA-deaths-will-be-avenged-official-says/UPI-23941262350065/
CIA: Bombing of U.S. base won't daunt us -- Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-afghan-base-1231-0101jan01,0,5043901.story
Suicide bombing at CIA camp in Afghanistan likely revenge attack by Taliban warlord - a former ally -- New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/01/2010-01-01_suicide_bombing_at_cia_camp_in_afghanistan_likely_revenge_attack_by_taliban_warl.html
CIA bombing raises question about safety protocols -- Yahoo News/AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_afghan_attack;_ylt=ApKRf2haef0cNkJJmHCAR1qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrdTRmaWthBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTAxL3VzX2NpYV9hZmdoYW5fYXR0YWNrBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNARwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDY2lhYm9tYmluZ3Jh
After CIA Deaths, Should Afghans Guard US Bases? -- Sphere
http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/attack-calls-into-question-the-practice-of-using-afghans-to-guard-us-bases/19299603
The CIA's Loss, and Ours -- Robert Richer, Washington Post opinion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102101.html
CIA deaths on the job
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002875.html
Suicide Bombing In Afghanistan Devastates Critical Hub For CIA Activities -- Wall Street Journal
Suicide Bombing In Afghanistan Devastates Critical Hub For CIA Activities -- Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—Wednesday's attack on a U.S. compound in Afghanistan devastated what has been a hub of counterterrorism and intelligence operations for the spy agency.
Seven Central Intelligence Agency officers and contractors were killed and six more wounded in the suicide bomb attack at Forward Operating Base Chapman, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Thursday, the second-largest single-day loss for the spy agency in its history.
Read more ....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126225941186711671.html
WASHINGTON—Wednesday's attack on a U.S. compound in Afghanistan devastated what has been a hub of counterterrorism and intelligence operations for the spy agency.
Seven Central Intelligence Agency officers and contractors were killed and six more wounded in the suicide bomb attack at Forward Operating Base Chapman, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Thursday, the second-largest single-day loss for the spy agency in its history.
Read more ....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126225941186711671.html
Pakistan Taliban say they carried out CIA attack
Pakistan Taliban say they carried out CIA attack
from The Washington Times stories: News by Rasool Dawar ASSOCIATED PRESS
MIR ALI, Pakistan (AP) -- The Pakistani Taliban claimed Friday that they used a turncoat CIA operative to carry out a suicide bombing that killed seven American CIA employees in Afghanistan as revenge for a top militant leader's death in U.S. missile strike. The announcement was nearly impossible to verify independently because it involves covert operations in a dangerous region. It is highly unusual for the Pakistani Taliban to claim credit for an attack in Afghanistan, and the proclamation followed indications the Afghan Taliban may have been involved in the attack. CIA spokesman George Little could not confirm the account. ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/01/pakistan-taliban-say-they-carried-out-cia-attack/
from The Washington Times stories: News by Rasool Dawar ASSOCIATED PRESS
MIR ALI, Pakistan (AP) -- The Pakistani Taliban claimed Friday that they used a turncoat CIA operative to carry out a suicide bombing that killed seven American CIA employees in Afghanistan as revenge for a top militant leader's death in U.S. missile strike. The announcement was nearly impossible to verify independently because it involves covert operations in a dangerous region. It is highly unusual for the Pakistani Taliban to claim credit for an attack in Afghanistan, and the proclamation followed indications the Afghan Taliban may have been involved in the attack. CIA spokesman George Little could not confirm the account. ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/01/pakistan-taliban-say-they-carried-out-cia-attack/
The decade when the U.S. lost its way
The decade when the U.S. lost its way
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, December 31, 2009; A17
Certain decades shape the country's political life for generations by leaving behind an era to embrace or, at least as often, to scorn.
The 1960s were definitely such a decade. The 1930s qualify, as do the 1980s. But as important as all these periods have been, their significance may be dwarfed by the reckless and squandered decade that is, mercifully, ending.
I'm afraid that the past 10 years will be seen as a time when the United States badly lost its way by using our military power carelessly, misunderstanding the real challenges to our long-term security and pursuing domestic policies that constrained our options for the future while needlessly threatening our prosperity.
I am aware that the previous paragraph is thoroughly controversial, and that befits any description of a politically consequential decade. Much of the contention surrounding Barack Obama's presidency is simply a continuation of our argument over the effects of George W. Bush's time in office.
That is why Obama, despite his fervent wishes, has been unable to usher in a new period of consensus. Bush's defenders know that Obama's election represented a popular reaction against the consequences of the Bush presidency. Because Obama is both the anti-Bush and the leader of the post-Bush cleanup squad, his success would complete the rebuke. So the Bush camp -- Karl Rove's regular contributions to the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages are emblematic -- must stay on the attack.
Domestically, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe. Dealing with the wreckage required a large expenditure of public funds that increased a deficit already bloated by President Bush's decision to fight two wars and to cut taxes at the same time. Bush's defenders, preferring to divert attention from this period of irresponsibility, act as if the world began on Jan. 20, 2009, by way of saddling Obama with the blame for everything that now ails us. But the previous eight years cannot be wished away.
