File Photo of Janet Napolitano

President Obama's national security team and the folks that keep America from getting blowed up has been, thankfully, a pretty decent bunch of individuals. However, one official stands out worse than a turd on the Thanksgiving table, and no Marueen Dowd puff pieces on Janet Napolitano's "determination" are going to prevent her from getting inevitably axed for gross incompetence. Here's the latest embarrassing statement to the press, which Jim Hoft has a transcript of, saying that the lone suicide bomber concept was something that caught Homeland Security with its pants down:

Question: What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well...
SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence.

Has she been on planet Earth the last 10 years? The typical stereotype of a suicide bomber (the 18-30 year old male who becomes disenchanted and decides to achieve martyrdom through mass atrocity) was the case here. The President promises a detailed bi-partisan review of the matter that will, hopefully, involve some "reassignments" of Napolitano and that other guy who didn't want his skiing vacation interrupted.

As an aside, this could go hand-in-hand with the much needed bipartisan inquiry into why the VA is having so many problems, which Army Sergeant has a great piece about.

Read more »

From ABC

This photo is the nasty pair of drawers that thankfully didn't blow a hole in Northwest Flight 253, but managed to spook the civilized world during the holidays. But, the concept of strapping bombs to your genitals is nothing new, as seen in Pakistan last year. From the Daily Times in July 2008:

Would-be suicide bombers could be using explosives “underwear briefs” rather than explosives jackets to evade “conservative” body searches, sources said on Wednesday.

Sihala Police College forensic lab sources told Daily Times that the study of recent suicide attacks showed that suicide bombers used “explosives-laden” under-garments, briefs in particular, to carry out the attacks.

The sources said that the explosives could weigh between five kilogrammes to seven kilogrammes, made deadly by adding glass splinters, metal ball bearings and bullets.

So, like we've seen around the world, the determined terrorist can adapt to achieve his objective. Even if the TSA would scrap its much-criticized political correctness in their prevention methods, would they still be able to nab the terrorist dressed up as a woman? I have to take back my post two years ago giving the TSA a hard time for searching military personnel coming home for R&R, in light of the Fort Hood shootings. But will our politicians cease the partisan ugliness to set forth security policies that reflect the current threat level? I have my doubts...

Read more »

One of my favorite bloggers concurs with Will Wilkinson that we should get back to the "head-up-our-collective-ass" days of 9/10 when we chose to ignore that there was people actively seeking our destruction:

Yet those responsible for this disaster have been successful in hiding behind the shock of the crumbling towers, as if support for their dangerous and deadly policies is inexorably implied by feeling deeply the full weight of 9/11’s tragedy. Those most insistent that we “never forget” 9/11 are those who need our continuing collective complicity in the erosion of our civil liberties, in the weakening of the rule of law, in the unjustified invasion of unrelated foreign countries and the murder of their people, in the policy of state-sanctioned torture.

A very serious criticism that would take a thesis to dissect, but let's look at this "erosion of our civil liberties" thing. As a society, we entrust law enforcement with more powers than your average citizen to maintain the security of our nation. Without security, you can't really have anything (an economy, rule of law, etc.), so I'm willing as a citizen to sacrifice a small portion of liberty to prevent something as catastrophic and devastating as 9/11. So, I don't really constitute having to take my shoes off at the airport and the possibility that my phone calls from Thailand about me having the runs being possibly monitored by the NSA as an "erosion of our civil liberties". I suppose I lose some libertarian credibility, but I'm just too sympathetic to the underlying purpose of law enforcement. As long as its terrorism we are talking about and not something silly (like seatbelt laws).

Read more »

Wired Danger Room is on an embed in the Panjshir Valley in Afghanistan and they note the poo-pooing by NGO types of the PRT in carrying out civil-military operations:

Not everyone is fan of the military’s embrace of the humanitarian mission. Since their inception in late 2002 as “Joint Regional Teams,” many in the aid and development community have worried that the PRTs were encroaching on a traditional humanitarian space, blurring the line between civilian aid work and military operations. In a recent opinion piece, Anna Husarska of the International Rescue Committee quotes an unnamed colleague who tut-tutted that the PRTs are “Humvees in a china shop.” For the purists, relief and development work are a task best done by independent aid agencies, not the military.

