Tuesday, December 29, 2009

How to Deradicalize Islamist Extremists?

I'm having a hard time taking seriously this article by Harvard's Jessica Stern. Her essay is titled, "Mind Over Martyr: How to Deradicalize Islamist Extremists." Considering all that's happened in the last week -- and not counting Fort Hood and earlier incidents -- I'm convinced that the Ivory Tower is a bit removed from what's happening on the ground in counterterrorism. And it's too bad, actually, since Stern's considered a top expert on international terrorism (and the author of The Ultimate Terrorists).

The idea is that with proper care and intellectual feeding, the most hardline Islamist militants can be rehabilitated. Stern's extremely sympathetic to the leftist criticism of the American experience at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. And because she's an academic, I'm giving her a little slack on this. But when she gives examples of how terrorist rehab and social reintegration works, it all just falls apart, baby. Take a look at the introduction, for example (and I'll just go ahead and highlight in bold the most preposterous section):

Is it possible to deradicalize terrorists and their potential recruits? Saudi Arabia, a pioneer in rehabilitation efforts, claims that it is. Since 2004, more than 4,000 militants have gone through Saudi Arabia's programs, and the graduates have been reintegrated into mainstream society much more successfully than ordinary criminals. Governments elsewhere in the Middle East and throughout Europe and Southeast Asia have launched similar programs for neo-Nazis, far-right militants, narcoterrorists, and Islamist terrorists, encouraging them to abandon their radical ideology or renounce their violent means or both.

The U.S. government would do well to better understand the successes and failures of such efforts, especially those that target Islamist terrorists. This is important, first, because, as General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, has noted, the United States "cannot kill [its] way to victory" in the struggle against al Qaeda and related groups. Although military action, especially covert military action, is an essential part of the strategy against the Islamist terrorist movement, the United States' main goal should be to stop the movement from growing. Terrorists do not fight on traditional battlefields; they fight among civilians, which increases the risks of collateral damage. Indeed, Islamist terrorists provoke the governments they oppose into responding in ways that seem to prove that these governments want to humiliate or harm Muslims. Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and "extraordinary rendition" have become for Muslim youth symbols of the United States' belligerence and hypocrisy.

Second, the effectiveness of deradicalization programs aimed at detained terrorists have direct and immediate effects on U.S. national security. This is especially true regarding the detainees at the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Because it is difficult to gather evidence that is usable in court, some truly bad actors, along with some not so bad ones who have been held unfairly, will inevitably be released. Effective deradicalization programs could help make such individuals less dangerous. Abdallah al-Ajmi, who was repatriated to Kuwait in 2005 on the order of a U.S. judge and was acquitted of terrorism charges by a Kuwaiti court, subsequently carried out a suicide bombing on Iraqi security forces in Mosul that killed 13 Iraqis. Had he received the kind of reintegration assistance and follow-up (including surveillance) now available in Saudi Arabia after his release, he might not have traveled to Iraq.

Third, the success, or failure, of terrorism-prevention programs outside the United States is important to Americans. For one thing, people who carry European passports can enter the United States relatively easily, and so the presence of terrorists in Europe can threaten U.S. national security. For another, terrorism-prevention programs presently under way in, for example, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, could be models for at-risk groups in the United States, such as the Somali community in Minnesota, from which some young men have been recruited to fight alongside al Shabab, the radical Islamist organization that controls southern Somalia and claims to be aligned with al Qaeda. These men do not seem to be plotting attacks in the West, but it is important to think now about how to integrate Somalis into American society more fully in order to reduce the chances that they will carry out attacks in the United States.

The fight against al Qaeda and related groups is not over: Saudi Arabia's deputy interior minister was nearly killed by a terrorist posing as a repentant militant in August 2009; in September, U.S. government officials interrupted a plot in New York and Denver that they believed was the most significant since 9/11; and in October, the French police arrested a nuclear physicist employed at the CERN accelerator, near Geneva, who reportedly had suggested French targets to members of the Algerian terrorist group al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. But in the long term, the most important factor in limiting terrorism will be success at curtailing recruitment to and retention in extremist movements.

Now is the moment to try. Counterterrorism efforts have significantly eroded al Qaeda's strength in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia since the "war on terror" began in 2001. U.S. Predator strikes in Pakistan have killed top al Qaeda leaders, disrupting essential communications between the group's core and its affiliates and new recruits. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last September, Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said that such activities were "potentially disrupting plots that are under way" and "leaving leadership vacuums that are increasingly difficult to fill."
Look at that section I've highlighted. Abdallah al-Ajmi? I've written about him before. See, "Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi: From Guantanamo to Martyrdom." Below is the complex he blew up, Combat Outpost Inman:

According to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, al-Ajmi's attack "remains the single most heinous act of violence committed by a former Guantanamo detainee." Chandrasekaran's essay basically blames the United States for al-Ajmi's terrorism: "Was his descent into unrepentant radicalism an unintended consequence of his incarceration?" Chandrasekaran also quotes Washington attorney Thomas Wilner, "Guantanamo took a kid -- a kid who wasn't all that bad -- and it turned him into a hostile, hardened individual ..."

Wasn't all that bad? Just like Jessica Stern's deradicalized extremists? The article just barely mentions that al-Ajmi was never subjected to severe forms of enhanced interrogation. Actually, it sounds like the kid got a little homesick. Maybe the American grunts hurt his feelings. Sure, no doubt he just hitched up with violent jihad after bawling his eyes on the shoulders of some of Camp Gitmo's most hardened terrorist inmates. But we've got to go easy on these folks! No personal responsibility here, you know? Americans have got to shoulder responsibillity for the Mosul bombing from 2008? Thirteen dead? Blame President Bush!

And how about these reports, from ABC News, "
Two al Qaeda Leaders Behind Northwest Flight 253 Terror Plot Were Released by U.S. - Former Guantanamo Prisoners Believed Behind Northwest Airlines Bomb Plot; Sent to Saudi Arabia in 2007," and CNN, "Former Gitmo Detainees Investigated in Airline Bombing Plot."

According to ABC's report:

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials. ABC News described their enrollment in the art therapy program in a January report.
It turns out PBS did a rave puff program on the jihadi rehab initiative. See Pat in Shreveport, "Jihad Art Rehab." Amazingly, she cites an article from Psychology Today, "Jihad Rehab: Can Art Therapy Cure Terrorism?"