Our current president is more deliberate about the use of U.S. power than his predecessor was, and he is determined to repair America's image with other nations. Obama is committed to fighting terrorism but does not believe that a "war on terror" should define our foreign policy.
That leads directly to another essential argument over the meaning of the past decade: whether the proper response to the Sept. 11 attacks included not only the widely supported retaliation in Afghanistan but also the invasion of Iraq. Obama's view -- that the Iraq war wasted U.S. power and dissipated goodwill toward us around the world -- is a direct reproach to the core assumptions of the Bush foreign policy.
So is Obama's refusal "to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests," as he put it in his West Point speech, as well as his insistence on appreciating "the connection between our national security and our economy." His measured approach to the use of force is antithetical to a foreign policy based on "bring 'em on" and broad pledges to "defeat our enemies across the world."
This conceptual clash makes it imperative for Obama to inspire trust in his capacity to thwart terrorism, and his administration's initial response to the Christmas Day airliner attack fell short. Republicans were shameless in politicizing the incident, knowing that rehabilitating Bush's approach to terrorism depends on discrediting Obama's. The president can't afford to give them anything to work with, as he finally seemed to grasp on Tuesday.
It should not surprise us that the battle for the future will be shaped by struggles over the past. How often over the past 40 years have conservatives defended their policies in the name of rolling back "the excesses of the '60s"? For even longer, liberals were charged with being locked into "the New Deal approaches of the 1930s." Liberals, in turn, pointed proudly to both eras as times of unparalleled social advance.
As for the 1980s, they remain a positive reference point for conservatives even as progressives condemn the Age of Reagan for opening the way to the deregulatory excesses that led to the recent downturn.
Americans instinctively recoil at living too much in the past. Yet we have no choice but to reach a settlement about the meaning of the last 10 years. It is the only way we will successfully turn the next 10 into a decade of renewal.
ejdionne@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002187_pf.html
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, December 31, 2009; A17
Certain decades shape the country's political life for generations by leaving behind an era to embrace or, at least as often, to scorn.
The 1960s were definitely such a decade. The 1930s qualify, as do the 1980s. But as important as all these periods have been, their significance may be dwarfed by the reckless and squandered decade that is, mercifully, ending.
I'm afraid that the past 10 years will be seen as a time when the United States badly lost its way by using our military power carelessly, misunderstanding the real challenges to our long-term security and pursuing domestic policies that constrained our options for the future while needlessly threatening our prosperity.
I am aware that the previous paragraph is thoroughly controversial, and that befits any description of a politically consequential decade. Much of the contention surrounding Barack Obama's presidency is simply a continuation of our argument over the effects of George W. Bush's time in office.
That is why Obama, despite his fervent wishes, has been unable to usher in a new period of consensus. Bush's defenders know that Obama's election represented a popular reaction against the consequences of the Bush presidency. Because Obama is both the anti-Bush and the leader of the post-Bush cleanup squad, his success would complete the rebuke. So the Bush camp -- Karl Rove's regular contributions to the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages are emblematic -- must stay on the attack.
Domestically, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe. Dealing with the wreckage required a large expenditure of public funds that increased a deficit already bloated by President Bush's decision to fight two wars and to cut taxes at the same time. Bush's defenders, preferring to divert attention from this period of irresponsibility, act as if the world began on Jan. 20, 2009, by way of saddling Obama with the blame for everything that now ails us. But the previous eight years cannot be wished away.
Our current president is more deliberate about the use of U.S. power than his predecessor was, and he is determined to repair America's image with other nations. Obama is committed to fighting terrorism but does not believe that a "war on terror" should define our foreign policy.
That leads directly to another essential argument over the meaning of the past decade: whether the proper response to the Sept. 11 attacks included not only the widely supported retaliation in Afghanistan but also the invasion of Iraq. Obama's view -- that the Iraq war wasted U.S. power and dissipated goodwill toward us around the world -- is a direct reproach to the core assumptions of the Bush foreign policy.
So is Obama's refusal "to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests," as he put it in his West Point speech, as well as his insistence on appreciating "the connection between our national security and our economy." His measured approach to the use of force is antithetical to a foreign policy based on "bring 'em on" and broad pledges to "defeat our enemies across the world."
This conceptual clash makes it imperative for Obama to inspire trust in his capacity to thwart terrorism, and his administration's initial response to the Christmas Day airliner attack fell short. Republicans were shameless in politicizing the incident, knowing that rehabilitating Bush's approach to terrorism depends on discrediting Obama's. The president can't afford to give them anything to work with, as he finally seemed to grasp on Tuesday.
It should not surprise us that the battle for the future will be shaped by struggles over the past. How often over the past 40 years have conservatives defended their policies in the name of rolling back "the excesses of the '60s"? For even longer, liberals were charged with being locked into "the New Deal approaches of the 1930s." Liberals, in turn, pointed proudly to both eras as times of unparalleled social advance.
As for the 1980s, they remain a positive reference point for conservatives even as progressives condemn the Age of Reagan for opening the way to the deregulatory excesses that led to the recent downturn.
