Al Qaeda was always more ideology than organization. I don't get this frantic effort to figure out decisively whether the bombings in London and Egypt received a thumbs up or not from Osama. The base or al Qaeda was always designed to be more inspiration than calibration. Osama's not the Pope. He's the prophet spreading rationales for violence. Looking for definitive links is useful for counter terrorist strategies but it's a trivial pursuit for the home audience. Whether such links are discovered or not is never going to prove anything one way or the other about the spread and the dangerous turn and the new danger and the unprecedented sophistication and any of the other phrases that journalists love to use to jack up their daily reporting.
There will be sympathizers who strike on al Qaeda's behalf and in its name and in keeping to its broad vision of anti-Westernization and anti-globalization and anti-connectivity for Islamic countries. They will strike mostly within those Islamic countries, but in their Occidentalism, or iconic hatred of the West, they will persist in pursuing a bloody nose strategy of striking in the Core, focusing on our allies, in an attempt to scare off our publics from persistence in a Global War on Terrorism, the main outcome of which must be the connecting of the Middle East to the global economy in a broadband fashion that liberates populations there first economically and then politically from decades of state heavy economic stagnation and state heavy handed political authoritarianism.
And yes, most of these attacks will be undertaken by those who emigrate from the Gap to the Core, men who, in the resulting social isolation associated with that difficult journey, believe they find an easier way out through martyrdom. Survivor's guilt is a very powerful thing, and it expresses itself in a myriad of ways. You wanna know why so many Irish Americans supported the IRA for years with money, funding their terrorism? Because it assuaged their guilt in having gotten out and achieved something better here in the States. Macho bullshit to some, a deep call to aid the homeland to others.
We're not going to educate this nonsense out of the heads of prospective terrorists. We're not going to strategically communicate our ways out of this problem. We're going to have to connect these individuals, but more importantly their families, to economic opportunity here in the Core. I say, connect the women, and let them deal with the macho bullshit. Fastest way to a man's heart is not through his stomach. You have to aim a little lower. No women, no connectivity.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Asia Awaits America's Vision for Co-Operation by Ellen Bork
The decision by Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, to skip the A.S.E.A.N. Regional Forum - the annual meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations - drew criticism from the region. It was, according to Malaysia's foreign minister, “a very uneasy signal”.
The extent of U.S. commitment to Asia in fact has little to do with attendance at the A.S.E.A.N. Regional Forum, a gathering that often gains attention for the antics of ministers at the closing variety show. The real question behind the reaction to Dr. Rice’s travel plans is whether the Bush Administration is serious about recent suggestions of a new approach to the Asian region.
Unlike Europe, Asia has no tradition of multilateralism to advance democracy and human rights. Asia's regional organisations do not make democracy a priority, or even a criterion for membership. They emphasise consensus, lack enforcement mechanisms, and are often criticised as ineffective.
Washington, which for decades has dominated Asian security affairs, has not only accepted this state of affairs, it is largely responsible for it. While the N.A.T.O. alliance was being built in Europe, Washington pursued discrete, bilateral relationships and alliances in Asia. An exception, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation, founded as an anti-communist bulwark, was disbanded amid disharmony among members and lack of US commitment. The record of S.E.A.T.O. and other regional organisations seemed to confirm the widely held belief that Asia was too diverse and too deeply rent by historical enmities to sustain the kind of structures adopted in Europe.
For a time, perhaps that was so. Strangely, however, the notion of a region unsuited to co-operation persisted even after a wave of democratisation including the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. America’s embrace of democratic multilateralism would break with the past, it would also bring the Bush Administration's policy there into line with its defining philosophy: putting democracy and the character of states at the heart of its foreign policy.
Before the September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. in 2001, the Bush Administration seemed to be planning just such an approach. During his election campaign, George W. Bush said the US should “work toward the day when the fellowship of free Pacific nations is as strong and united as our Atlantic partnership”, an unmistakeable reference to N.A.T.O.. After September 11, however, everything changed. While adopting an ambitious programme for democracy in the Middle East, Mr. Bush struck a different note on Asia, heavily influenced, perhaps, by China's rise. China was no longer “a strategic competitor” but a partner in the war on terrorism and the challenge of dealing with North Korea. China's people, he said, would only “eventually” demand democracy. The “pacific community of democracies” remained a vision.
Until now. Visiting Tokyo last March, Dr. Rice referred to an existing “Pacific community of democracies” and praised a “core group”, including Japan, Australia, India, and the US, for a quick and generous response to the tsunamis. The following month, Dr. Rice said “the democratic character of states must become the cornerstone of a new, principled multilateralism”.
But how would such multilateralism work in Asia? Contrary to conventional thinking, Asia's diversity, historical grievances and contemporary challenges reinforce rather than undermine the need for a regional institution uniting democracies. Consider Japan. Membership in such a regional institution could help shape its evolution into a “normal” power and provide its leaders an incentive for taking full responsibility for its wartime guilt. South Korea, which has come under Beijing’s sway, could be reminded of broader, regional obligations, much as West Germany was reminded of its responsibilities in the Atlantic alliance even as it felt the need to reach out to the East.
An Asian organisation of democracies could also attract countries in democratic transition, just as N.A.T.O. and the European Union did; and it could help others, Thailand for example, resist backsliding. Finally, European participation in such an organisation could help manage transatlantic disagreements over China, such as the row over the E.U. arms embargo on Beijing.
China, of course, will react harshly. Unfortunately, neither the US nor its allies can assure China's development will be responsible and democratic. For now, China’s record is clear: resisting political reform at home while obstructing democratic ideals and objectives abroad, not only in Asia, but as far afield as Sudan and Iran. The U.S. and its allies should remember Europe’s example. Democratic multilateralism would provide a positive incentive to China, and bolster the regime's would-be reformers.