This isn't the first time that humanitarians have bad-mouthed this entire component of counter-insurgency. As a guy who used to be in the military but is now a tie-dye wearin' NGO geek, I feel the need to comment. Yes, showing up with an assortment of weapons might not be the key to convincing folks you are there to help, but it is incredibly naive to not understand that security and the rule of law must be established before any real social/economic development takes place in troubled areas. That's why the 2007 strategy in Iraq was successful, because it primarily focused on improving security, instead having contractors half-assedly building schools that were going to get blown up anyways.

There is/will be a need for humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, but until law and order can be established, it will have to have a military component. Don't let idealism result in you getting killed by reality.

Read more »

With regards to Iran in a state of revolution, North Korea threatening to nuke Waikiki, and US Forces pulling out of Iraq's cities, Obama has been more quiet than Chief in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. But it's good to see our President not afraid to take a ding in his approval numbers and focus on the risque, political issue that's confronting this nation: being a dad. From AP:

In an unusual devotion of time for the president, Barack Obama is blocking out nearly an entire afternoon to promote the importance of being a good dad as a national priority...

...The day's events were intended to kick off a White House effort on fatherhood and mentoring. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will host forums around the country this summer and fall to gather ideas on good programs and to help promote them.

I never knew that having a good dad was important until the President told me! Yes, we can. In the future, the White House will devote an entire day to letting Americans know "Why you have to clean up your dog's poop" followed by "Why it's important to turn off your cell phone in the movie theater" and other issues of vital importance to national security.

Read more »

What are the motivations behind all this interest in so called "enhanced interrogation" techniques? Certainly, the punditry isn't to alter policy, because Obama signed an executive order banning the controversial techniques before he even had the drapes picked out at the White House. Paul Krugman argues that it's to save America's soul, which presumably means to vindicate the far-left base that has been pushing this issue for years. Documents and photos are classified not as part of a conspiracy to keep the public uniformed, but to prevent detrimental effects on national security, and yes, the lives of troops and CIA operatives performing the grim task of protecting the nation.

The America Civil Liberties Union (which ironically has a very dictatorial style in its own internal affairs), has used a FOIA request to acquire photos of detainee abuse on May 28 that will, no doubt, lead to serious repercussions for national security. From the Military Times:

The letter from Justice said the Pentagon was preparing to release 21 photos at issue in the appeal, plus 23 others “previously identified as responsive.” The letter added that the Pentagon also was “processing for release a substantial number of other images contained in Army CID reports that have been closed during the pendency of this case.”

The ACLU and the Defense Department reached an agreement for “all the responsive images” to be released by May 28, the letter said.

The base, clamoring for the heads of Cheney and other Rethuglicans, will make available to the world photos that will accompany Jihadist propaganda around the world. While we pride ourselves on living in a transparent society, I really wish some of these "activists" would stop foaming at the mouth for two seconds and consider the consequences of their actions.

Read more »

Finally. Instead of dicking around with the zombie banks that were shrewd enough to pump money into campaign coffers, the President has announced a revised strategy for fighting the war in Afghanistan. NYT has some of the highlights:

• 17,000 additional combat troops
• 4,000 troops for security transition (training/advisor forces)
• Conditions-based economic and military aid to Pakistan
• Request for $50B in budget plan
• Development of "benchmarks" for governments in Kabul and Islamabad

David Brooks writes from a byline in the Kyber Pass that this thing is "winnable". Milbloggers such as Old Blue and the Greyhawks seem supportive of the new strategy as well. Jon Soltz states that the strategy encompasses the proper mix of addressing regional issues and focusing on law and order for the fledgeling government in Kabul.

While I'm deeply immersed in the culture of the bitters, laughing at Obama teleprompter jokes and such, I certainly hope that this ambitious plan is successful. It's our republic, and allowing Afghanistan/Pakistan to fall under control of extremism would prove catastrophic to global security.

Read more »

Despite the extra-chintzy title of this blog post, VAMPIRE 06 has a detailed piece on counter-insurgency principles being applied near the Pakistan border that is a must read. At a time when Iraq seems to be calming down (especially with the implementation of tour group packages for Western tourists) and the winter lull in A-stan is ending, it's important to understand what our troops are accomplishing in OEF.