Americans instinctively recoil at living too much in the past. Yet we have no choice but to reach a settlement about the meaning of the last 10 years. It is the only way we will successfully turn the next 10 into a decade of renewal.
ejdionne@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002187_pf.html
American Mantra: Free Market Capitalism and Obama from Dissident Voice by Peter Phillips
American Mantra: Free Market Capitalism and Obama
from Dissident Voice by Peter Phillips
Free Market Capitalism remains the dominant American ideological truth. The decline of communism opened the door for unrepentant free marketers to boldly espouse market competition as the final solution for global harmony. According to the American mantra, if given the opportunity to freely develop, the marketplace will solve all evils. We will enjoy economic expansion, individual freedom, and unlimited bliss by fully deregulating and privatizing society’s socio-economic institutions.
The selection of Obama as the U.S. President placed into power the party of the trilateralist wing of the American corporate elite. Obama’s business/government revolving-door cabinet is comprised of just as many corporate CEO’s and business elites as any presidency in recent history. This new government elite will continue the work to see that the American mantra remains safe, globalized, and unchallenged.
Pesky socialist or nationalist leaning governments will be undermined, pressured into compliance or even invaded if they dare to resist the American mantra. The full force of U.S. dominated global institutions: WTO, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, will focus on maximizing free market circumstances and corporate access to every region of the world.
Economic safety nets, environmental regulations, labor unions, human rights, become second place to the free flow of capital and investments. Indigenous resisters face overt repression, disappearance, or imprisonment by governments fully armed and supported by the American dominated New World Order.
So what is the underlying rationale for this American mantra? Are its dogmatic beliefs based on specific socio-economic facts? Are free market forces clearly the best mechanism for human betterment? Do these mechanisms work cross-culturally and are they efficient under all circumstances?
A closer examination of the American mantra reveals that “free market” essentially means constant international U.S. government intervention on behalf of American corporations. A public-private partnership that utilizes U.S. embassies, the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Military, Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, USAID, and every other U.S government institution to protect, sustain, and directly support our vital interest —U.S. business.
American mantra institutions push market deregulation that transforms foreign economies for the benefit of U.S. businesses. Post-NAFTA Mexicans are now importing U.S. grown corn for their tortillas, as millions of formally subsidized peasant farmers leave the land to seek minimum wage work in the cities of United States. Los Angeles has become the center for new American sweatshops, as “illegals” compete for poverty jobs, citizens cannot afford to accept.
Government-assisted foreign market penetration by U.S firms often results in the buying out of successful indigenous companies and the competitive overwhelm of others. This situation leaves U.S. multinationals in dominate positions in foreign domestic markets and creates win-fall profit taking opportunities.
The free market mantra carries with it shock treatment policies of lowering public expectations, forced austerity measures, and dismantled human services. A privately run water system is deemed superior to a public system because the profit motive will create maximum efficiency. Yet there is absolutely no research that systematically compares public verses private efficiency levels, only the dogmatic assertion that this is so.
The American mantra affects the U.S. population as well. Poverty and unemployment are rising, the working poor expanding and homelessness one pay check away for many.
It is time to re-examine the American mantra and speak for global humanity. We must establish business socio-economic accountability standards and reacquaint our government with its responsibility for maintaining the common good.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/american-mantra-free-market-capitalism-and-obama/
from Dissident Voice by Peter Phillips
Free Market Capitalism remains the dominant American ideological truth. The decline of communism opened the door for unrepentant free marketers to boldly espouse market competition as the final solution for global harmony. According to the American mantra, if given the opportunity to freely develop, the marketplace will solve all evils. We will enjoy economic expansion, individual freedom, and unlimited bliss by fully deregulating and privatizing society’s socio-economic institutions.
The selection of Obama as the U.S. President placed into power the party of the trilateralist wing of the American corporate elite. Obama’s business/government revolving-door cabinet is comprised of just as many corporate CEO’s and business elites as any presidency in recent history. This new government elite will continue the work to see that the American mantra remains safe, globalized, and unchallenged.
Pesky socialist or nationalist leaning governments will be undermined, pressured into compliance or even invaded if they dare to resist the American mantra. The full force of U.S. dominated global institutions: WTO, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, will focus on maximizing free market circumstances and corporate access to every region of the world.
Economic safety nets, environmental regulations, labor unions, human rights, become second place to the free flow of capital and investments. Indigenous resisters face overt repression, disappearance, or imprisonment by governments fully armed and supported by the American dominated New World Order.
So what is the underlying rationale for this American mantra? Are its dogmatic beliefs based on specific socio-economic facts? Are free market forces clearly the best mechanism for human betterment? Do these mechanisms work cross-culturally and are they efficient under all circumstances?
A closer examination of the American mantra reveals that “free market” essentially means constant international U.S. government intervention on behalf of American corporations. A public-private partnership that utilizes U.S. embassies, the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Military, Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, USAID, and every other U.S government institution to protect, sustain, and directly support our vital interest —U.S. business.