As Dr. Rice’s remarks indicate, the U.S. and its allies are already moving toward democratic co-operation. In addition to the tsunami “core group,” the U.S., Australia, and Japan have upgraded security consultations, and Japan and the U.S. have declared Taiwan a mutual security concern. It remains to be seen if Washington is serious about a new approach to Asian regional co-operation. Perhaps a sign would be if the Bush Administration tries to enlist allies in a democratic project for Asia just as successful as the one that helped Europe rebuild its institutions and enhance democracy.
The extent of U.S. commitment to Asia in fact has little to do with attendance at the A.S.E.A.N. Regional Forum, a gathering that often gains attention for the antics of ministers at the closing variety show. The real question behind the reaction to Dr. Rice’s travel plans is whether the Bush Administration is serious about recent suggestions of a new approach to the Asian region.
Unlike Europe, Asia has no tradition of multilateralism to advance democracy and human rights. Asia's regional organisations do not make democracy a priority, or even a criterion for membership. They emphasise consensus, lack enforcement mechanisms, and are often criticised as ineffective.
Washington, which for decades has dominated Asian security affairs, has not only accepted this state of affairs, it is largely responsible for it. While the N.A.T.O. alliance was being built in Europe, Washington pursued discrete, bilateral relationships and alliances in Asia. An exception, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation, founded as an anti-communist bulwark, was disbanded amid disharmony among members and lack of US commitment. The record of S.E.A.T.O. and other regional organisations seemed to confirm the widely held belief that Asia was too diverse and too deeply rent by historical enmities to sustain the kind of structures adopted in Europe.
For a time, perhaps that was so. Strangely, however, the notion of a region unsuited to co-operation persisted even after a wave of democratisation including the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. America’s embrace of democratic multilateralism would break with the past, it would also bring the Bush Administration's policy there into line with its defining philosophy: putting democracy and the character of states at the heart of its foreign policy.
Before the September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. in 2001, the Bush Administration seemed to be planning just such an approach. During his election campaign, George W. Bush said the US should “work toward the day when the fellowship of free Pacific nations is as strong and united as our Atlantic partnership”, an unmistakeable reference to N.A.T.O.. After September 11, however, everything changed. While adopting an ambitious programme for democracy in the Middle East, Mr. Bush struck a different note on Asia, heavily influenced, perhaps, by China's rise. China was no longer “a strategic competitor” but a partner in the war on terrorism and the challenge of dealing with North Korea. China's people, he said, would only “eventually” demand democracy. The “pacific community of democracies” remained a vision.
Until now. Visiting Tokyo last March, Dr. Rice referred to an existing “Pacific community of democracies” and praised a “core group”, including Japan, Australia, India, and the US, for a quick and generous response to the tsunamis. The following month, Dr. Rice said “the democratic character of states must become the cornerstone of a new, principled multilateralism”.
But how would such multilateralism work in Asia? Contrary to conventional thinking, Asia's diversity, historical grievances and contemporary challenges reinforce rather than undermine the need for a regional institution uniting democracies. Consider Japan. Membership in such a regional institution could help shape its evolution into a “normal” power and provide its leaders an incentive for taking full responsibility for its wartime guilt. South Korea, which has come under Beijing’s sway, could be reminded of broader, regional obligations, much as West Germany was reminded of its responsibilities in the Atlantic alliance even as it felt the need to reach out to the East.
An Asian organisation of democracies could also attract countries in democratic transition, just as N.A.T.O. and the European Union did; and it could help others, Thailand for example, resist backsliding. Finally, European participation in such an organisation could help manage transatlantic disagreements over China, such as the row over the E.U. arms embargo on Beijing.
China, of course, will react harshly. Unfortunately, neither the US nor its allies can assure China's development will be responsible and democratic. For now, China’s record is clear: resisting political reform at home while obstructing democratic ideals and objectives abroad, not only in Asia, but as far afield as Sudan and Iran. The U.S. and its allies should remember Europe’s example. Democratic multilateralism would provide a positive incentive to China, and bolster the regime's would-be reformers.
As Dr. Rice’s remarks indicate, the U.S. and its allies are already moving toward democratic co-operation. In addition to the tsunami “core group,” the U.S., Australia, and Japan have upgraded security consultations, and Japan and the U.S. have declared Taiwan a mutual security concern. It remains to be seen if Washington is serious about a new approach to Asian regional co-operation. Perhaps a sign would be if the Bush Administration tries to enlist allies in a democratic project for Asia just as successful as the one that helped Europe rebuild its institutions and enhance democracy.
A Sucker Bet by Nicholas D. Kristof
Every single home in this country has two portraits on the wall, one of the Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, who is still president even though he died 11 years ago, and one of his son, the Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il. Inspectors regularly visit homes to make sure the portraits are well cared for.
Every subway car carries those same two portraits as well, and every adult wears a button depicting the Great Leader. And every home (or village, in rural areas) has an audio speaker, which starts broadcasting propaganda at 6 each morning to tell people how lucky they are.
Children spend long hours in day care centers from the age of 6 months, sometimes returning to their parents only on weekends. Men normally perform seven or more years of military service. Disabled people are sometimes expelled from Pyongyang, a green and well-groomed capital that is one of the prettiest in Asia, because they are considered unsightly.
And although the national ideology is juche, or self-reliance, the U.N. World Food Program feeds 6.5 million North Koreans, almost one-third of the population. Even so, hunger is widespread and has left 37 percent of the children stunted.
