We should be careful about condemning the Obama administration for the failure of Dutch officials to screen the Nigerian airplane bomber out of the Christmas Day flight to Detroit. Were there recriminations against George Bush, the Bush White House, the CIA, or the TSA when Richard Reid attempted to blow up a jetliner in 2002? No. Should there have been? No.
Therefore there should be no recriminations against the Obama administration for the Christmas Day incident. Because the bombing attempt was foiled by American passengers and crew, it was not an important terrorist attack. That is the nature of failed bomb attacks.
Can the CIA, TSA, and other government agencies be expected to detect every attempted terrorist attack—even relatively small ones like a bomb attack on a single jetliner—and to foil them before any bad guys get to the airport or get onto an airliner? No. It is not pure bureaucratic incompetence that a single bomber got through. The defensive sieve is not fine enough and will never be fine enough to stop every single attack.
This is the metaphysical nature of trying to prevent terrorist attacks in a continental nation that legally accepts tens of millions of international visitors and millions of alien residents and carries a large fraction of them on 2000–5000 jet airliner flights per day. People who complain about the less than 100% success of the security system are people who have never pondered the numbers—the scale—of the task.
The defensive sieve was, however, good enough in both Reid's and the underwear bomber's cases—with a name as unpronounceable to the American tongue as "Abdulmutallab," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will always be known as the "underwear bomber," which is in itself is a retaliatory assault against the dignity of Islam—to cause them to use highly stable and highly compact explosives that would make it through routine airport screening and emit no odd odors detectable to the human nose. Because high performance explosives strong enough to bring down a jetliner while being concealable in shoes or underwear pretty much limit the terrorists to a technology that is hard to ignite, both bomb attempts failed on the plane because the terrorist could not ignite the explosives.
These two bombing attempts are, therefore, a partial success for the airport screening system.
And what should a president rushing back to the White House from his Christmas vacation do? The US is already deeply involved in anti-terrorist operations in Yemen, as we are all throughout the Muslim World. The US already has significant levels of cooperation from the shell government of Yemen (Yemen is not, in the strictest sense, a nation with a government) and from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Back in 2002, US special forces and CIA black ops teams entered Yemen for recon and combat missions. And there was one well-publicized Predator drone kill of top al Qaeda operatives right away. The US has been operating inside Yemen for more than seven years.
The Christmas Day underwear bombing attempt does not rise to the level of importance, or even a quarter of the level of importance, of the attack in Afghanistan that occurred just before Christmas at a forward operating base in Khost. That attack was the most important terrorist attack in Afghanistan since the assassination of Northern Alliance Leader Ahmed Shah Massoud immediately after September 11. A suicide bomber used his connection as an informant to the CIA to kill seven CIA officers—temporarily disabling all intelligence operations throughout Khost Province. It was a very bad day for the CIA, the bloodiest day in CIA history since Vietnam.
So why are so many Americans—not just conservatives, but many centrists—so unhappy with the Obama administration over the whole underwear bomber issue? This is not primarily a partisan issue. It cuts across party lines.
Virtually no one objected to the fact that Richard Reid got through security. Virtually no one objected to the fact that he was tried as an ordinary criminal in federal court. And only a few objected to the fact that Richard Reid was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, when he's a guy who so obviously should never be let loose under any circumstances ever again. Why is the Obama administration getting so much flak when the Bush administration didn't, for doing exactly the same thing? Why is the flak so sustained?
People returning from their holidays are just starting to get revved up about it. The other night, listening to the tenor of the recriminations, I finally got it.
For Americans who aren't hard-core leftists focused solely on the government's conquest of every aspect of private life, the War on Terrorism is still on. And they're right, it's still on. The threat from Islamic terrorists continues and has not been attenuated since approximately 2004. (It was greatly attenuated from September 12, 2001, until it reached the current, reduced level approximately five to seven years ago.)