American mantra institutions push market deregulation that transforms foreign economies for the benefit of U.S. businesses. Post-NAFTA Mexicans are now importing U.S. grown corn for their tortillas, as millions of formally subsidized peasant farmers leave the land to seek minimum wage work in the cities of United States. Los Angeles has become the center for new American sweatshops, as “illegals” compete for poverty jobs, citizens cannot afford to accept.
Government-assisted foreign market penetration by U.S firms often results in the buying out of successful indigenous companies and the competitive overwhelm of others. This situation leaves U.S. multinationals in dominate positions in foreign domestic markets and creates win-fall profit taking opportunities.
The free market mantra carries with it shock treatment policies of lowering public expectations, forced austerity measures, and dismantled human services. A privately run water system is deemed superior to a public system because the profit motive will create maximum efficiency. Yet there is absolutely no research that systematically compares public verses private efficiency levels, only the dogmatic assertion that this is so.
The American mantra affects the U.S. population as well. Poverty and unemployment are rising, the working poor expanding and homelessness one pay check away for many.
It is time to re-examine the American mantra and speak for global humanity. We must establish business socio-economic accountability standards and reacquaint our government with its responsibility for maintaining the common good.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/american-mantra-free-market-capitalism-and-obama/
Barack Obama, Interventionist and Ultimate Jihadi Hero by Michael Scheuer
Barack Obama, Interventionist and Ultimate Jihadi Hero
by Michael Scheuer, December 31, 2009
In his less-than-fifteen-minute, 28 December statement on the Detroit airliner attack and Iran, President Obama exhilarated America’s Islamist foes and neatly encapsulated the U.S. governing elite’s absolute inability to see that its full-bore interventionism is leading America to ruin.
In his response to the al-Qaeda attack in Detroit, Obama echoed the identical analytic path blazed by his fellow interventionists George W. Bush and Bill Clinton:
–The would-be bomber was a lone, extremist Muslim who was acting outside the tenets of his Islamic faith — the religion of peace — and was intent on slaughtering the innocent.
–We — with our allies — will track down the bomber’s colleagues wherever they are and bring them to justice.
–We will do the tracking-down gently so as not to undermine our most deeply held values. (And instead of being an adult and quietly firing those who failed to stop the Detroit attacker, I will blame my subordinates, publicly humiliate U.S. intelligence services, terrorize Americans by alleging "catastrophic" and "systemic" failure, and publicly detail the holes in our security system.)
Obama’s prescription for defeating al-Qaeda and like-minded groups maintains continuity with the failed and stubbornly ignorant approach Washington has adhered to since bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996. (Yes, August 1996 — we have been unsuccessfully fighting this enemy for 13.5 years.) If the history of America’s al-Qaeda-fight proves anything, it is that
–Al-Qaeda-ism is not outside the parameters of the Islamic faith. While not mainstream, the religious justification for fighting U.S. interventionism in the Islamic world is growing in acceptance among the 80 percent of the world’s Muslims who deem U.S. foreign policy an attack on their faith. In addition, bin Laden’s jihad has an extraordinarily strong positive resonance among always historically minded Muslims. Al-Qaeda’s victories remind them of battles fought by the Prophet and Saladin which produced miraculous victories over far more powerful enemies — like a barely trained kid from Nigeria beating the greatest power the world has ever seen.
–An obviously failing fight that is now approaching 14-year duration ought to be irrefutable evidence that Clinton’s law-and-order-based strategy — even with Bush’s spasms of vigorously applied military power — has not a prayer of succeeding.
–Whether we do our tracking/arresting/killing ethically or brutally is irrelevant. Each al-Qaeda attack on the United States — successful or not — strengthens the hands of those politicians and bureaucrats who will curtail the civil liberties of Americans. The next successful al-Qaeda attack in the United States — because the U.S. military has no telling enemy targets left overseas — will yield civil-rights curtailments that will make President Bush look like Clarence Darrow.
Besides flogging this dog-eared and bankrupt response to al-Qaeda, Obama likewise followed his predecessors’ refusal to explain our Islamist enemies’ motivation to Americans. This failure is completely attributable to the fact that Obama has aligned himself fully the Bush-Clinton-Bush legacy of interventionism in the Muslim world.
–By bowing to the Saudi king, accepting the jailer Mubarak’s hospitality, putting U.S. arms at the disposal of the dictator of Yemen (where, by the way, Senator Lieberman is panting for another U.S.-waged war to defend Israel), Obama has reinforced Muslim perceptions that America wants them governed by tyrannical police states that will keep oil flowing to the west.
–By making an IDF veteran his chief of staff, acquiescing to Israeli settlement expansion, and authorizing billions more in arms for Israel, Obama is convincing Muslims he intends to keep warbling that old American standard: "Israel, Israel Uber Alles."
–By augmenting the U.S. military force in Afghanistan — in numbers sufficient to tread water and bleed but not to win — and sending the first new forces to southern Afghanistan where al-Qaeda forces are minimal, Obama has reinforced both the general Muslim belief that U.S. policy is meant to destroy Islam, not al-Qaeda, and bin Laden’s certainty that the U.S. military is a paper tiger.