Yet North Korea focuses its resources on prestige projects, like an amazing 10-lane highway to Nampo (with no traffic).
Many conservatives in and out of the Bush administration assume that North Korea's population must be seething and that the regime must be on its last legs. Indeed, the Bush administration's policy on North Korea, to the extent that it has one, seems to be to wait for it to collapse.
I'm afraid that could be a long, long wait. The central paradox of North Korea is this: No government in the world today is more brutal or has failed its people more abjectly, yet it appears to be in solid control and may even have substantial popular support.
From a brief visit like mine, it's hard to gauge the mood, because anyone who criticizes the government risks immediate arrest. But Chinese and other foreigners I've spoken to who live in North Korea or visit regularly say they believe that most North Koreans buy into the system, just as ordinary Chinese did during the Maoist period.
Likewise, over the years I've interviewed dozens of North Koreans who have fled to China or South Korea, and they overwhelmingly say that while they personally dislike the regime - that's why they fled - their relatives believe in the Kim dynasty with a quasi-religious faith. They say that when everyone is raised to worship the Dear Leader, when there are no contrary voices, people genuinely revere the leader.
Most say the faith is not as strong as it was a dozen years ago, mostly because so many people have heard whispers of Chinese prosperity. But they still laugh at the idea that the Dear Leader is about to be toppled.
"I think we'll have regime change in America before we have regime change in North Korea," says Han Park, a Korea specialist at the University of Georgia. He estimates that 30 percent of North Koreans have a stake in the system, and that most of the rest know so little about the outside world that they don't realize how badly off they are.
A hermetic seal is the main reason the Kim dynasty has survived so long. When I arrived at Pyongyang airport, I was obliged to hand over my cellphones and satellite phones, to be picked up on my departure. Even many senior government officials have no access to the Internet.
From the moment I landed at the airport, I kept trying to change money. But the airport refused, my hotel refused and shops refused. Foreigners are supposed to pay for everything only in foreign currency and be isolated from the local economy. (Finally, a friendly Korean official - they were all surprisingly friendly, with unexpectedly good senses of humor - gave me a few coins as souvenirs for my children.)
If the American policy premise about North Korea - that it is near collapse - is highly dubious, our essential policy approach is even more so. The West should be trying to break that hermetic seal, to increase interactions with North Korea and to infiltrate into North Korea the most effective subversive agents we have: overweight Western business executives.
Instead, we maintain sanctions, isolate North Korea and wait indefinitely for the regime to collapse. I'm afraid we're helping the Dear Leader stay in power.
Every subway car carries those same two portraits as well, and every adult wears a button depicting the Great Leader. And every home (or village, in rural areas) has an audio speaker, which starts broadcasting propaganda at 6 each morning to tell people how lucky they are.
Children spend long hours in day care centers from the age of 6 months, sometimes returning to their parents only on weekends. Men normally perform seven or more years of military service. Disabled people are sometimes expelled from Pyongyang, a green and well-groomed capital that is one of the prettiest in Asia, because they are considered unsightly.
And although the national ideology is juche, or self-reliance, the U.N. World Food Program feeds 6.5 million North Koreans, almost one-third of the population. Even so, hunger is widespread and has left 37 percent of the children stunted.
Yet North Korea focuses its resources on prestige projects, like an amazing 10-lane highway to Nampo (with no traffic).
Many conservatives in and out of the Bush administration assume that North Korea's population must be seething and that the regime must be on its last legs. Indeed, the Bush administration's policy on North Korea, to the extent that it has one, seems to be to wait for it to collapse.
I'm afraid that could be a long, long wait. The central paradox of North Korea is this: No government in the world today is more brutal or has failed its people more abjectly, yet it appears to be in solid control and may even have substantial popular support.
From a brief visit like mine, it's hard to gauge the mood, because anyone who criticizes the government risks immediate arrest. But Chinese and other foreigners I've spoken to who live in North Korea or visit regularly say they believe that most North Koreans buy into the system, just as ordinary Chinese did during the Maoist period.
Likewise, over the years I've interviewed dozens of North Koreans who have fled to China or South Korea, and they overwhelmingly say that while they personally dislike the regime - that's why they fled - their relatives believe in the Kim dynasty with a quasi-religious faith. They say that when everyone is raised to worship the Dear Leader, when there are no contrary voices, people genuinely revere the leader.
Most say the faith is not as strong as it was a dozen years ago, mostly because so many people have heard whispers of Chinese prosperity. But they still laugh at the idea that the Dear Leader is about to be toppled.
"I think we'll have regime change in America before we have regime change in North Korea," says Han Park, a Korea specialist at the University of Georgia. He estimates that 30 percent of North Koreans have a stake in the system, and that most of the rest know so little about the outside world that they don't realize how badly off they are.
A hermetic seal is the main reason the Kim dynasty has survived so long. When I arrived at Pyongyang airport, I was obliged to hand over my cellphones and satellite phones, to be picked up on my departure. Even many senior government officials have no access to the Internet.
From the moment I landed at the airport, I kept trying to change money. But the airport refused, my hotel refused and shops refused. Foreigners are supposed to pay for everything only in foreign currency and be isolated from the local economy. (Finally, a friendly Korean official - they were all surprisingly friendly, with unexpectedly good senses of humor - gave me a few coins as souvenirs for my children.)
If the American policy premise about North Korea - that it is near collapse - is highly dubious, our essential policy approach is even more so. The West should be trying to break that hermetic seal, to increase interactions with North Korea and to infiltrate into North Korea the most effective subversive agents we have: overweight Western business executives.