The mishandling of terrorism signatures in the underwear bomber's background and the errors by US intelligence services is similar (but at a reduced level of mishandling) to the kinds of mishandling that occurred prior to the September 11 attacks. Why didn't the CIA or TSA notify US Immigration of the letter from the Nigerian man's father prior to issuing a visa? Why didn't the CIA or TSA or INS notify Dutch authorities of the Nigerian's identity? Why didn't Dutch authorities know about the Nigerian man's recent visits to Yemen? And why didn't Dutch authorities look at the Nigerian's behavior—I understand that he bought a one-way ticket—and pull him aside for the standard 20 questions from MP5-brandishing police (a standard policy I was treated to when I flew standby out of Amsterdam in 1995)?
But the mishandling of the intelligence data isn't what steams the two thirds of America that is still interested in the global war on terrorism. It's the attitude of the Obama administration that does. But what behavior from the Obama administration has set off the vast majority of the American people? How is it that they've decided that the Obama administration has the wrong attitude about national defense?
There was little or no negative response in the polls when Obama went to Cairo and gave his anti-American, anti-Western apology speech. The only people who were outraged were those who already knew and hated President Obama well.
There was little or no negative response in the polls when Obama flagrantly procrastinated on the decision to authorize more troops for Afghanistan. The only people who were outraged were those who already knew and hated President Obama well. They saw the procrastination for what it was: a complete and total lack of interest in defending the United States.
Initially, there was only modest negative response in the polls when the Obama administration decided to bring the September 11 conspirators to the US for trial as ordinary criminals. The only people who were outraged were those who already knew and hated President Obama well. They saw the trials for what they were: a proceeding intended to create a court record of the "war crimes" of the Bush administration so that international "war crimes" tribunals could convict the entire Bush administration in absentia, making it impossible for them to travel internationally without diplomatic immunity.
Creating a court record for alleged US misconduct in the War on Terrorism seems like a far-out goal, totally removed from reality, lacking any real-world practical purpose. So it's hard to accept the reality that this is, indeed, the purpose of Attorney General Eric Holder's criminal trial in Federal Court for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators.
A Dutch inquiry just found that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and a British commission is currently in the thick of litigating the legality of the war in Iraq. In Britain and the Netherlands—two of the best, most rational political systems of Europe—these crazy legal proceedings against the invasion of Iraq are still going on. Do you think that there is any chance that two even crazier organizations—the UN World Court or Europe's war crimes commission in the Hague—might hear criminal cases against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all of their advisors, lawyers, and CIA appointees for the "torture" of KSM and the other 9/11 conspirators? Do you think there is any chance that they would use the court record from this year's federal trial in New York City as the basis for prosecuting and convicting dozens of Bush administration officials of "war crimes" nine or ten years after the fact? Yes. There is a 100% chance.
Initial claims from the manifestly incompetent "Homeland Security Secretary" that "the system worked" are typical of the bureaucratic CYA, nothing-is-real mindset. But it is visceral opposition by two thirds of America against the court proceedings against the September 11 conspirators that is now taking its toll.
Among all the objections to the Obama administration's reaction to the underwear bomber, the one that comes up first or is pressed most insistently and most passionately, is the issue of putting the 23-year-old Nigerian terrorist on trial as an ordinary criminal.
Unlike Richard Reid, the underwear bomber is not a lone-wolf terrorist. He's an al-Qaeda operative. This fact—which I take to be a mere detail—is not considered to be so by two thirds of the American people. I consider it to be a detail because I know that America is at war with all Islamic terrorists. But following the leadership of George Bush, patriotic Americans are at war only with al Qaeda.
As the trial of the September 11 conspirators nears and the trial of the Nigerian underwear bomber nears, the focus on the war against al Qaeda—a focus that the two thirds of the American people who are truly patriotic have not lost over the past 8-1/2 years—will come into play. These patriotic Americans will not stand for the Obama administration's attitude that American isn't worth defending. As these trials near, these patriotic Americans will figure out that President Obama has a philosophical, hidebound, and absolute lack of interest in defending America. They will finally see through the soft-focus affection many of them still have for America's first black president.