Pamela Geller also comments, "This is why releasing enemy combatants is a mentally deranged leftist policy."

Perhaps Professor Stern will respond to this post. Maybe she'll want to revisit her "deradicalization" thesis, no?

A Murderous Ideology

From the Telegraph UK, "Detroit terror attack: A murderous ideology tolerated for too long":
Friday's attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner by a British-educated Islamist was foiled by the bravery of its passengers and crew. We cannot assume that we will be lucky next time. And the indications are that there will be a next time. According to police sources, 25 British-born Muslims are currently in Yemen being trained in the art of bombing planes. But most of these terrorists did not acquire their crazed beliefs in the Islamic world: they were indoctrinated in Britain. Indeed, thousands of young British Muslims support the use of violence to further the Islamist cause – and this despite millions of pounds poured by the Government into projects designed to prevent Islamic extremism.

Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.

Jihadist Islamism is also a murderous ideology, comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services. Yet because it arises out of a worldwide religion – most of whose followers are peaceful – politicians and the public sector shrink from treating its ideologues as criminal supporters of violence. Instead, the Government throws vast sums of money at the Muslim community in order to ensure that what is effectively a civil war between extremists and moderates is won by the latter. This policy – supported by all the main political parties – does not seem to be working. The authorities, lacking specialist knowledge, sometimes turn for advice to "moderate" Muslims who have extreme sympathies; supporters of al-Qaeda are paid to disseminate their ideology to young people.

Radical Islamist leaders are not stupid: they know how to play this system. The indoctrination of students carries on under the noses of public servants who are terrified of being labelled Islamophobic or racist. Therefore they fail to do their duty, which is to protect Muslims and non-Muslims alike from a terrorist ideology. If providing that protection requires fewer "consultations" with "community leaders" and more arrests, then so be it.

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.

Hat Tip: Saber Point.

Medicare and Medicaid: A Stark Warning on Society's Future

Jon Walker, at Firedoglake, when comparing Medicare to Medicaid, asks, "Why has Medicare been so much more successful?" He disfavors Medicaid, describing it as largely a failure, "the bastard stepchild of the two programs."

Walker then tries to explain why Medicare is supposedly so much more "successful" than Medicaid, arguing:

I suspect it succeeded for three main reasons: It is a fully federal program, it helps a broad cross section of American people, and it has a sufficiently large base of active users. By being a fully federal program, Medicare is equally as good in red states as it is in blue states. It was not carved up, poorly executed, improperly regulated, or underfunded in many states for ideological reasons, or out of budgetary necessity. Being a fully federal program was very important, and made sure its success with felt by people equally across the entire country.

Having Medicare serve everyone over 65 gave it a strong cross-section of supporters. It benefits the rich as well as poor. It helps everyone–from truck drivers and factory worker, to lawyers, politicians, and doctors–this has ensured that at least some of the people on Medicare are well-organized, politically active members of society. Finally, Medicare covers roughly 13% of Americans, and a greater percentage of voters. This is a large enough chunk voters that it makes messing with Medicare very dangerous politically.
There's a lot wrong with this. For one thing, Walker fails to note the difference between entitlements and means-tested (public assistance) programs. Medicare, as an entitlement, is perceived as "earned" by beneficiaries. Folks have worked over their lifetimes, qualified for Social Security benefits, and thus the Medicare add-on health program as well. Medicaid is basically welfare, and there's never been a broad-based level of popular support for it. Walker's right to note the middle-class basis of Medicare's support, but that has little to do with whether the program is run by the federal government or the states. The key issue is the welfare-dependency concept itself. With Medicaid being one program out of many in the smorgasboard of state-level public assistance hand-outs, taxpayers have long resisted the increasing demands on their earnings to pay for programs that are not infrequently abused by those with chronic unemployment and resistance to self-sufficiency, as well as among illegal immigrant communities who use emergency rooms as out-patient clinics. California has been known to exceed $1 billion annually on Medicare outlays for the undocumented. Clearly, the nexus between poverty, healthcare, and border control is not something leftists are eager to talk about.

But back to Medicare. All is not rosy with the President Johnson's social policy progeny. In fact, Medicare itself is a major contributor to the out-of-control cost system that current efforts at healthcare reform hope to remedy. As Eric Cohen explained, in his 2004 article, "
The Politics and Realities of Medicare":

First, Medicare is primarily a federally funded, third-party payer, fee-for-service program. In other words, when seniors get sick, they go to the doctor and the government pays most of the bill. Beneficiaries pay some premiums: an $876 deductible for major hospital visits under Part A; $66.60 per month, a $100 annual deductible, and 20 percent co-payments for most outpatient treatment under Part B. But the value of the government subsidies rises the more care one uses. Seniors who participate in traditional Medicare (roughly 88 percent) have the freedom to see any doctor who will see them. This is generally wonderful for beneficiaries: They have access to all the care they desire. But it is problematic for society as a whole, since there are limited incentives for seniors to cut their own health-care costs, and there is limited room within the heavily regulated system for private insurers to improve efficiency by creating health-care networks or tailoring services to individual needs. This economic problem will only get worse, many believe, as expensive new medical technologies become available, as the percentage of the national population on Medicare increases, and as the average age of Medicare beneficiaries rises and their health deteriorates.

Second, Medicare is a major part of the "hidden subsidy" and "price control" system that now shapes American health care. The government sets the prices by fiat for all the medical services covered under Medicare--with different physician groups lobbying constantly for increases to the reimbursement rate for their own specialties, and the government trying constantly to keep up with ongoing changes in the nature of medical care. This system allows government to exert some control over Medicare costs--though reimbursement cuts in the past have often resulted in reduced access to care, reduced quality of care, or increased billing for a larger volume of services. And of course, government doesn't get the prices right. This means the system only works because those services that are over-reimbursed subsidize those services that are under-reimbursed--for example, over-payment for cancer drugs subsidizes under-payment for cancer treatment. This system of cross-subsidizing exists both within Medicare and between Medicare and private-sector health insurance.