Instead, we maintain sanctions, isolate North Korea and wait indefinitely for the regime to collapse. I'm afraid we're helping the Dear Leader stay in power.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Liberty and Security VS. Terror – an American Perspective by Bill West
I wonder how the devil is feeling nowadays, since his lair has frozen over. The likes of me, a 29 year law enforcement veteran who spent half his career working organized crime and national security cases, has found common ground with the ACLU. I’m talking about the random police searches of bags conducted in the New York subway system recently implemented as a result of the twin terrorist attacks against the London transit system in July. The New York authorities claim the inspections are random and reasonable. The ACLU and other civil libertarians claim the searches violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. I suppose I’m really somewhere in the middle, since I believe the random inspections will do little more than divert critical law enforcement resources from more important functions while managing to slightly harass the law abiding citizenry. The matter might eventually be settled in the courts.
I’m hardly one who can be accused of being soft on national security and terrorism. I spent half my law enforcement career specifically targeting such issues and since my retirement I’ve remained active as a counter-terrorism consultant and have written numerous articles defending the Government’s post 9/11 efforts in the war on radical Islamic terror. That said, career law enforcement officers, contrary to what many on the left may believe, have a unique and personal perspective on Constitutional liberties. When one is granted the authority and power to deprive others of their Constitutional rights, including under certain circumstances the most precious rights of liberty and even life, one quickly learns to appreciate the exceptional and genuine value of those rights we all enjoy in this great country of ours.
It is within that context I see the baggage inspection in the New York subway system as something of a precursor to that larger slippery slope. After the London attacks, very much has been made of the fact the British cops were able to utilize their CCTV system to quickly identify the bombing suspects and aggressively move forward in their investigation. That is true. It’s also true that London’s 200,000 some CCTV cameras did not prevent either the 7/7 or 7/21 attacks. Yet, on all the talking head shows here in the US, we are hearing security experts and politicians of nearly every stripe call for a huge increase in CCTV coverage everywhere in the US, as though cameras on every street corner will keep us safe.
Right after the 7/7 attacks in London, I wrote an article about enhancing security for transit systems by increasing manpower and training for transit police and security forces, especially utilizing more plainclothes officers and Israeli-tested behavior profile surveillance techniques. Increasing uniformed patrols is a deterrent. Bad guys knowing there are more undercover officers watching them is a deterrent. When those trained officers spot someone acting in a suspicious manner, and they can articulate those suspicions, they can then legally detain and search those persons under what would be reasonable circumstances within Constitutional constraints, and still provide enhanced security for all of us without mass intrusion.
No matter how it’s packaged, even random “voluntary” searches at a police checkpoint invariably makes the public feel subservient, not served and protected. It is the sight of armed uniformed officers at a fixed checkpoint requiring submission to intrusive authority before onward passage is allowed that instinctively produces the “us verses them” reaction. Seeing those same uniformed officers, even if they are heavily armed, on routine patrol or standing fixed observation post among the crowd has another effect…it reassures the public and provides them a sense of protection and security and of being served, not being subjected to authority.
There are, of course, places in American society where exceptional security measures are required. We already accept such measures in commercial aviation. No one questions such procedures at nuclear power plants and US military installations. We probably hope for the same at chemical plants.
It is that mass intrusion, for security, into our individual liberties by government, even if it’s slow and subtle, that should concern all of us. We do live in the 21st century, and the founders of our country never envisioned the possibility of mass destruction, but this is still America and we live under that remarkable document known as the Constitution. Unfortunately, so many Americans have so little understanding of a document which perhaps means more to all of us than any other. Americans must demand security and protection from their government, at all levels. That is the most primary and basic duty and function of government. However, that security and protection must not be done at the expense of individual liberties provided by our Constitution, and Americans should remember that while there are many good people in government service, in America, government itself exists to serve the people, not the other way around, and unfortunately sometimes even some of those good people in government forget that.
Random subway searches and many thousands of CCTV cameras might seem like easy and quick fixes; but maybe they are just that, easy and quick instead of requiring political “leaders” and senior government officials making truly hard choices and implementing law enforcement and security procedures that genuinely protect people and freedoms at the same time.
Do most Americans really want police and security officers watching them on a TV camera as they walk down every street in every city in the country? As they walk into every building, get into every stairwell and elevator? What happens when the innocent college student running late for an exam nervously fumbles in his backpack and wires from his iPod show up on the street CCTV as he looks for a book on his way to school? The student just happens to fit a general description of a general suicide bomber alert issued the day before, yet he’s been attending that school for several years and walking the same route all that time.
Totally innocent behavior, under circumstances that would otherwise go unnoticed, because they were observed by a CCTV camera and security officer, would likely result in the innocent student being accosted by police on his way to class. Hopefully, the responding officers would act with calm and professionalism and the student would submit to their directives. Consider, however, the scenario if the student, in a rush to get to class, thinking of other matters on a crowded street, did not initially hear the officer’s command to stop. Very quickly the situation could escalate into unnecessary tragedy, all because there was a TV camera on the street.
I know there could be other arguments. What if the “student” was a real suicide bomber and was identified and stopped because of the security cameras. The potential scenarios are endless. The point really is, what are Americans ready to do relative to their security? How much individual liberty are we ready to give up to be secure? This is a difficult question.
I wish more Americans truly understood how much personal freedom they are guaranteed under the Constitution. Terrorism threats argue in favor of more government and security. Some would argue that is part of the victory the terrorists seek against us. Ironically, the true American spirit has always argued in favor of less government and reliance on individual citizens to be responsible for their own lives. That is a historically novel concept, but one that served this Republic well for its first 200 years. Perhaps, even in the 21st century with the scourge of modern terrorism, there is still a place for that uniquely American sense of personal freedom.