Read more »

An Afghan reporter from Newsweek highlights some troubling extremist trends in the international community. However, it's not from Peshawar, Tehran, or Medina, but...London?!? From Newsweek:

In fact, during my three-month stay in England I met a surprising number of Muslims who shared Jan's fascination with the Taliban. The older generation, urbane and relatively well educated, had little love for the extremists. But among some younger men, frustrated and marginalized in British society, I discovered a fury that was depressingly familiar. I met many immigrants who were blatant, vocal and unquestioning in their support for what they imagined to be "jihad." Few seemed troubled by the brutality that characterized Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar's reign, or by his banning of music or girls' education. Indeed, many looked back on Omar's rule as a kind of Islamic utopia, and they eagerly snapped up the Islamist leaflets handed out after Friday prayers at various mosques around town.

This comes on the heels of an incident in early March where members of the fundamentalist Islamic community were seen protesting (Westboro Baptist Church-style) a military parade honoring some fallen British soldiers in Iraq. These clowns have vowed to continue their disgraceful demagoguery.

The Newsweek report from our allies in England is indeed disturbing, and you have to ask why the Muslim community in the U.S. is so much different than in Europe. Is it because they are less affluent and less educated across the pond? Does America's melting pot and "love it or leave it" mentality do a better job of assimilation? Following 9/11, I was at UCLA which has a large Arabic/Persian student body, and the sentiment seemed to be why we weren't immediately bombing those "Taliban pieces of shit" into the stone age on 9/12. This one liquor store I used to buy booze at in the Valley (owned by an Arabic gentleman) had American flags and patriotic stickers that would rival a Toby Keith concert. It was practically comical like the Simpsons episode where Apu pretends he's not an immigrant. While this is all observational evidence on my own part, it has been proven with extensive polling that the broad majority of American Muslims do not hold these bullshit extremist views. Why are things so different in Europe?

Any insight from a European on this issue would be much appreciated.

Read more »

This woman's confession sheds some light on where the female suicide bomber networks in Iraq were originating. From the Herald Sun:

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

"We arrested Samira Jassim, known as 'Um al-Mumenin', the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women'', Major General Qassim Atta said.

"She confessed her responsibility for these actions, and she confirmed that 28 attempts had been made in one of the terrorists' strongholds,'' he said.

That's pretty fucked up.

Read more »

I support the President's Decision!

Word has leaked that two UAV strikes targeting Al-Qaeda militants have taken place inside Waziristan while Obama has been Commander-in-Chief. From Breitbart:

Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed seven people Friday on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, a lawless region where al-Qaida militants are known to hide out, officials said.

The strike was the first on Pakistani territory since the inauguration of President Barrack Obama.

Pakistani leaders had expressed hope Obama would halt the attacks, more than 30 of which have been launched since the middle of last year, reportedly killing several senior militants.

The pro-U.S. government routinely protests them as a violation of the country's sovereignty, but most observers speculate it has an unwritten agreement allowing them to take place.

These intelligence-driven, cross-border airstrikes are authorized at the highest level of the chain of command, as seen during the strike in Syria last October, which killed a high-level Al-Qaeda facilitator. There will be some ostentatious criticism of these air strikes, and they alone will not be able to completely eliminate the terrorist presence in the lawless region of Northwestern Pakistan. But consider these facts before you rush off to go protest the President's decision to continue with this controversial strategy:

• The 36 UAV airstrikes in Pakistan during 2008 killed five senior Al-Qaeda leaders [Long War Journal]
• Trans-national militants based in the tribal areas are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. and allied troops and thousands of Afghan civilians [NYT]
• Pakistan's response was to the Mumbai massacre has been weak, and they even moved combat brigades from the Northwestern Provinces onto the border with India [Bloomberg]
• Pakistan continues to make deals with the Taliban despite that area of the country becoming extremely chaotic
• Newsweek warned that Pakistan was ground zero for jihadis back in 2007, and it has only gotten worse
• The Obama administration has vowed to aid Pakistan (like we did during the earthquake in 2005), but "hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan" [WhiteHouse.Gov]
• The governor of the Northwest Frontier Province continues a media campaign of lies and says that Afghanistan is really the problem (WTF!) [Tom Ricks]

Understand that I'm a huge critic of the Obama administration, primarily because I believe his economic policies are going to ruin the country and his followers creep me the fuck out. But this is national security we're talking about here! And I'm grateful that we have a leader who understands the importance of Operation Enduring Freedom and balances diplomacy and military assertion to keep the world safe from international terrorists.