Then there is Iran. Listening to Obama as he spoke gave the impression that he was eager to get the Detroit-attack stuff out of the way so he could rhetorically intervene in Iran’s internal affairs. Joining with our allies — read other Western interventionists and pawns of Israel — Obama said he wanted to condemn the Tehran regime’s at-times-lethal crackdown on opposition demonstrators. He said that Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics were trampling on the "universal rights" of Iranians, and that such actions must stop. There are, of course, no universal political rights; this idea is the pipedream of Western secular intellectuals and interventionists, and is part and parcel of the interventionist nonsense Obama included in his Nobel speech about the "perfectibility" of the human condition through the efforts of "enlightened" men and women.
Obama’s mind is emerging as a mind filled with war-causing secular theology of the French Revolution. That revolution was all about enlightened leaders "perfecting" the common man for what the revolutionary elite deemed to be his own good, and using the vehicles of government edict, fanatic secularism, and force to do so. (Sounds a bit like the universal health-care plan, doesn’t it?) The French Revolution went on to father Hitler, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and other mass-murdering regimes. In the American context, the revolution’s impact has been the slow but increasingly complete replacement of the Founders’ sturdy non-interventionism — which recognized the pivotal and necessary role religion plays in all polities — by our current bipartisan elite’s obsession with interfering in other peoples’ internal affairs, especially if those internal affairs are interwoven with religion. For Obama and most members of our governing elite, today’s Iran fairly screams for Western intervention to break the mullahs’ backs and install secularism; to destroy an Israeli foe and ensure AIPAC funds to continue to flow into their pockets; and to make them feel good about themselves, no matter the cost to Americans and their children.
In a statement of less than a quarter-hour, then, Obama demonstrated how thoroughly he slicked Americans in the last presidential election. The "hope" he offered turns out to be not less but more war-causing interventionism framed by a secularist "moral compass" alien to most non-elite Americans; the "Yes we can" slogan has proven to refer to making Obama’s Washington the agent of forced Westernization from the Congo to Afghanistan, and from Burma to Iran; and the president’s much-touted "audacity" seems nothing more than Obama’s brass in continuing to reassuringly chant the Bush-Clinton-Bush lie to Americans that Islamists attack us because of our way of life not because of our interventionism.
And thus is how a great republic is being ruined by the littlest of arrogant and willful men.
http://original.antiwar.com/scheuer/2009/1...t=Google+Reader
by Michael Scheuer, December 31, 2009
In his less-than-fifteen-minute, 28 December statement on the Detroit airliner attack and Iran, President Obama exhilarated America’s Islamist foes and neatly encapsulated the U.S. governing elite’s absolute inability to see that its full-bore interventionism is leading America to ruin.
In his response to the al-Qaeda attack in Detroit, Obama echoed the identical analytic path blazed by his fellow interventionists George W. Bush and Bill Clinton:
–The would-be bomber was a lone, extremist Muslim who was acting outside the tenets of his Islamic faith — the religion of peace — and was intent on slaughtering the innocent.
–We — with our allies — will track down the bomber’s colleagues wherever they are and bring them to justice.
–We will do the tracking-down gently so as not to undermine our most deeply held values. (And instead of being an adult and quietly firing those who failed to stop the Detroit attacker, I will blame my subordinates, publicly humiliate U.S. intelligence services, terrorize Americans by alleging "catastrophic" and "systemic" failure, and publicly detail the holes in our security system.)
Obama’s prescription for defeating al-Qaeda and like-minded groups maintains continuity with the failed and stubbornly ignorant approach Washington has adhered to since bin Laden declared war on the United States in August, 1996. (Yes, August 1996 — we have been unsuccessfully fighting this enemy for 13.5 years.) If the history of America’s al-Qaeda-fight proves anything, it is that
–Al-Qaeda-ism is not outside the parameters of the Islamic faith. While not mainstream, the religious justification for fighting U.S. interventionism in the Islamic world is growing in acceptance among the 80 percent of the world’s Muslims who deem U.S. foreign policy an attack on their faith. In addition, bin Laden’s jihad has an extraordinarily strong positive resonance among always historically minded Muslims. Al-Qaeda’s victories remind them of battles fought by the Prophet and Saladin which produced miraculous victories over far more powerful enemies — like a barely trained kid from Nigeria beating the greatest power the world has ever seen.
–An obviously failing fight that is now approaching 14-year duration ought to be irrefutable evidence that Clinton’s law-and-order-based strategy — even with Bush’s spasms of vigorously applied military power — has not a prayer of succeeding.
–Whether we do our tracking/arresting/killing ethically or brutally is irrelevant. Each al-Qaeda attack on the United States — successful or not — strengthens the hands of those politicians and bureaucrats who will curtail the civil liberties of Americans. The next successful al-Qaeda attack in the United States — because the U.S. military has no telling enemy targets left overseas — will yield civil-rights curtailments that will make President Bush look like Clarence Darrow.