I’m hardly one who can be accused of being soft on national security and terrorism. I spent half my law enforcement career specifically targeting such issues and since my retirement I’ve remained active as a counter-terrorism consultant and have written numerous articles defending the Government’s post 9/11 efforts in the war on radical Islamic terror. That said, career law enforcement officers, contrary to what many on the left may believe, have a unique and personal perspective on Constitutional liberties. When one is granted the authority and power to deprive others of their Constitutional rights, including under certain circumstances the most precious rights of liberty and even life, one quickly learns to appreciate the exceptional and genuine value of those rights we all enjoy in this great country of ours.
It is within that context I see the baggage inspection in the New York subway system as something of a precursor to that larger slippery slope. After the London attacks, very much has been made of the fact the British cops were able to utilize their CCTV system to quickly identify the bombing suspects and aggressively move forward in their investigation. That is true. It’s also true that London’s 200,000 some CCTV cameras did not prevent either the 7/7 or 7/21 attacks. Yet, on all the talking head shows here in the US, we are hearing security experts and politicians of nearly every stripe call for a huge increase in CCTV coverage everywhere in the US, as though cameras on every street corner will keep us safe.
Right after the 7/7 attacks in London, I wrote an article about enhancing security for transit systems by increasing manpower and training for transit police and security forces, especially utilizing more plainclothes officers and Israeli-tested behavior profile surveillance techniques. Increasing uniformed patrols is a deterrent. Bad guys knowing there are more undercover officers watching them is a deterrent. When those trained officers spot someone acting in a suspicious manner, and they can articulate those suspicions, they can then legally detain and search those persons under what would be reasonable circumstances within Constitutional constraints, and still provide enhanced security for all of us without mass intrusion.
No matter how it’s packaged, even random “voluntary” searches at a police checkpoint invariably makes the public feel subservient, not served and protected. It is the sight of armed uniformed officers at a fixed checkpoint requiring submission to intrusive authority before onward passage is allowed that instinctively produces the “us verses them” reaction. Seeing those same uniformed officers, even if they are heavily armed, on routine patrol or standing fixed observation post among the crowd has another effect…it reassures the public and provides them a sense of protection and security and of being served, not being subjected to authority.
There are, of course, places in American society where exceptional security measures are required. We already accept such measures in commercial aviation. No one questions such procedures at nuclear power plants and US military installations. We probably hope for the same at chemical plants.
It is that mass intrusion, for security, into our individual liberties by government, even if it’s slow and subtle, that should concern all of us. We do live in the 21st century, and the founders of our country never envisioned the possibility of mass destruction, but this is still America and we live under that remarkable document known as the Constitution. Unfortunately, so many Americans have so little understanding of a document which perhaps means more to all of us than any other. Americans must demand security and protection from their government, at all levels. That is the most primary and basic duty and function of government. However, that security and protection must not be done at the expense of individual liberties provided by our Constitution, and Americans should remember that while there are many good people in government service, in America, government itself exists to serve the people, not the other way around, and unfortunately sometimes even some of those good people in government forget that.
Random subway searches and many thousands of CCTV cameras might seem like easy and quick fixes; but maybe they are just that, easy and quick instead of requiring political “leaders” and senior government officials making truly hard choices and implementing law enforcement and security procedures that genuinely protect people and freedoms at the same time.
Do most Americans really want police and security officers watching them on a TV camera as they walk down every street in every city in the country? As they walk into every building, get into every stairwell and elevator? What happens when the innocent college student running late for an exam nervously fumbles in his backpack and wires from his iPod show up on the street CCTV as he looks for a book on his way to school? The student just happens to fit a general description of a general suicide bomber alert issued the day before, yet he’s been attending that school for several years and walking the same route all that time.
Totally innocent behavior, under circumstances that would otherwise go unnoticed, because they were observed by a CCTV camera and security officer, would likely result in the innocent student being accosted by police on his way to class. Hopefully, the responding officers would act with calm and professionalism and the student would submit to their directives. Consider, however, the scenario if the student, in a rush to get to class, thinking of other matters on a crowded street, did not initially hear the officer’s command to stop. Very quickly the situation could escalate into unnecessary tragedy, all because there was a TV camera on the street.
I know there could be other arguments. What if the “student” was a real suicide bomber and was identified and stopped because of the security cameras. The potential scenarios are endless. The point really is, what are Americans ready to do relative to their security? How much individual liberty are we ready to give up to be secure? This is a difficult question.
I wish more Americans truly understood how much personal freedom they are guaranteed under the Constitution. Terrorism threats argue in favor of more government and security. Some would argue that is part of the victory the terrorists seek against us. Ironically, the true American spirit has always argued in favor of less government and reliance on individual citizens to be responsible for their own lives. That is a historically novel concept, but one that served this Republic well for its first 200 years. Perhaps, even in the 21st century with the scourge of modern terrorism, there is still a place for that uniquely American sense of personal freedom.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Intelligence
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will conduct hearings to toughen up secrecy rules and toughen up on leaks of classified information. United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will also evaluate the classification system and ensure that the classification system protects intelligence that could damage our national security and strategic security.
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will work with United States Department of Justice and United States House Judiciary Committee to draft legislation in the fall of 2005. Such draft legislation must also protect whistle blowers and/ or those who highlight waste, fraud, and abuse by revealing secrets.
History has shown, some of the worst damage done to intelligence has not come from penetration by spies, instead from unauthorized leaks by those with access to classified information.
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will work with United States Department of Justice and United States House Judiciary Committee to draft legislation in the fall of 2005. Such draft legislation must also protect whistle blowers and/ or those who highlight waste, fraud, and abuse by revealing secrets.