Third, Medicare's system of government-controlled pricing also shapes how patients are treated, and not always for the better. In some cases, people seek not the best or cheapest treatments for a given condition but those treatments that are covered by Medicare. In other cases, avoiding inexpensive but uncovered therapies leads to expensive but covered emergencies in the future. As Joseph Antos, an analyst for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), explains about cancer therapy: "There is widespread agreement that Medicare overpaid for Part B drugs, although oncologists argued that those overpayments helped compensate for the extra costs of administering the drugs and caring for patients that were not reflected in fees paid by Medicare for office visits." The problem is that when the federal government reduced payments for cancer drugs, as it did in MMA, there was "a shift of patients out of the doctor's office and back to the inpatient hospital care, which reduces patient satisfaction and could increase federal outlays."

Finally, the current Medicare system does not pay for long-term care. If someone suffers a stroke, for example, Medicare covers the expenses incurred in its immediate aftermath--hospital care, 21 days of skilled nursing care with no deductible, and 79 additional days of skilled nursing care for a subsidized rate of $109.50 per day. However, once the patient no longer requires skilled medical treatment but still requires constant personal care, Medicare pays nothing. This leaves individuals and families with a range of hard choices: family caretaking by a spouse or child; professional caretaking paid for out-of-pocket; or self-impoverishment until one qualifies for Medicaid, which does pay for long-term care, either by spending down one's assets or moving them in advance to one's children or siblings. The result is that a significant number of seniors who live to 65 end up on Medicaid--a welfare program--at some point before dying, including many who were self-sufficient throughout most of their lives. And looking forward, it suggests that the next Medicare entitlement debate will be about whether to add a long-term care benefit--which could prove far more expensive than paying for drugs.

In other words, the Medicare system creates all kinds of individual and market perversions and disincentives that stand in the way of efficiency and optimality. As a public system, Medicare may result in a misallocation of resources, and suboptimal healthcare outcomes. It also removes personal responsibility from much of health maintenance and rationalization. Not only that, because of the coverage gap for long-term care, the perceptual difference between "entitlements" and "means-tested" becomes meaningless. If folks live long enough, they'll end up on public support for the healthcare. Following that logic, Cohen goes on to argue that Medicare Part B reforms in 2007 shifted the system to a means-testing regime for individuals with annual incomes of $80,000 and couples with $160,000. Thus:

The cost savings of such a change are likely minor compared to the cost of Medicare as a whole, since the higher premiums will affect only an estimated 1.2 million seniors out of the 35 million now on Medicare. But the principle it establishes for future reform may be significant: namely, the idea that means-testing is a potential route for further cost-cutting.
But Cohen has some important warnings for the Bush administration drug coverage expansion from 2003, called the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA):
The fact is that, if Medicare were being created from scratch, it would almost certainly include a prescription drug benefit. But there are also good reasons to believe that adding a universal drug benefit was unnecessary or unwise, and that the sense of urgency in doing so was more artificial than real--a battle for senior-friendly voters (young, not old) who presumed a crisis that never really existed. As Samuelson reported in the Washington Post, a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002 asked the following question: "In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?" The answers: 86.4 percent, not a problem; 9.4 percent, a small problem; 4.2 percent, a big problem. And so one could have imagined a targeted subsidy for low-income seniors in need, and national acceptance that drugs are just one of those things on which seniors will have to spend their own money.

But for the politically ambitious, drug coverage had already become a "must deliver" issue, and for the country, it had become a political expectation. Moreover, it is unclear how the above survey from 2002 meshes with other realities, such as the high number of low-income Medicare beneficiaries who will now be eligible for drug subsidies, or the deepening erosion of employee-based drug coverage for retirees. Clearly, there existed some real hardship, though hardly a national crisis. And clearly, both parties believed they needed to pass a prescription drug benefit in order to remain attractive to senior and senior-friendly voters.

Given these realities, there is a certain wisdom in the way MMA's drug benefit is designed. It establishes a baseline of coverage for all seniors, and thus assures universal access to at least the most urgently needed medications. It provides genuine insurance against catastrophic drug costs--that is, against suddenly losing all of one's financial resources in a desperate effort to stay alive. But MMA also establishes the principle that not everything can be paid for by government; that medicine must be balanced against other national priorities and other human goods; and that middle-class individuals will have to support their own middling drug bills. The "hole in the doughnut," for all the mockery it has received, is sensible in its guiding principles.
Or, in other words, at some point we won't be able to afford this luxurious entitlement. That, or drastic trade-offs will be necessay, particularly among the younger age-cohorts (post-Baby Boomers) who will be saddled with increased taxes to pay for their parents and the grandparents care, and reduced benefits when they themselves will be ready for retirement.

Now, if you go back to
the Walker essay, he's arguing for an additional epochal expansion of a program that's already structured to go bankrupt. As he writes:
What path will this new health care reform bill follow? My strong hope was that the House bill would follow Medicare. It has a national exchange that is funded directly by the federal government. There is national regulation of the insurance industry, and a nationwide public option.
It's a straightforward recipe for government nationalization of the healthcare industry. And we know what will happen: Even great market disincentives will be established. Costs will not decline, since meaningful preventative medicine and health rationalization will be obviated. Access and quality of services will decline, as the U.S. system increasingly apes the Canadian. And of course, taxes will skyrocket, and expected payouts for future generations will deteriorate even further -- which will result in collapsing public support for the federal government all around.

In fact, real solutions should be found not at the federal level, but in the states. Ironically, both the
House and Senate versions of the ObamaCare legislation create Medicaid mandates that are being staunchly resisted by states that have managed their programs efficiently. And in the current healthcare debate, as was true in the debate of Medicare prescription drug expansion, a very small minority of Americans report dissatisfaction with their health insurance or the quality of their care. So for the lofty goal of "social justice," today's Democratic-left is on the precipice of destroying the last remants of a functioning healthcare market while bankrupting the nation AND causing a deterioration of health-delivery outcomes all at the same time.

There won't be any "successes" after that.

Anwar al-Awlaki, Radical Yemeni-American Cleric, Personally Blessed Northwest Terror Attack

From the Washington Times, "Awlaki personally blessed Detroit attack" (via Memeorandum):
The Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner had his suicide mission personally blessed in Yemen by Anwar al-Awlaki, the same Muslim imam suspected of radicalizing the Fort Hood shooting suspect, a U.S. intelligence source has told The Washington Times.