Arrests and criminal trials for al Qaeda instead of war—that will be end of the Obama administration faster than all of the abominable "stimulus packages," "health care reform," and "cap and trade" power grabs he is backing on Capitol Hill.
SOURCE
Therefore there should be no recriminations against the Obama administration for the Christmas Day incident. Because the bombing attempt was foiled by American passengers and crew, it was not an important terrorist attack. That is the nature of failed bomb attacks.
Can the CIA, TSA, and other government agencies be expected to detect every attempted terrorist attack—even relatively small ones like a bomb attack on a single jetliner—and to foil them before any bad guys get to the airport or get onto an airliner? No. It is not pure bureaucratic incompetence that a single bomber got through. The defensive sieve is not fine enough and will never be fine enough to stop every single attack.
This is the metaphysical nature of trying to prevent terrorist attacks in a continental nation that legally accepts tens of millions of international visitors and millions of alien residents and carries a large fraction of them on 2000–5000 jet airliner flights per day. People who complain about the less than 100% success of the security system are people who have never pondered the numbers—the scale—of the task.
The defensive sieve was, however, good enough in both Reid's and the underwear bomber's cases—with a name as unpronounceable to the American tongue as "Abdulmutallab," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will always be known as the "underwear bomber," which is in itself is a retaliatory assault against the dignity of Islam—to cause them to use highly stable and highly compact explosives that would make it through routine airport screening and emit no odd odors detectable to the human nose. Because high performance explosives strong enough to bring down a jetliner while being concealable in shoes or underwear pretty much limit the terrorists to a technology that is hard to ignite, both bomb attempts failed on the plane because the terrorist could not ignite the explosives.
These two bombing attempts are, therefore, a partial success for the airport screening system.
And what should a president rushing back to the White House from his Christmas vacation do? The US is already deeply involved in anti-terrorist operations in Yemen, as we are all throughout the Muslim World. The US already has significant levels of cooperation from the shell government of Yemen (Yemen is not, in the strictest sense, a nation with a government) and from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Back in 2002, US special forces and CIA black ops teams entered Yemen for recon and combat missions. And there was one well-publicized Predator drone kill of top al Qaeda operatives right away. The US has been operating inside Yemen for more than seven years.
The Christmas Day underwear bombing attempt does not rise to the level of importance, or even a quarter of the level of importance, of the attack in Afghanistan that occurred just before Christmas at a forward operating base in Khost. That attack was the most important terrorist attack in Afghanistan since the assassination of Northern Alliance Leader Ahmed Shah Massoud immediately after September 11. A suicide bomber used his connection as an informant to the CIA to kill seven CIA officers—temporarily disabling all intelligence operations throughout Khost Province. It was a very bad day for the CIA, the bloodiest day in CIA history since Vietnam.
So why are so many Americans—not just conservatives, but many centrists—so unhappy with the Obama administration over the whole underwear bomber issue? This is not primarily a partisan issue. It cuts across party lines.
Virtually no one objected to the fact that Richard Reid got through security. Virtually no one objected to the fact that he was tried as an ordinary criminal in federal court. And only a few objected to the fact that Richard Reid was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, when he's a guy who so obviously should never be let loose under any circumstances ever again. Why is the Obama administration getting so much flak when the Bush administration didn't, for doing exactly the same thing? Why is the flak so sustained?
People returning from their holidays are just starting to get revved up about it. The other night, listening to the tenor of the recriminations, I finally got it.
For Americans who aren't hard-core leftists focused solely on the government's conquest of every aspect of private life, the War on Terrorism is still on. And they're right, it's still on. The threat from Islamic terrorists continues and has not been attenuated since approximately 2004. (It was greatly attenuated from September 12, 2001, until it reached the current, reduced level approximately five to seven years ago.)