History has shown, some of the worst damage done to intelligence has not come from penetration by spies, instead from unauthorized leaks by those with access to classified information.
Iraq Positives
96% of Iraq children under the age of 5 have received polio vaccinations.
4,300,000 million Iraqi children are enrolled in primary school.
Iraq independent media consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers, and 10 television stations.
Baghdad Stock Exchange is open.
1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq.
Iraq government employs 1,200,000 million Iraq people.
Iraq education consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or Colleges, and 4 research centers. 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq. 3,100 schools have been renovated and 364 schools are under rehabilitation. 25 Iraq students departed for the United States for the re-established Fulbright Program.
47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq.
Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers. 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3,500 new officers each 8 weeks.
Iraq Navy has 5 patrol crafts, 34 smaller vessels, and one navel infantry regiment.
Iraqi Air Force have three operation squadrons, 9 reconnaissance, and 3 US C-130 Transport Aircraft which operate day and night. Soon will add 16 UH-1 Helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers.
Iraq has a Counter-Terrorist Unit and a Commando Battalion.
More than 1,100 building projects going on in Iraq which also include 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities, and 69 electrical facilities.
4,300,000 million Iraqi children are enrolled in primary school.
Iraq independent media consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers, and 10 television stations.
Baghdad Stock Exchange is open.
1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq.
Iraq government employs 1,200,000 million Iraq people.
Iraq education consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or Colleges, and 4 research centers. 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq. 3,100 schools have been renovated and 364 schools are under rehabilitation. 25 Iraq students departed for the United States for the re-established Fulbright Program.
47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq.
Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers. 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3,500 new officers each 8 weeks.
Iraq Navy has 5 patrol crafts, 34 smaller vessels, and one navel infantry regiment.
Iraqi Air Force have three operation squadrons, 9 reconnaissance, and 3 US C-130 Transport Aircraft which operate day and night. Soon will add 16 UH-1 Helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers.
Iraq has a Counter-Terrorist Unit and a Commando Battalion.
More than 1,100 building projects going on in Iraq which also include 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities, and 69 electrical facilities.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Iraq Can Survive This by David Ignatius
Two weeks ago, I received a bleak message from an Iraqi Sunni friend named Talal Gaaod. It worried me because Gaaod has been working hard for the past two years to rally Sunnis to support a new Iraqi government. But as the country has drifted deeper into anarchy this summer, Gaaod's confidence has been shaken.
The rough language of his e-mail conveys the situation better than a hundred polished Pentagon reports: "The political process, and the American project, it has failed," Gaaod wrote. "Believe me, there is no need to waste anymore one penny of the American taxpayers' money and no more one drop of blood of the American boys." He added: "Continuing on the basis to build a democratic process in securing the country, it's only a dream."
Gaaod argues that the violence has become so brutal that it's no longer possible to talk about political solutions, at least in the short run. Because U.S. forces have been unable to contain the insurgency, ordinary Sunnis have been intimidated and overwhelmed. The only weapons the insurgents lack now are armored vehicles, but Gaaod fears they may get those soon, too.
Gaaod argues that the pragmatic solution is martial law, in which generals drawn equally from Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds take control of security. The military men would work with a government of technocrats. Until order is restored, the Iraqi businessman insists, it's useless to talk about loftier hopes for the country.
What makes Gaaod's new pessimism so disturbing is that he has been trying to help U.S. officials connect with the Sunnis of western Iraq. Like most Iraqi Sunnis, he had contacts with Saddam Hussein's regime, but since its ouster, he has helped American officials organize several conferences for Sunni leaders in Amman, Jordan, where he now lives. Working with tribal allies inside Iraq, he helped convene meetings in Fallujah, Mosul and Ramadi to talk about reconciliation. But these efforts have not worked; sometimes, the American military was arresting or shooting the very Sunni leaders that Gaaod was trying to bring to the table.
The alarm bells are ringing in Iraq this summer. I don't agree with Gaaod that it's time to abandon Iraqi democracy. And I don't think the Bush administration should jettison its baseline strategy of training Iraqi security forces to take over from U.S. troops. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq this week carried the implicit message that America's time, money and patience in Iraq are not endless. The Iraqis must step up and find their own solutions.
Wise observers see new cause for anxiety. John Burns of the New York Times suggested last Sunday that an Iraqi civil war may already have begun, in the Sunni suicide attacks against Shiite targets and in the anti-Sunni death squads that are said to have been organized by Shiite militias. Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, wrote a column yesterday, "Preparing for a shipwreck in the Middle East," in which he cautioned: "The American adventure in Iraq -- creative, bold and potentially revolutionary -- threatens to sink under the weight of a Sunni insurgency that has fed off the Bush administration's frequent incompetence in prosecuting postwar stabilization and rehabilitation."
A useful rule about Iraq is that things are never as good as they seem in the up times, nor as bad as they seem in the down times. That said, things do look pretty darn bad right now, and U.S. officials need to ponder whether their strategy for stabilizing the country is really working.
Pessimists increasingly argue that Iraq may be going the way of Lebanon in the 1970s. I hope that isn't so, and that Iraq avoids civil war. But people should realize that even Lebanonization wouldn't be the end of the story. The Lebanese turned to sectarian militias when their army and police couldn't provide security. But through more than 15 years of civil war, Lebanon continued to have a president, a prime minister, a parliament and an army. The country was on ice, in effect, while the sectarian battles raged. The national identity survived, and it came roaring back this spring in the Cedar Revolution that drove out Syrian troops.