The intelligence official, who is familiar with the FBI's interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said the bombing suspect has boasted of his jihad training during interrogation by the FBI and has said it included final exhortations by Mr. al-Awlaki.

"It was Awlaki who indoctrinated him," the official said. "He was told, 'You are going to be the tip of the spear of the Muslim nation.'"
I thought about this after writing my post rebutting Steve Clemons. It's newfangled extremists like Awlaki who'll pose the biggest threats to international security in the years ahead. Who knows where Osama bin Laden is? And the Middle East's young jihadis probably couldn't give a flying-v, in any case. They've got up-and-coming inside-militants like this formerly U.S.-based cleric? Too bad he escaped that recent drone attack.

Allahpundit has more, "U.S. intel: Jihadi cleric linked to Fort Hood attack blessed Flight 253 plot":
How far back do these two go? According to CBS, they might have hooked up in Londonistan years ago when Abdulmutallab was a student and Aulaqi was preaching the good word of jihad in the local mosque. (He was kicked out of the country in 2006.) The question tomorrow will be whether the former ended up in Yemen for his own reasons or whether he followed Aulaqi there, in which case you’ve got a whole new avenue of missed red flags potentially opening up.

He could, of course, be lying about all this, trying to spook intel agents by mentioning Aulaqi knowing that he already has a body count at Fort Hood. But he also told the agents that there are many more jihadis in Yemen ready to follow his example and he appears to be telling the truth about that. Obama’s called a surprise presser that’s set to start at any minute as I’m writing this. Stand by to see if he delves into any of it in his remarks.
Actually, the New York Times has that report, "Obama Cites ‘Systemic Failure’ in U.S. Security."

Jim Patterson, Ex-Fresno Mayor, to Seek Election to 19th Congressional Seat

Former Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson is expected to contest the 2010 GOP primary from California's 19th congressional district. It turns out that Representative George Radanovich, who has held the seat since the Republican earthquake of '94, is retiring. Patterson is expected to run against Radanovich's hand-picked candidate, State Senator Jeff Denham.

Hotline On Call has the report:
One source said Radanovich will back state Sen. Jeff Denham (R) as his replacement. CA Senate districts are actually larger than congressional districts, though Denham's is more closely related to Rep. Dennis Cardoza's (D) neighboring 18th district. Top GOPers had tried to convince Denham to run against Cardoza, though Radanovich's district has a stronger GOP lean.
But Denham is unlikely to get a clean shot at the seat. Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson (R), who had backing from the Club for Growth during his '02 primary against now-Rep. Devin Nunes (R), is also likely to run. One source even suggested that ex-Rep. Richard Pombo (R), who lost his neighboring 11th district to Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) in '06, may be a potential contender as well.
I'm focusing on Mayor Patterson since I'm fairly well-acquainted with him. We attended Fresno State together, both graduating in 1992. He's a super intelligent man with a business background in Christian radio. Although Hotline On Call doesn't mention it, I suspect Patterson is even more conservative than the incumbent. The California Central Valley's been a hotbed of tea party activism this year, and the water crisis has been hammering farmers. Apparently, Radanovich favors the San Joaquin River restoration project, a major Central Valley environmental initiative which is opposed by area farmers. And a recent Miami Herald piece reports that Patterson had signaled his intent to challenge Radanovich in the primary. That, combines with wife Ethie Radanovich health questions, moved the 9th-term congressman to call it quits. According to the Herald's report:
Republicans in California's San Joaquin Valley are girding for a potential intramural clash pitting former Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson against incumbent Rep. George Radanovich of Mariposa.

Though Patterson has made no official campaign announcement, Republican and Democratic circles alike are abuzz with anticipation that he will declare his candidacy in early January. Privately, some Valley political activists say they have already been assured Patterson will challenge Radanovich.

"It's certainly going to be an interesting race if he does run," prominent Republican and Fresno Lincoln Club president Michael Der Manouel Jr. noted, though he stressed that no decision can be counted as final until candidacy papers are filed.

Patterson insisted Wednesday that he is still undecided, though he acknowledged he has been "testing the waters up and down the district." Tellingly, he added that he has no interest in running for an open seat in the state Legislature.

"I think I am suited best to be in Congress and that is where I'd love to serve in these times," Patterson said.

A primary race between Radanovich and Patterson would instantly become one of the most closely watched in California, if not the nation. It would likely become expensive, forcing campaign contributors to either choose sides or hedge their bets.

A GOP primary also would almost certainly select the next congressman from the 19th Congressional District. Republicans enjoy a commanding 44-37 percent voter registration advantage in the district, which sweeps through all or part of Fresno, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Mariposa and Madera counties.
Patterson's extremely ambitious. Folks mentioned his name for a congressional seat back in the early '90s, before he left the mayor's office. He's apparently a big fundraiser as well, with the support of the local business sector and Club-for-Growth activists. I imagine that State Senator Denham's going to have his hands full.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Steve Clemons: Lost on al Qaeda's Threat in Yemen

I last wrote about Steven Clemons in September, when he appeared on CNN opposite Fausta Wertz. The discussion covered developments in Middle East international politics, and especially questions of developing-country nuclear proliferation. Clemons has an analysis up this morning, "The Yemen Brief: Expanding Scope of US Military Engagement Exactly What Bin Laden Wants." The piece also appears at the radical news outlet, Talking Points Memo (via Memeorandum).

I agree with Clemons when he suggests that "President Obama must step back and think about America's current strategic course." But Clemons'
preceding passage is deeply problematic:
National security officials in the administration need to go back and read Peter Bergen's Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden in which he recounts many aspects of bin Laden's plan from the Islamic extremist uber-guru's own words - which was to draw the US deeply into the Middle East, and by its presence -- destabilize the governments in the region.

Bin Laden, hiding somewhere in Pakistan, remains the single most significant sculptor of global affairs today, pushing the buttons of an American superpower as well as other regimes, so that they engage in emotional, knee jerk crusades that undermine what is left of a global equilibrium and the perception of American power.

Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and enemies yet to be named win with each new soldier deployed to the Middle East and South Asia.
I have not read the Bergen book, although published in 2001, the thesis that Bin Laden remains at the center of the global al Qaeda organization is badly outdated. While Bin Laden affiliates and family members remain important terrorist actors in global jihad, experts today speak of intense decentralization as the defining element of current international terrorism. As I reported previously, al Qaeda is now a drastically tranformed network of follow-on jihadi cells and copy-cat Islamists. Indeed, the group is actually making a comeback from its decimation in Iraq, when U.S. forces badly degraded the cells operating under Abu Musab al Zarqawi. In 2006, Zarqawi was killed by U.S. bombs in a fighter strike outside of Baqubah. (For more on this, see Frederick Kagan's pathbreaking analysis, "Al Qaeda In Iraq.")

I addressed some of Kagan themes in my recent piece, "
Leftists Spin Attempted Northwest Airlines Attack as Evidence of Fake Al-Qaeda Threat." It's simply not true that al Qaeda today can be primarily analyzed in terms of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda is a "networked consortium" of loosely linked cellular bodies. I cited at my post the work of Audry Kurth Cronin. See especially, "How al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups." Plus, on terrorism more broadly, I discussed Brigitte L. Nacos' text, Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding Threats and Responses in the Post 9/11 World. Be sure to read that post for the changing significance of terrorism post-9/11.

Steve Clemons' entry is certainly valuable in its publication of the Yemeni Ministry of Public Affairs communiqué, "
Embassy of the Republic of Yemen Washington, DC Office of Media & Public Affairs." And Clemons is right to indicate that the administration faces serious challenges -- with renewed urgency -- on the national security front. Yet, his analysis is not especially helpful in identifying the types of strategic and tactical problems that late-edition al Qaeda organizations pose for U.S. foreign and military policy. Or at the least, Clemons wanted to begin his discussion from the bottom up, with those "enemies yet to be named." It will be these largely faceless operatives -- increasingly sophisticated and exponentially radical -- who will pose existential dangers to the U.S. and its Western allies in the years ahead.

Plus, be sure to watch Sheila MacVicar's penetrating analysis on al Qaeda in Yemen, especially her discussion of next-stage bomb technologies, "
Yemen's New Wave of al Qaeda."

Too Little, Too Late? Obama Assailed for Response to Terror Attack

From ABC News, "Did Obama Respond Too Late to Terror Plot? Critics Assail President? Democrats Say the President Reacted Appropriately, Security Reviews Are Important":

The Obama administration has come under fire from critics who said the president waited too long to address the nation publicly about the Christmas Day terror plot, and that his administration has not been tough enough on terrorism.

The mostly partisan attacks came after Friday's attempt by a Nigerian national to blow up Northwest Flight 253 as it approached Detroit. Terror plots in the past have tended to unite the two parties, but recent attacks have departed from that norm.

President Obama has ordered a sweeping review of how the suspect managed to board the flight from Amsterdam, but that has done little to appease his critics.

Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, blamed the Obama administration for taking its eye off the threat of terrorism from abroad.

"I think there's enough blame to go around here," Hoekstra said Monday in an interview with ABC News. "The bottom line is we ended up with a bomb on a plane with a detonator ready to go off. That's totally unacceptable. There's probably failures at every step of the way, in Nigeria, in the Netherlands, and in the overall procedures. Early on in this administration, I think that this administration sent a clear signal that they believed that the threat to the homeland was not as significant as what it really is."
RTWT at the link.

Plus, at Politico, "
Handling Problems the Obama Way." (Via Memeorandum.)

See also, Michael Goldfarb, "
Damage Control in 5 Easy Steps!," and Flopping Aces, "Is Obama’s Weak Approach to War on Terror Inviting More Attacks?"

Marc Thiessen: Christmas Day Bombing Attempt Should Make Us Think Twice About the War on Terror

I received an e-mail from Marc Thiessen, giving me the heads up on his new piece at USA Today, "What We Don't Know May Kill Us." The essay is also available at Marc's blog, "My USA Today Column on Gitmo Connection to Northwest Airlines Plot":

The plot to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day was, according to multiple news accounts, organized and launched by al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen. ABC News has reported that the Nigerian man who attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, spent a month at an al-Qaeda compound north of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, where he completed training alongside a Saudi al-Qaeda bomb-maker.

Little noted is the fact that the second in command of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — the group that
reportedly trained and deployed Abdulmutallab for his mission to attack the American homeland is a released Guantanamo detainee: Said Ali al-Shihri.While al-Shihri’s specific role has not been determined, it is increasingly clear that the terrorist network he helps lead was behind the attempted Detroit attack.

Known to Guantanamo officials as
Detainee No. 372, al-Shihri was captured on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in December 2001. He denied being a terrorist and claimed to have traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the 9/11 attacks to deliver money for the Red Crescent. At Guantanamo, he told officials that he had never even heard of al-Qaeda until he arrived in Guantanamo, and declared that “Usama bin Laden had no business representing Islam.” He promised that if released he would return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reunite with his family and work in their used furniture store.

Despite evidence that he had trained in an al-Qaeda camp north of Kabul, he was released in 2007 to a Saudi rehabilitation program. But al-Shihri never became a furniture salesman. Instead, last January, he appeared in a series of jihadist videos identified as al-Qaeda’s second in command on the Arabian Peninsula. The New York Times
reported that he is “suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa,” in September 2008.
RTWT at the link. Also, Marc's firm is Oval Office Writers, LLC.

Plus, you know Marc's over the target when Daily Kos profiled him earlier this year (warning: hatred alert), "
Who is Marc A. Thiessen and why is he an apologist for torture?"

Monday, December 28, 2009

The Politically Correct Myth of Airline Bombers

From Lorne Gunther, "The Politically Correct Myth of Airline Bombers":

Each new layer of security, each new inconvenience for the travelling public, is mostly a placebo. It does very little to improve our inflight safety. Instead, each is imposed mostly to make it appear as though authorities are doing something and to give us the public some reassurance that they are safe in the air.

And most are implemented, too, to preserve the politically correct, multicultural myth that anyone is a potential terrorist, that all are equally worthy of official suspicion, that everyone must be searched as thoroughly as the next passenger in line.

.... by the time security personnel have caught on to one terror technique, the very real enemies of the West who would blow up airliners loaded with innocents have moved on to a new tactic. Once we learned to forbid box cutters, the terrorists moved on to shoes with fuses, then sports drinks laced with incendiaries and bags of powder strapped to their thighs.