The mishandling of terrorism signatures in the underwear bomber's background and the errors by US intelligence services is similar (but at a reduced level of mishandling) to the kinds of mishandling that occurred prior to the September 11 attacks. Why didn't the CIA or TSA notify US Immigration of the letter from the Nigerian man's father prior to issuing a visa? Why didn't the CIA or TSA or INS notify Dutch authorities of the Nigerian's identity? Why didn't Dutch authorities know about the Nigerian man's recent visits to Yemen? And why didn't Dutch authorities look at the Nigerian's behavior—I understand that he bought a one-way ticket—and pull him aside for the standard 20 questions from MP5-brandishing police (a standard policy I was treated to when I flew standby out of Amsterdam in 1995)?
But the mishandling of the intelligence data isn't what steams the two thirds of America that is still interested in the global war on terrorism. It's the attitude of the Obama administration that does. But what behavior from the Obama administration has set off the vast majority of the American people? How is it that they've decided that the Obama administration has the wrong attitude about national defense?
There was little or no negative response in the polls when Obama went to Cairo and gave his anti-American, anti-Western apology speech. The only people who were outraged were those who already knew and hated President Obama well.
There was little or no negative response in the polls when Obama flagrantly procrastinated on the decision to authorize more troops for Afghanistan. The only people who were outraged were those who already knew and hated President Obama well. They saw the procrastination for what it was: a complete and total lack of interest in defending the United States.
Initially, there was only modest negative response in the polls when the Obama administration decided to bring the September 11 conspirators to the US for trial as ordinary criminals. The only people who were outraged were those who already knew and hated President Obama well. They saw the trials for what they were: a proceeding intended to create a court record of the "war crimes" of the Bush administration so that international "war crimes" tribunals could convict the entire Bush administration in absentia, making it impossible for them to travel internationally without diplomatic immunity.
Creating a court record for alleged US misconduct in the War on Terrorism seems like a far-out goal, totally removed from reality, lacking any real-world practical purpose. So it's hard to accept the reality that this is, indeed, the purpose of Attorney General Eric Holder's criminal trial in Federal Court for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators.
A Dutch inquiry just found that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and a British commission is currently in the thick of litigating the legality of the war in Iraq. In Britain and the Netherlands—two of the best, most rational political systems of Europe—these crazy legal proceedings against the invasion of Iraq are still going on. Do you think that there is any chance that two even crazier organizations—the UN World Court or Europe's war crimes commission in the Hague—might hear criminal cases against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all of their advisors, lawyers, and CIA appointees for the "torture" of KSM and the other 9/11 conspirators? Do you think there is any chance that they would use the court record from this year's federal trial in New York City as the basis for prosecuting and convicting dozens of Bush administration officials of "war crimes" nine or ten years after the fact? Yes. There is a 100% chance.
Initial claims from the manifestly incompetent "Homeland Security Secretary" that "the system worked" are typical of the bureaucratic CYA, nothing-is-real mindset. But it is visceral opposition by two thirds of America against the court proceedings against the September 11 conspirators that is now taking its toll.
Among all the objections to the Obama administration's reaction to the underwear bomber, the one that comes up first or is pressed most insistently and most passionately, is the issue of putting the 23-year-old Nigerian terrorist on trial as an ordinary criminal.
Unlike Richard Reid, the underwear bomber is not a lone-wolf terrorist. He's an al-Qaeda operative. This fact—which I take to be a mere detail—is not considered to be so by two thirds of the American people. I consider it to be a detail because I know that America is at war with all Islamic terrorists. But following the leadership of George Bush, patriotic Americans are at war only with al Qaeda.
As the trial of the September 11 conspirators nears and the trial of the Nigerian underwear bomber nears, the focus on the war against al Qaeda—a focus that the two thirds of the American people who are truly patriotic have not lost over the past 8-1/2 years—will come into play. These patriotic Americans will not stand for the Obama administration's attitude that American isn't worth defending. As these trials near, these patriotic Americans will figure out that President Obama has a philosophical, hidebound, and absolute lack of interest in defending America. They will finally see through the soft-focus affection many of them still have for America's first black president.
Arrests and criminal trials for al Qaeda instead of war—that will be end of the Obama administration faster than all of the abominable "stimulus packages," "health care reform," and "cap and trade" power grabs he is backing on Capitol Hill.
SOURCE
0 comments:
Post a Comment