What happens in Iraq will depend on Iraqi decisions. One of those is whether the Iraqi people continue to want U.S. help in rebuilding their country. For now, America's job is to keep training an Iraqi army and keep supporting an Iraqi government -- even when those institutions sometimes seem to be illusions. Iraq is in torment, but the Lebanon example suggests that with patient help, its institutions can survive this nightmare.
The rough language of his e-mail conveys the situation better than a hundred polished Pentagon reports: "The political process, and the American project, it has failed," Gaaod wrote. "Believe me, there is no need to waste anymore one penny of the American taxpayers' money and no more one drop of blood of the American boys." He added: "Continuing on the basis to build a democratic process in securing the country, it's only a dream."
Gaaod argues that the violence has become so brutal that it's no longer possible to talk about political solutions, at least in the short run. Because U.S. forces have been unable to contain the insurgency, ordinary Sunnis have been intimidated and overwhelmed. The only weapons the insurgents lack now are armored vehicles, but Gaaod fears they may get those soon, too.
Gaaod argues that the pragmatic solution is martial law, in which generals drawn equally from Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds take control of security. The military men would work with a government of technocrats. Until order is restored, the Iraqi businessman insists, it's useless to talk about loftier hopes for the country.
What makes Gaaod's new pessimism so disturbing is that he has been trying to help U.S. officials connect with the Sunnis of western Iraq. Like most Iraqi Sunnis, he had contacts with Saddam Hussein's regime, but since its ouster, he has helped American officials organize several conferences for Sunni leaders in Amman, Jordan, where he now lives. Working with tribal allies inside Iraq, he helped convene meetings in Fallujah, Mosul and Ramadi to talk about reconciliation. But these efforts have not worked; sometimes, the American military was arresting or shooting the very Sunni leaders that Gaaod was trying to bring to the table.
The alarm bells are ringing in Iraq this summer. I don't agree with Gaaod that it's time to abandon Iraqi democracy. And I don't think the Bush administration should jettison its baseline strategy of training Iraqi security forces to take over from U.S. troops. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq this week carried the implicit message that America's time, money and patience in Iraq are not endless. The Iraqis must step up and find their own solutions.
Wise observers see new cause for anxiety. John Burns of the New York Times suggested last Sunday that an Iraqi civil war may already have begun, in the Sunni suicide attacks against Shiite targets and in the anti-Sunni death squads that are said to have been organized by Shiite militias. Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, wrote a column yesterday, "Preparing for a shipwreck in the Middle East," in which he cautioned: "The American adventure in Iraq -- creative, bold and potentially revolutionary -- threatens to sink under the weight of a Sunni insurgency that has fed off the Bush administration's frequent incompetence in prosecuting postwar stabilization and rehabilitation."
A useful rule about Iraq is that things are never as good as they seem in the up times, nor as bad as they seem in the down times. That said, things do look pretty darn bad right now, and U.S. officials need to ponder whether their strategy for stabilizing the country is really working.
Pessimists increasingly argue that Iraq may be going the way of Lebanon in the 1970s. I hope that isn't so, and that Iraq avoids civil war. But people should realize that even Lebanonization wouldn't be the end of the story. The Lebanese turned to sectarian militias when their army and police couldn't provide security. But through more than 15 years of civil war, Lebanon continued to have a president, a prime minister, a parliament and an army. The country was on ice, in effect, while the sectarian battles raged. The national identity survived, and it came roaring back this spring in the Cedar Revolution that drove out Syrian troops.
What happens in Iraq will depend on Iraqi decisions. One of those is whether the Iraqi people continue to want U.S. help in rebuilding their country. For now, America's job is to keep training an Iraqi army and keep supporting an Iraqi government -- even when those institutions sometimes seem to be illusions. Iraq is in torment, but the Lebanon example suggests that with patient help, its institutions can survive this nightmare.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation and Muslim Brotherhood
Executive Director Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, has been conducting public relations to discuss the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Anti-Terror Campaign. Executive Director Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation has been stating that the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation objective is to "inoculate our young people by making sure they're actively and constructively engaged in positive activities that reflect the main views of their faith and tradition, as opposed to someone who would want to influence them into extremist points that would certainly lead to death, destruction, and mayhem." Executive Director Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation also speaks about how the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation has created a number of youth centers and will build more youth centers for young people to develop free from the influence of extremists.
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Anti-Terror Campaign website states programs are "comprehensive and multifaceted approach to proactively combat terrorism." This includes an emphasis on youth and scouts work, which is designed "to inculcate in our youth the proper understanding of Islam, help them fulfill their potential, and keep them away from the voices of extremism." Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation also promises to work with other Islamic centers "to consolidate and solidify the prevailing moderate and mainstream orientation of our community."
While the public relations, programs, and promises sound excellent, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is not an organization to advance the moderate interpretations of Islam. In late 2004, The Chicago Tribune revealed that the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation to be an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic group. Former Kuwait Minister of Education Ahmad Al-Rab'i stated the "Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is the ideological fountainhead of Al-Qaida." September 11, 2001 Commission Report concurs that the Muslim Brotherhood was an inspiration to Al-Qaida by noting Osama bin Laden reliance on Muslim Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb.
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation have admit that the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, but claim that the organization "went way beyond that point of conception." However, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation shows no signs of moving away from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation curriculum shows the centrality of the Muslim Brotherhood. The goals for active members are to continue building the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna and to make the members fulfill his duties as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna. Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Membership shows that even lower membership levels are required to base their understanding of Islam on the Message of the Teachings by Iman al-Banna. Regular members must build the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna. In the book, Iman al-Banna makes clear that Islamic governments must become predominant and states that violence is an acceptable means of spreading Islamic ideology: "Always intend to go for Jihad and desire martyrdom. Prepare for it as much as you can." Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation even requires adjunct members to read Milestones by Sayyid Qutb. Milestones by Sayyid Qutb contains the essay "Jihad in the Cause of God," which explains that spreading Islam is an acceptable reason for undertaking jihad: "The reasons for Jihad which have been described in the above verses are these: to establish God's authority in the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God; to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of one man over others since all men are creatures of God and no one has the authority to make them his servants or to make arbitrary laws for them. These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming Jihad."