Besides flogging this dog-eared and bankrupt response to al-Qaeda, Obama likewise followed his predecessors’ refusal to explain our Islamist enemies’ motivation to Americans. This failure is completely attributable to the fact that Obama has aligned himself fully the Bush-Clinton-Bush legacy of interventionism in the Muslim world.
–By bowing to the Saudi king, accepting the jailer Mubarak’s hospitality, putting U.S. arms at the disposal of the dictator of Yemen (where, by the way, Senator Lieberman is panting for another U.S.-waged war to defend Israel), Obama has reinforced Muslim perceptions that America wants them governed by tyrannical police states that will keep oil flowing to the west.
–By making an IDF veteran his chief of staff, acquiescing to Israeli settlement expansion, and authorizing billions more in arms for Israel, Obama is convincing Muslims he intends to keep warbling that old American standard: "Israel, Israel Uber Alles."
–By augmenting the U.S. military force in Afghanistan — in numbers sufficient to tread water and bleed but not to win — and sending the first new forces to southern Afghanistan where al-Qaeda forces are minimal, Obama has reinforced both the general Muslim belief that U.S. policy is meant to destroy Islam, not al-Qaeda, and bin Laden’s certainty that the U.S. military is a paper tiger.
Then there is Iran. Listening to Obama as he spoke gave the impression that he was eager to get the Detroit-attack stuff out of the way so he could rhetorically intervene in Iran’s internal affairs. Joining with our allies — read other Western interventionists and pawns of Israel — Obama said he wanted to condemn the Tehran regime’s at-times-lethal crackdown on opposition demonstrators. He said that Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics were trampling on the "universal rights" of Iranians, and that such actions must stop. There are, of course, no universal political rights; this idea is the pipedream of Western secular intellectuals and interventionists, and is part and parcel of the interventionist nonsense Obama included in his Nobel speech about the "perfectibility" of the human condition through the efforts of "enlightened" men and women.
Obama’s mind is emerging as a mind filled with war-causing secular theology of the French Revolution. That revolution was all about enlightened leaders "perfecting" the common man for what the revolutionary elite deemed to be his own good, and using the vehicles of government edict, fanatic secularism, and force to do so. (Sounds a bit like the universal health-care plan, doesn’t it?) The French Revolution went on to father Hitler, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and other mass-murdering regimes. In the American context, the revolution’s impact has been the slow but increasingly complete replacement of the Founders’ sturdy non-interventionism — which recognized the pivotal and necessary role religion plays in all polities — by our current bipartisan elite’s obsession with interfering in other peoples’ internal affairs, especially if those internal affairs are interwoven with religion. For Obama and most members of our governing elite, today’s Iran fairly screams for Western intervention to break the mullahs’ backs and install secularism; to destroy an Israeli foe and ensure AIPAC funds to continue to flow into their pockets; and to make them feel good about themselves, no matter the cost to Americans and their children.
In a statement of less than a quarter-hour, then, Obama demonstrated how thoroughly he slicked Americans in the last presidential election. The "hope" he offered turns out to be not less but more war-causing interventionism framed by a secularist "moral compass" alien to most non-elite Americans; the "Yes we can" slogan has proven to refer to making Obama’s Washington the agent of forced Westernization from the Congo to Afghanistan, and from Burma to Iran; and the president’s much-touted "audacity" seems nothing more than Obama’s brass in continuing to reassuringly chant the Bush-Clinton-Bush lie to Americans that Islamists attack us because of our way of life not because of our interventionism.
And thus is how a great republic is being ruined by the littlest of arrogant and willful men.
http://original.antiwar.com/scheuer/2009/1...t=Google+Reader
Patrick Cockburn: Threats to Yemen prove America hasn't learned the lesson of history
Patrick Cockburn: Threats to Yemen prove America hasn't learned the lesson of history
Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan
Thursday, 31 December 2009
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
DARREN DISS
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
* The clues piled up, but why did US security fail to act over terrorist?
* Christopher Boucek: Yemen is a near-perfect haven for terrorists from South Asia
* Leading article: Bad intelligence
We are the sparks of hell
He who defies us will be burned
This is the tribal chant of the powerful Awaleq tribe of Yemen, in which they bid defiance to the world. Its angry tone conveys the flavour of Yemeni life and it should give pause to those in the US who blithely suggest greater American involvement in Yemen in the wake of the attempt to destroy a US plane by a Nigerian student who says he received training there.
Yemen has always been a dangerous place. Wonderfully beautiful, the mountainous north of the country is guerrilla paradise. The Yemenis are exceptionally hospitable, though this has its limits. For instance, the Kazam tribe east of Aden are generous to passing strangers, but deem the laws of hospitality to lapse when the stranger leaves their tribal territory, at which time he becomes "a good back to shoot at".
The Awaleq and Kazam tribes are not exotic survivals on the margins of Yemeni society but are both politically important and influential. The strength of the central government in the capital, Sanaa, is limited and it generally avoids direct confrontations with tribal confederations, tribes, clans and powerful families. Almost everybody has a gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but tribesmen often own heavier armament.