No matter what we screen for, no matter how much we irritate and inconvenience passengers at airports, the bad guys will figure out new ways to bring potential death aboard our planes.

The real trick is screening out bad guys. But to do that would require a cultural will the West has not yet shown itself capable of. It would require us to admit that young Muslims -- mostly young Muslim males -- see themselves at war with the West, so they require a special level of scrutiny from security and intelligence forces.

Abdulmutallab's father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had notified the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria of his son's increasingly extremist religious beliefs. But no one had thought enough of the warning to subject the 23-year-old engineering student to an added thoroughness of search before he boarded a U.S.-bound flight.

Not all Muslims need be harassed -- not even most. Following 9/11, a U.S. think-tank devised a pre-flight screening technique that would red-flag the appropriate suspects.

Anyone, Muslim or not, who had a mortgage, had held the same job for more than 10 years, had a lengthy history of incident-free commercial flights, had a solid credit rating, a retirement account and no reports, like Abdulmutallab's, of extremist tendencies might well still have to do the detector walk-through, but wouldn't need to toss his latte and nail file before getting on a flight.

The trouble is, we are too timid as a culture to do the obvious -- focus on young Muslim men with radical connections, who have proven themselves to be 99 per cent of the problem.
Hat Tip: Kathy Shaidle. Video courtesy of Islamization Watch, "Airline Terror Suspect in Federal Prison."

Cindy Crawford! - UPDATED!

My wife's People Magazine came today. Cindy Crawford's on the cover. I don't see it online (People's website is funky that way), but checking Crawford's own homepage, she's got some links from earlier this year. Egotastic's got a shots of Crawford sunbathing in St. Tropez from 2007. This shot below is perhaps my favorite (although I've forgotten the promotion -- Georges Marciano, if I recall???). Also, at Ask Men, "MILF wish for Cindy Crawford."

UPDATE: Photobucket's censoring this shot of Cindy Crawford, so I'll add a straight bikini pic, from 2007, "Cindy Crawford Bikini Photos In Hawaii":

Plus, while searching around for a new image, and also from a Cindy fan (Victor Field) at the comments, it turns out that the topless shot is from a Herb Ritts photo-shoot for Playboy in 1988. I also found this awesome gallery of Cindy Crawford cover shots over the years. And in other (not so great news), Pepsi's pulling out of the Superbowl advertizing blitz for 2010. Previous years have featured Cindy Crawford guzzling soda out of a can. What a babe. (Ads are going to the Internet, so at least I'm in the right business.) Added: Just found the Pepsi ad:

You and Me ... We Used to Be Together...

Ace commenter Kreiz suggested some Smashing Pumpkins after last night's Jessica Simpson entry. I checked around for some clips. I like "Tonight, Tonight," which was Kreiz's pick, but the embed was disabled. I'll find another and post it. That, along with "Zero" as well, which I really dig. Meanwhile, enjoy No Doubt's "Don't Speak." Especially good here is the acoustic guitar break solo. Always loved it in the studio version, and it's a cool stage setup at the viddy ... more sounds later:

By the way, the commercial video that accompanied this song on initial release is one of the coolest clips from the '90s. No Doubt's a local Orange County band, and Gwen Stefani's live performance hipness is unsurpassed in that footage (here).

Northwest 253 Bomb Attempt Explodes Safety Vulnerabilities at TSA

From ABC News, "EXCLUSIVE: Photos of the Northwest Airlines Bomb: Accused Bomber Abdulmutallab's Underwear, Explosive Packet and Detonator." And regarding the second photo down:

It is a six-inch long packet of the high explosive chemical called PETN, less than a half cup in volume, weighing about 80 grams.

A government test with 50 grams of PETN blew a hole in the side of an airliner. That was the amount in the bomb carried by the so-called shoe bomber Richard Reid over Christmas 2001.

The underpants bomb would have been one and a half times as powerful.
This video shows a remote-controlled test explosion with 20 grams of PETN:

Just think if Abdul Mutallab's detonator functioned correctly - Jesus!

Also, from Fox News, "
Metal Detectors Useless in Finding Powerful Explosive PETN":
The man who authorities say strapped a highly powerful explosive to his torso and tried to detonate it in midair never would have gotten aboard the plane if a different security detector had been used when he boarded the flight, security experts and officials say.

"Puffer" machines, full-body imaging scanners, a simple frisk or bomb-sniffing dogs all would likely have detected the chemical explosive PETN, experts say. But Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian suspected of trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, encountered none of those deterrents when he traveled from Nigeria to Amsterdam and ultimately to Detroit.

Abdulmutallab may likely have passed through a magnetometer, the conventional metal detector used at most airports. It's a sophisticated a device that detects firearms, box-cutters, belt buckles and nail clippers — but it's useless in finding a small amount of powder capable of bringing down an airliner packed with passengers.

PETN is the primary ingredient in detonating cords used for industrial explosions and can be collected by scraping the insides of the wire, said James Crippin, a Colorado explosives expert. Used in military devices and readily found in blasting caps, the chemical is stable and safe to handle but requires a primary explosive to detonate it.

PETN was a component of the explosive that Richard Reid — the convicted "shoe bomber" — used in 2001 in his failed attempt to down an airliner. It also was used in an assassination attempt on the Saudi counterterrorism operations chief in August, according to the Saudi government.

Authorities say Abdulmutallab hid a quantity of PETN in a condom-like bag just below his torso when he boarded the plane in Amsterdam, and that he tried to create an explosion on board by injecting a liquid into it with a syringe.
See also Noah Shachtman, "Underwear Bomber Renews Calls for ‘Naked Scanners’":

After an alleged terrorist unsuccessfully tried to detonate his explosive underwear on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit, current and former American officials are now using the failed attack to push for more airport scanners to spot such explosives — and a lot more.

The Transportation Security Administration in recent years has tried out a series of “whole-body imagers” to look for threats that typical metal detectors can’t find. These systems are the only way that smuggled explosives, like the one officials say was brought on the Christmas flight, can be reliably found.

“You’ve got to find some way of detecting things in parts of the body that aren’t easy to get at,” former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff told The Washington Post. “It’s either pat-downs or imaging.”
Well, folks will have to be electronically strip-searched if they're going to fly. Otherwise, the terrorists have won.