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is a concern given the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is positioning itself as a bulwark against extremism in the Muslim community and centrality of the Muslim Brotherhood in their curriculum and membership.
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Anti-Terror Campaign website states programs are "comprehensive and multifaceted approach to proactively combat terrorism." This includes an emphasis on youth and scouts work, which is designed "to inculcate in our youth the proper understanding of Islam, help them fulfill their potential, and keep them away from the voices of extremism." Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation also promises to work with other Islamic centers "to consolidate and solidify the prevailing moderate and mainstream orientation of our community."
While the public relations, programs, and promises sound excellent, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is not an organization to advance the moderate interpretations of Islam. In late 2004, The Chicago Tribune revealed that the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation to be an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic group. Former Kuwait Minister of Education Ahmad Al-Rab'i stated the "Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is the ideological fountainhead of Al-Qaida." September 11, 2001 Commission Report concurs that the Muslim Brotherhood was an inspiration to Al-Qaida by noting Osama bin Laden reliance on Muslim Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb.
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation have admit that the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, but claim that the organization "went way beyond that point of conception." However, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation shows no signs of moving away from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation curriculum shows the centrality of the Muslim Brotherhood. The goals for active members are to continue building the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna and to make the members fulfill his duties as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna. Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation Membership shows that even lower membership levels are required to base their understanding of Islam on the Message of the Teachings by Iman al-Banna. Regular members must build the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna. In the book, Iman al-Banna makes clear that Islamic governments must become predominant and states that violence is an acceptable means of spreading Islamic ideology: "Always intend to go for Jihad and desire martyrdom. Prepare for it as much as you can." Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation even requires adjunct members to read Milestones by Sayyid Qutb. Milestones by Sayyid Qutb contains the essay "Jihad in the Cause of God," which explains that spreading Islam is an acceptable reason for undertaking jihad: "The reasons for Jihad which have been described in the above verses are these: to establish God's authority in the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God; to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of one man over others since all men are creatures of God and no one has the authority to make them his servants or to make arbitrary laws for them. These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming Jihad."
Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is a concern given the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation is positioning itself as a bulwark against extremism in the Muslim community and centrality of the Muslim Brotherhood in their curriculum and membership.
Africa and War on Terrorism
Complicated difficulties will arise and are arising in training Africa to fight the War on Terrorism while democratization takes place, which is necessary to fight terrorism. The difficulties lie in training troops whose loyalty might be to or will be to an abusive President and his ethnic group. For example, in the case of Chad, President Idriss Deby does respect and does not life democracy. Will the Chad troops and nations such as Niger, Mali, and Maurtiania become effective at patrolling their borders and facing the growing threat of terrorist in the region? or instead focus their troops with new skills on cracking down on internal dissent, patrolling the capital, and increase their repression?
These are complicated questions that need to be thought about and addressed since Africa is relevant in the War on Terrorism. Africa is an attractive recruitment ground for terrorist organizations. Terrorist from Africa are appearing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
What are acceptable difficulties given the goals and approaches of the War on Terrorism in states that are close to disintegration and failure?
These are complicated questions that need to be thought about and addressed since Africa is relevant in the War on Terrorism. Africa is an attractive recruitment ground for terrorist organizations. Terrorist from Africa are appearing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
What are acceptable difficulties given the goals and approaches of the War on Terrorism in states that are close to disintegration and failure?
Sunday, July 24, 2005
United States National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism
An unclassified version of the document will be released. The document is the culmination of 22 months of work. The document examines the War on Terrorism in depth such as providing a road map for prosecuting the War on Terrorism and establishes a new set of metrics to measure the progress on the War on Terrorism. United States National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism also discusses several key features of the War on Terrorism such as defining the enemy as Islamic extremism instead of al Qaida and on encouraging and enabling foreign partners with an explicit understanding that the War on Terrorism cannot be fought unilaterally and by military means alone.
The document came about in the middle of 2003 when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sent numerous memorandums to his staff about was the United States really winning the War on Terrorism? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also sent numerous memorandums to commanders and how could the United States know if more terrorists were being killed or captured than were being recruited? The numerous memorandums resulted in a 70 page draft report that went through countless revisions. The final report is about 25 pages with 13 plus annexes and was signed and became part of the Department of Defense on Thursday, March 3, 2005.
The War on Terrorism is a conflict unlike any the United States has fought. Regardless of the specifics contained in the unclassified version of the United States National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, there is now a plan to debate which is encouraging. United States National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism now requires continuous attention and analysis on the War on Terrorism.
The document came about in the middle of 2003 when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sent numerous memorandums to his staff about was the United States really winning the War on Terrorism? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also sent numerous memorandums to commanders and how could the United States know if more terrorists were being killed or captured than were being recruited? The numerous memorandums resulted in a 70 page draft report that went through countless revisions. The final report is about 25 pages with 13 plus annexes and was signed and became part of the Department of Defense on Thursday, March 3, 2005.
The War on Terrorism is a conflict unlike any the United States has fought. Regardless of the specifics contained in the unclassified version of the United States National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, there is now a plan to debate which is encouraging. United States National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism now requires continuous attention and analysis on the War on Terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)