I have always loved the country. It is physically very beautiful with cut stone villages perched on mountain tops on the sides of which are cut hundreds of terraces, making the country look like an exaggerated Tuscan landscape. Yemenis are intelligent, humorous, sociable and democratic, infinitely preferable as company to the arrogant and ignorant playboys of the Arab oil states in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is very much a country of direct action. Once when I was there a Chinese engineer was kidnapped as he drove along the main road linking Sanaa to Aden. The motives of the kidnappers were peculiar. It turned out they came from a bee-keeping tribe (Yemen is famous for its honey) whose bees live in hives inside hollow logs placed on metal stilts to protect them from ants. The police had raided the tribe's village and had damaged hives for which the owners were demanding compensation. The government had been slow in paying up so the tribesmen had decided to draw attention to their grievance by kidnapping the next foreigner on the main road and this turned out to be the Chinese engineer.
Yemen is a mosaic of conflicting authorities, though this authority may be confined to a few villages. Larger communities include the Shia around Sanaa in the north of the country near Saada, with whom the government has been fighting a fierce little civil war. The unification of North and South Yemen in 1990 has never wholly gelled and the government is wary of southern secessionism. Its ability to buy off its opponents is also under threat as oil revenues fall, with the few oilfields beginning to run dry.
It is in this fascinating but dangerous land that President Barack Obama is planning to increase US political and military involvement. Joint operations will be carried out by the US and Yemeni military. There will be American drone attacks on hamlets where al-Qa'ida supposedly has its bases.
There is ominous use by American politicians and commentators of the phrase "failed state" in relation to Yemen, as if this some how legitimised foreign intervention. It is extraordinary that the US political elite has never taken on board that its greatest defeats have been in just such "failed states"', not least Lebanon in 1982, when 240 US Marines were blown up; Somalia in the early 1990s when the body of a US helicopter pilot was dragged through the streets; Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and Afghanistan after the supposed fall of the Taliban.
Yemen has all the explosive ingredients of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But the arch-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, was happily confirming this week that the Green Berets and the US Special Forces are already there. He cited with approval an American official in Sanaa as telling him that, "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If you don't act pre-emptively Yemen will be tomorrow's war." In practice pre-emptive strikes are likely to bring a US military entanglement in Yemen even closer.
The US will get entangled because the Yemeni government will want to manipulate US action in its own interests and to preserve its wilting authority. It has long been trying to portray the Shia rebels in north Yemen as Iranian cats-paws in order to secure American and Saudi support. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) probably only has a few hundred activists in Yemen, but the government of long time Yemeni President Ali Abdulah Salih will portray his diverse opponents as somehow linked to al-Qa'ida.
In Yemen the US will be intervening on one side in a country which is always in danger of sliding into a civil war. This has happened before. In Iraq the US was the supporter of the Shia Arabs and Kurds against the Sunni Arabs. In Afghanistan it is the ally of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara against the Pashtun community. Whatever the intentions of Washington, its participation in these civil conflicts destabilises the country because one side becomes labelled as the quisling supporter of a foreign invader. Communal and nationalist antipathies combine to create a lethal blend.
Despite sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties in the countries where the US has intervened in the Middle East, they usually have a strong sense of national identity. Yemenis are highly conscious of their own nationality and their identity as Arabs. One of the reasons the country is so miserably poor, with almost half its 22 million people trying to live on $2 a day, is that in 1990 Yemen refused to join the war against Iraq and Saudi Arabia consequently expelled 850,000 Yemeni workers.
It is extraordinary to see the US begin to make the same mistakes in Yemen as it previously made in Afghanistan and Iraq. What it is doing is much to al-Qa'ida's advantage. The real strength of al-Qa'ida is not that it can "train" a fanatical Nigerian student to sew explosives into his underpants, but that it can provoke an exaggerated US response to every botched attack. Al-Qa'ida leaders openly admitted at the time of 9/11 that the aim of such operations is to provoke the US into direct military intervention in Muslim countries.
In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa'ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were "too big to fail," so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole superpower.
In Iraq the US is getting out more easily than seemed likely at one stage because Washington has persuaded Americans that they won a non-existent success. The ultimate US exit from Afghanistan may eventually be along very similar lines. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead it repeats them by fresh interventions in countries like Yemen.
[url="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-threats-to-yemen-prove-america-hasnt-learned-the-lesson-of-history-1853847.html"]http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...ry-1853847.html[/url]
Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan
Thursday, 31 December 2009
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
DARREN DISS
'Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan'
* The clues piled up, but why did US security fail to act over terrorist?
* Christopher Boucek: Yemen is a near-perfect haven for terrorists from South Asia
* Leading article: Bad intelligence
We are the sparks of hell
He who defies us will be burned
This is the tribal chant of the powerful Awaleq tribe of Yemen, in which they bid defiance to the world. Its angry tone conveys the flavour of Yemeni life and it should give pause to those in the US who blithely suggest greater American involvement in Yemen in the wake of the attempt to destroy a US plane by a Nigerian student who says he received training there.