RELATED: Hot Air, "
Audio: JetBlue announces dopey new TSA regulations."

TMZ Issues Retraction on Purported Kennedy-Nude Women Exclusive

At least they've got the honesty to admit when they're wrong. See, "Kennedy Picture -- A Fake" (via Memeorandum):

TMZ reports reports on Playboy's confirmation that the alleged John F. Kennedy-nude women photo was published in Playboy Magazine in 1967. (Check the Smoking Gun's post for more on the background, "TMZ Falls For JFK Photo Hoax.")

Now, while TMZ is perhaps the leading gossip webzine in operation today, its retraction is an excellent example of journalistic standards bloggers ought to respect.

Recall my report the other day on Spencer Ackerman's recent dismissal of al Qaeda's attempted Northwest attack as a "
desperate bid for relevance." Doug Ross picked up on my reporting with his entry, "Oops. Leftist apologists for terror screw up again (Chapter 4,860)." But checking "Attackerman's" page we find no retraction of his claims, and in fact he's moved on to make preposterous allegations suggesting that Joseph Lieberman's calling for an invasion of Yemen. (William Jacobson deftly shot down that stupid meme: "Obama Already Has Started Joe Lieberman's Yemen War.")

Frankly, following TMZ's example, Ackerman should issue his own apology and retraction. I'm not holding my breath. Both
Charles Cooper at CBS and Darren Lenard Hutchinson still owe me an apology for their epic-fail posts from November (the latter attacking me as "Rightwing Fecal Matter").

I'm also waiting for
E.D. Kain to publicly apologize for his campaign of intimidation and threats to my livelihood after he contacted my administration to get American Power to STFU. He's flatly said he had no responsibility to air his quarrels at the his blog, although he'd done exactly that previously -- in debate with Dan Riehl -- when the stakes weren't as potentially devastating to his already sullied reputation.

I've taken down two post recently. Luckily, readers and fellow bloggers caught my mistakes before they were widely distributed around the web. Had they caught the attention of the targets, I would have published an apology. It's simply a matter of principle. Some folks have it, even those at TMZ, and some don't.

RELATED: William Jacobson on TMZ's retraction, "
TMZ Experts Say Obamacare Will Reduce the Deficit and Expand Care."

UPDATE: TMZ has changed the headline of their story to read, "Man in Photo is Not JFK." Interesting that I took a screencap!

Afternoon Babe Blogging

I've been been getting calls from readers for more babe-blogging, so here's an afternoon treat via Theo Spark, "Monday Mopsies ...":

And because of the time difference, Theo's "bedtime totty" is now up as well (extra large image-click is here).

Obama's Law Enforcement Response to Christmas Day Jihadi Attack: 'We Will Not Rest' Until Plotters Captured and Tried (VIDEO)

The video is here, and check Freedom Eden for the transcript, "Obama: Terror Statement (Transcript)":

Also, at The Hill, "Obama Pledges 'Thorough Review' in Wake of Attempted Airline Bombing." (Via Memeorandum.) But from AFP, the administration will take a law enforcement approach:
US President Barack Obama on Monday vowed an all-out pursuit of plotters of a failed Christmas Day bombing of a US-bound airliner, vowing "we will not rest" until they are captured and tried.

"A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable," Obama said in his first direct public comment since a 23-year-old Nigerian allegedly tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it approached Detroit.
The Wall Street Journal responds, "The Terror This Time: Janet Napolitano Says the System Worked. No, We Were Brave and Lucky" (via):
A U.S. government that has barred the phrase "war on terror" has nonetheless acknowledged that a failed Christmas day bomb attack on an airliner was a terrorist attempt. Can we all now drop the pretense that we stopped fighting a war once Dick Cheney and George W. Bush left the White House?

The attempt by 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab follows the alleged murders in Ft. Hood, Texas by Islamist-inspired Major Nidal Hasan in November. Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don't seem to like Americans any better because we're closing down Guantanamo.

This increasing terror tempo makes the Obama Administration's reflexive impulse to treat terrorists like routine criminal suspects all the more worrisome. It immediately indicted Mr. Abdulmutallab on criminal charges of trying to destroy an aircraft, despite reports that he told officials he had ties to al Qaeda and had picked up his PETN explosive in Yemen. The charges mean the Nigerian can only be interrogated like any other defendant in a criminal case, subject to having a lawyer present and his Miranda rights read.
See also, Michelle Malkin, "Obama's Statement on the Christmas Day Jihadi Attack; Perfunctory, Hasty, and Bloodless." Added: Gateway Pundit, "3 Days Later… Obama Finally Comments on Attempted Detroit Terrorist Bombing."

RELATED: From ABC News, "
Abdulmutallab: More Like Me In Yemen: Accused Northwest Bomber Says More Bombers On the Way; Al Qaeda Promises to Hit Americans."

Michele Bachmann is Tea Party Favorite

Warner Todd Huston, my colleague at Right Wing News, has written an important analysis of the challenges for the tea party movement in 2010. See, "Tea Parties: The Biggest Mistake We’ll Make in 2010." I'm especially interested in this passage:

There was no unifying single goal of the Tea Partiers and no agency or party directing them. This means that the raw power behind them just might go untapped because there will be no way to translate the passion to power. Every transformative movement has been led by a single man and his small group of powerful adherents but the Tea Party movement has no such leader and might just find that its passion will dissipate until there is nothing left but disgruntled followers.

Don't get me wrong, I love the passion and was thrilled by the hundreds of Tea Parties with their millions of participants as it happened across this land in 2009. I was heartened that so many Americans were standing up to the anti-American left like that. But how do we channel that passion into something that can lead to positive change?

Without question powerful change needs is a leader. Unfortunately, unless a leader steps forward that can gather all those many Tea Party strings into a single strong rope, it is likely that the whole thing will just pass away and be left a footnote in history.
Actually, I've written about precisely this problem. I'm especially worried that the tea parties coalesce into a formal third-party movement to challenge the Demcrats and Republicans in the two-party system. That will kill the movement most of all. See my essay, "A Battle Within? Emerging Divisions in the Tea Party Movement." As I said there:


My hope is that the tea partiers can come to some accomodation with the most conservative leaders of the Republican Party, especially Sarah Palin. Our movement needs to work within the structural constraints of the single-member, winner-take-all system. This does not mean we need to compromise our constitutional principles of limited government and our moral foundations in divine historical exceptionalism. We do need vigorous but more centralized leadership, that's for sure, because the time is now for a conservative resurgence.
I've also suggested that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann stands with Governor Palin as the two most important potential leaders of the movement's possible merger with the base of the GOP. On that note, folks might take a look at this piece from the Los Angeles Times, "Michele Bachmann is Welcome at Tea Parties":

The Republican congresswoman from Minnesota has become a rare elected official to be embraced by the vocal small-government activists. And the GOP is taking note ....