Frankly, I was very surprised to see Michelle Malkin vying for Moran of The Day with this awful analysis of the situation which is a form of shameless partisanship:

Reader John has a few questions: “Where are the anti-war liberals? Where are the baby-killer signs? Why [aren't] the major media networks showing pictures of dead children as a result of Pres. Obama’s air strike?”

Hey, haven’t you heard? CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

IMHO, bipartisanship is no vice when it's a matter of us getting all killed.

Read more »

WaPo from the front lines of the war on Islamic extremism in Pakistan:

Afghan and Pakistani officers at the center were barred from talking to a reporter during a recent visit. But a glance around the room showed several of them primarily engaged in watching a wrestling match on one of the big TV screens and playing computer solitaire.

D'oh! Well at least they weren't smoking weed. Getting more professional by the day!

Read more »

How eerie is that?

Jonn mentioned that Obama's pick to head up the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, seems to be a bit lacking in spook experience:

With a war raging across the globe, do we really need a poltician with no intelligence experience running our intelligence service? A guy who is going to consider the political impact of every decision instead of the welfare of the nation and the American? And where's this damn change we were promised?

But you are wrong, dear sir, because it turns out that Panetta actually has some experience with the CIA during the Clintonian years. RedState digs up something at the CIA website:

Woolsey also used DOD as an ally in preparing and defending the Intelligence Community’s program and budget. Leon Panetta, the Clinton administration’s first director of OMB, had indicated to Woolsey early in 1993 that OMB was considering providing the DCI with top-line guidance, perhaps with a publicly disclosed figure, and seeking sizable out-year cuts in intelligence spending. Woolsey also faced skeptical audiences in Congress anxious to find an additional “peace dividend” in intelligence spending as well as in the larger defense budget. From Woolsey’s perspective, he had the unenviable task of managing declining intelligence budgets in an era of multiplying intelligence targets (the “poisonous snakes”)

We all know what effect dumbing down the nation's intelligence apparatus had on our country. Two embassy bombings, a suicide attack on one of our ships, and a 9/11 later, the conventional wisdom is that intelligence funding shouldn't have been the first item on the chopping block for federal spending.

However, some prominent progressives might be ecstatic that Panetta isn't tainted by the Bush-era torture policies. I don't think my neighbor, the 8th-grade Social Studies teacher, was waterboarding KSM in some secret prison either, but that doesn't mean he should be in charge of the biggest spook organization in the world.

Read more »

Israeli Artillery Fires on the Gaza Strip (photo AP)

After an aggressive air strike campaign, you knew this was coming. The Israelis have announced that they launched a ground force incursion into Gaza Saturday evening. From the Washington Post:

Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza after nightfall Saturday, launching a ground offensive that the military said would be a "lengthy operation" in a widening war on Gaza's Hamas rulers.

Heavy gun battles were reported as Israeli tanks and infantry soldiers entered Gaza after dark. The forces stayed close to the border area, witnesses said. Heavy artillery fire hit east of Gaza City in areas where Hamas fighters were deployed.

"We have many, many targets," Israeli military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich told CNN, adding that Hamas has been digging smuggling tunnels and other facilities. "To my estimation, it will be a lengthy operation," she said.

She said the goal of the operation was to take over the areas used by militants to launch rockets against Israel.

Due to Hamas hiding amongst civilians, the "collateral damage" of Gaza civilians was incredibly disturbing, as this graphic LiveLeak video will show. Kids with their legs blown off, people screaming in pain as their intestines fall out of their body, and the other pleasant aspects of conflict. Ground occupation would allow better intelligence and thereby less civilians casualties (as was seen when the Iraqi Army went into Sadr City in May), but it could also anger Palestinians and the surrounding region into sparking a prolonged period of mass violence resulting in more death and despair. I fear the latter.