Yemen has always been a dangerous place. Wonderfully beautiful, the mountainous north of the country is guerrilla paradise. The Yemenis are exceptionally hospitable, though this has its limits. For instance, the Kazam tribe east of Aden are generous to passing strangers, but deem the laws of hospitality to lapse when the stranger leaves their tribal territory, at which time he becomes "a good back to shoot at".
The Awaleq and Kazam tribes are not exotic survivals on the margins of Yemeni society but are both politically important and influential. The strength of the central government in the capital, Sanaa, is limited and it generally avoids direct confrontations with tribal confederations, tribes, clans and powerful families. Almost everybody has a gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but tribesmen often own heavier armament.
I have always loved the country. It is physically very beautiful with cut stone villages perched on mountain tops on the sides of which are cut hundreds of terraces, making the country look like an exaggerated Tuscan landscape. Yemenis are intelligent, humorous, sociable and democratic, infinitely preferable as company to the arrogant and ignorant playboys of the Arab oil states in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is very much a country of direct action. Once when I was there a Chinese engineer was kidnapped as he drove along the main road linking Sanaa to Aden. The motives of the kidnappers were peculiar. It turned out they came from a bee-keeping tribe (Yemen is famous for its honey) whose bees live in hives inside hollow logs placed on metal stilts to protect them from ants. The police had raided the tribe's village and had damaged hives for which the owners were demanding compensation. The government had been slow in paying up so the tribesmen had decided to draw attention to their grievance by kidnapping the next foreigner on the main road and this turned out to be the Chinese engineer.
Yemen is a mosaic of conflicting authorities, though this authority may be confined to a few villages. Larger communities include the Shia around Sanaa in the north of the country near Saada, with whom the government has been fighting a fierce little civil war. The unification of North and South Yemen in 1990 has never wholly gelled and the government is wary of southern secessionism. Its ability to buy off its opponents is also under threat as oil revenues fall, with the few oilfields beginning to run dry.
It is in this fascinating but dangerous land that President Barack Obama is planning to increase US political and military involvement. Joint operations will be carried out by the US and Yemeni military. There will be American drone attacks on hamlets where al-Qa'ida supposedly has its bases.
There is ominous use by American politicians and commentators of the phrase "failed state" in relation to Yemen, as if this some how legitimised foreign intervention. It is extraordinary that the US political elite has never taken on board that its greatest defeats have been in just such "failed states"', not least Lebanon in 1982, when 240 US Marines were blown up; Somalia in the early 1990s when the body of a US helicopter pilot was dragged through the streets; Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and Afghanistan after the supposed fall of the Taliban.
Yemen has all the explosive ingredients of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But the arch-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, was happily confirming this week that the Green Berets and the US Special Forces are already there. He cited with approval an American official in Sanaa as telling him that, "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If you don't act pre-emptively Yemen will be tomorrow's war." In practice pre-emptive strikes are likely to bring a US military entanglement in Yemen even closer.
The US will get entangled because the Yemeni government will want to manipulate US action in its own interests and to preserve its wilting authority. It has long been trying to portray the Shia rebels in north Yemen as Iranian cats-paws in order to secure American and Saudi support. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) probably only has a few hundred activists in Yemen, but the government of long time Yemeni President Ali Abdulah Salih will portray his diverse opponents as somehow linked to al-Qa'ida.
In Yemen the US will be intervening on one side in a country which is always in danger of sliding into a civil war. This has happened before. In Iraq the US was the supporter of the Shia Arabs and Kurds against the Sunni Arabs. In Afghanistan it is the ally of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara against the Pashtun community. Whatever the intentions of Washington, its participation in these civil conflicts destabilises the country because one side becomes labelled as the quisling supporter of a foreign invader. Communal and nationalist antipathies combine to create a lethal blend.
Despite sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties in the countries where the US has intervened in the Middle East, they usually have a strong sense of national identity. Yemenis are highly conscious of their own nationality and their identity as Arabs. One of the reasons the country is so miserably poor, with almost half its 22 million people trying to live on $2 a day, is that in 1990 Yemen refused to join the war against Iraq and Saudi Arabia consequently expelled 850,000 Yemeni workers.
It is extraordinary to see the US begin to make the same mistakes in Yemen as it previously made in Afghanistan and Iraq. What it is doing is much to al-Qa'ida's advantage. The real strength of al-Qa'ida is not that it can "train" a fanatical Nigerian student to sew explosives into his underpants, but that it can provoke an exaggerated US response to every botched attack. Al-Qa'ida leaders openly admitted at the time of 9/11 that the aim of such operations is to provoke the US into direct military intervention in Muslim countries.
In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa'ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were "too big to fail," so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole superpower.
In Iraq the US is getting out more easily than seemed likely at one stage because Washington has persuaded Americans that they won a non-existent success. The ultimate US exit from Afghanistan may eventually be along very similar lines. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead it repeats them by fresh interventions in countries like Yemen.
[url="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-threats-to-yemen-prove-america-hasnt-learned-the-lesson-of-history-1853847.html"]http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...ry-1853847.html[/url]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)