In two terms in Congress, Bachmann has often used hyperbole and political theatrics to make headlines. And recently, she has achieved a rare feat: winning the trust of the anti-incumbent, small-government "tea party" activists who distrust most elected officials. And that puts Bachmann in a position of rising influence.

Republicans fear that the tea party conservatives will run their own candidates for office and drain votes from the GOP. In two recent polls, more voters had a high opinion of the tea party movement than of the Republican Party (and in one poll, higher than of the Democratic Party). The movement is blamed for tipping one House race already, a special election in upstate New York last month, to the Democrats.

Now, as the tea party crowd tries to organize and raise money for next year's Senate and House elections, Republican leaders are taking note of Bachmann's special rapport with the groups.

A new GOP website aimed at rebutting President Obama's jobs proposal, which features only a few lawmakers, includes Bachmann along with Republican leaders. And recently, the Republican National Committee put Bachmann on a conference call to discuss healthcare with a host of grass-root groups, including tea party activists.

"There's no question that congresswoman Bachmann fires up the base," said LeRoy Coleman, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "She's a powerful and galvanizing voice for this party."

That is not how all Republicans see Bachmann, 53, who once said that she was "hot for Jesus" and is quick to call Obama's governing plans "socialism." Some want to keep her at arm's length.

When Bachmann declared that she would ignore almost all questions on the census form, calling it an unconstitutional effort to collect personal data, three fellow House Republicans called her stance "illogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country."

When former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last year crossed party lines and endorsed Obama, he cited Bachmann's suggestion that Obama held "anti-American views," calling it "nonsense."

And in a survey this month by National Journal magazine, Republican members of Congress named Bachmann as being among the colleagues they would "most like to mute."

But her over-the-top comments have also turned Bachmann into a favorite of a conservative movement that believes the GOP has wandered from its traditional values. She is one of just two elected officials scheduled to speak at a national tea party convention in February. (The other represents Tennessee, where the convention will be held.)

"She can be derided by the political establishment and the media for being too abrasive. . . . But those people aren't trusted by members of the tea party," said Joe Wierzbicki, a spokesman for the California-based Tea Party Express. "Michele Bachmann is."

As an ambassador to the activists, Bachmann has tried to tamp down talk among tea party groups that they should form their own political party.

"I think this coalition will fit under a tent that's literally fashioned out of the parchment of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution," she said in an interview. "I think that what we'll do is emphasize the issues of commonality.

"The greater good right now is to defeat the move toward collectivism, as being advocated at a breakneck speed by the Obama administration," she said.

As a tea party confidant, Bachmann is in scarce company. Activists consider former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to be a leader, and TV show host Glenn Beck, but few elected officials.
RELATED: "Tea Partiers To Republicans: You Better Call For Full Repeal of Reform, Or Else." (Via Memeorandum.)

The System Worked? Janet Napolitano Flip-Flops on Terror Threat; President Obama, Still Mum on Thwarted Attack, Will Take Golf Break to Address Nation

At ABC News, "Terror in the Skies: Janet Napolitano Says U.S. Must Reexamine Terror-Watch and No-Fly Lists: Homeland Security Secretary, After Saying Screening System Worked, Concedes That Changes are Needed."


Meanwhile, President Barack Hussein Obama, extending his holiday vacation in Hawaii, has yet to address the nation on al Qaeda's latest threat to Americans. See, "Obamas Enjoy Private, Secure Hawaii Vacation," and "Obama "Likely" to Speak About Flight 253." As AWR Hawkins notes:

Somewhere in between the highly publicized rounds of golf and strolls on the beach that President Obama is currently taking while on vacation in Hawaii, someone in his inner circle needs to tell him there’s an important lesson to be learned from the failed terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. That lesson is that our posture towards terrorists (and terrorism) matters.

Let’s begin by agreeing that every successful terrorist attack against the United States doubles as a recruitment video for rabid jihadists, eager to spill the blood of infidels and strike terror in the heart of the “great Satan.”

We saw this after the Ft. Hood shootings on November 5, when militants Islamists took to American streets the very next day:

The message that should be taken from what took place yesterday at Ft. Hood … is that this war will be fought on American soil. That the blood of … American military personnel will run in the very streets they were raised in.

But when a terrorist attack is publicly thwarted, as was Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to ignite the incendiary material in his underwear on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, militants aren’t as quick to take to the streets. In fact, they hastily distance themselves from the incompetent bomber by denying his ties to al-Qaeda (although we already knew he was tied to al-Qaeda).

Citizens understand this. Thus when passengers smelled the smoke Abdulmutallab created while trying to carry out his attack, they jumped him, subdued him, and dragged him to the front of the plane. As Fox News reported on December 26, 2009:

Experts say an aggressive response from passengers has become the common response [to attempted terror attacks] since … 9/11.

But where is Obama’s “aggressive response”? What do average everyday citizens know that he doesn’t?

For starters, they know that the militant Islamists are bent on killing Westerners, and Americans in particular. And although as recently as Sunday, December 27, NPR had not retracted its position that Abdulmutallab only had “possible ties to terrorism,” citizens aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 had enough common sense to know that Abdulmutallab was attempting a terrorist act whether NPR-type thinkers could ascertain it or not.

More importantly, they knew his actions required an overpowering reaction.

And it's not as if the president couldn't mix recreation and official business (contra Marc Ambinder):

We should have a statement shortly. See The Hill, "Obama to make first remarks after Napolitano says system didn't work."

Meanwhile, Roy Edroso says "nothin' here ... just move along."

Napolitano Image Credit: IOWNTHEWORLD. Plus, from Ann Althouse, "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claims responsibility and brags 'We have prepared men who love to die'."