Read more »

e.g., the Indian Embassy bombings in Kabul did little to outrage the Middle East

The Israelis are striking Gaza for a second day, and protesters from across the Arab world are lining up with a vengeance. From Tehran to London, the usual ruckus of anti-Zionist rhetoric can be heard loud and clear. Like the fat woman at a club, this blog steers clear of taking an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, since a small strip of land with few resources in which three major religions lay claim might prove troublesome for discussion. But the Middle Eastern outrage at Israel, has failed to materialize as terrorists murder their own fellow Muslims (with the exception of Iraqis).

Recently, 14 schoolchildren were murdered by a suicide bomber in Khost, Afghanistan. The grisly video of the attack can be viewed here. Are there going to be imams in Saudi Arabia and protesters in Cairo gathering to condemn this atrocity? Highly doubtful. IraqPundit has some sharp insight on why this is the norm in a post entitled "Right Civilians, Wrong Civilians":

Arabs are ready to protest when the U.S. does something wrong (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo). Arabs are ready to protest when civlians get killed by the U.S. or Israel. But rarely if ever do they protest when some hate-filled extremists kill civilians. I'm talking about Iraqi civilians. I don't recall huge demonstrations against the suicide bombers and other extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of most civilians.

The Arab Street accepts the extremists as noble fighters. They see them as decent fellows who had no choice but to turn violent in the face of injustice. And because they are noble fighters, people forgive them when they kill civilians. On Friday a Hamas rocket killed two Palestinians kids. Poor children didn't know they were the wrong kind of civilians.

That's the injured Palestinians' problem. They're the wrong kind of civilians. This Arabic report says Hamas admits that they are preventing injured from going to Egypt for treatment. The principled Hamas leaders say it's not fair of Egypt to open Rafah crossing just for the injured, they should open it for fighters and smugglers as well. Too bad for the injured, they must be sacrificed for the cause.

The frustrated Arab Street is angry that their voices are ignored. I agree they have much to protest about when it comes to their nasty regimes. People have every right to be angry about Abu Ghraib, etc. But perhaps if the Street objected to the killings of all civilians, more people would listen.

The fact that much of the world's Islamic community forgoes condemning terrorism and accepts them as "freedom fighters" represents, in some ways, a strategic communications failure on America's part. When people in the Middle East still overwhelmingly believe that the U.S. or Israel was behind 9/11, it is obvious that we are not succeeding in enabling moderate messengers in troubled regions rife with terrorist activity. This will be a serious diplomatic challenge for the incoming Obama administration, and I hope he doesn't shrug off this key component of our current efforts to curb terrorism.

Read more »

COMOPS Journal has a well-written article about why Zawahiri (Al-Qaeda #2) is failing at strategic communications. It's much more detailed than the usual "Zawahiri iz a r-tard" agitprop you'd get at blogs like mine. Check it out!

Read more »

In the wake of the grisly terror attacks that shut down the massive city Mumbai, India's parliament is crossing the political divide to more aggressively to combat extremism. From the Times of India:

Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution promising to all it could to combat terrorism and expressing condolence for the dead and solidarity with survivors, both Houses also named terrorist elements from Pakistan and said that despite being a banned organisation, the Lashkar-e-Taiba was operating from that country. The resolution said attacks on Mumbai were linked to other hostile acts emanating from Pakistan like the suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

More at The Moderate Voice that suggests previous U.S. aid to Pakistan under Musharraf might have soured relations. I don't think the U.S. is to blame for every atrocity worldwide, but we would be wise to tread carefully when conducting diplomacy in Central Asia. Will Hillary blow it?

Reason's Shihka Dalmia advocates for looser gun laws in India so that the average citizens can put the kaibash on these grave atrocities. From The Wall Street Journal:

They should also demand reform of the country's draconian gun laws -- a holdover from British times -- that prevent them from defending themselves. That would surely deliver far quicker results than waiting for India's slow-moving political classes to plug the vast lacunae in the country's security apparatus.

9/11 put the skids on the gun-control wanks in our country for a short time, and one only needs to look to Israel (where people are packing heat all the time) to suggest that a well-armed citizenry has some deterrent effect to extremism.

Read more »