harikari.com

Let’s get one thing clear:  the failure of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to detonate a bomb on an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day was not only an extremely good piece of luck for the passengers and crew (who deserve credit for their quick thinking and courage), but also for those charged with security in the United States.  Why?  Because it highlighted flaws in the way in which we analyze and use intelligence information that has been collected on potentially dangerous individuals, and in our screening procedures at airports. 

Yet instead of celebrating our good luck we’ve been treated instead to unseemly hand wringing and finger pointing. The sources for most of this, not unexpectedly, are Republicans and the right-wing punditry.  President Obama has been criticized for his delay in making a statement and for not lending it more urgency by not, presumably, sounding sufficiently breathless.  And of course the GOP lost no time trying to make political hay out of it.  Former vice-president Cheney sounds more and more as though he can’t wait for an al-Qaida attack to succeed so that he can begin an endless round of I-told-you-so interviews on prime-time network TV.  He evidently blames Obama for not reacting in the same panicky mode as he did in the wake of 9/11.

The fact is this near miss is a gold mine of an opportunity to improve our intelligence collection and handling procedures, as well as to tighten security screening practices by, for example, speeding the more widespread introduction of newer technology such as full-body scans.

We seem to be missing a couple of essential lessons from this and past incidents.  The first is that no matter how much we may want it, the government cannot guarantee our safety.  I don’t happen to think that explosives sewn into underwear is necessarily a sign that al-Qaida has increased its effectiveness or ingenuity; quite the contrary.  But the fact remains our human protectors will always be fallible and the efficiency of our technology limited.  Big Daddy cannot always protect us.

The second lesson is that maybe Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was unwittingly correct when she said that the system worked. Part of the “system” has to be us, the ordinary members of the public.  Just as it was the action of passengers and crew that saved that flight over Detroit, and of others who forced the 9/11 hijackers of United Flight 93 to abort their mission to crash into the White House or the Capitol, so we must all realize that we, too, have a role to play in preventing terrorist attacks from succeeding. 

After all the next attack may not come on an airliner at five thousand feet but on a crowded city bus at ground zero.

Ronen Bergman wrote a column for the New York Times yesterday about the decline in suicide bombers (they’re running out of volunteers) and how  terrorists may soon train dogs to carry bombs that will be detonated by remote control.

Seven years after 9/11, it may well be that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of suicide terrorism and a shift toward advanced technologies that will enable jihadist bombers to carry out attacks and live to fight another day.

…

Avoiding suicide has become the major topic on Al Qaeda’s two main Web platforms for discussing the technological aspects of jihad, the forums Ekhlaas and Firdaws. “Those overpowering Satan’s seduction are few, and we sacrifice those few since they may win us Paradise,” read a posting on both sites this summer on the subject of “vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices.” It continued: “Yet, keeping them alive is beneficial for us, since every one of them is tantamount to an entire people. So we must find a way to save those lives and harness that zeal.”

…in a document posted last month at Maarek, the most sophisticated jihadist forum for discussing explosives manufacturing, a prolific technical expert calling himself Abu Abdullah al-Qurashi suggested training dogs to recognize American troops’ uniforms, then releasing other dogs carrying improvised explosive devices toward American soldiers so the bombs can be detonated from a safe distance. The author begins with the following words: “I.E.D. operations, but this time, with dogs. Yes, dogs! Brothers, some may find my words fantastic. But, believe me, we should better let a dog die, than let a Lion of Islam die!”

…

Another hurdle Western forces may face is that a new emphasis on remote execution would significantly change the profiles of the terrorists. The uneducated, enthusiastic youths from weak economic backgrounds who have formed the bulk of Al Qaeda’s followers — and whom our intelligence services have spent a decade identifying and neutralizing — will give way to a new type of activists: electricians and robotics experts will join the qualified chemists who make the explosives in order to carry out non-suicide attacks.

I expect we’ll soon be hearing about a sudden decline in the dog population in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I just finished reading Frank Rich’s column about how Hillary Clinton is starting to look a lot like Al Gore.  Not the new Al Gore that is confident in his views and public image – The old Al Gore.  The guy that was so careful about what he said during the 2000 campaign that his answers to questions were often very long and indirect.  I’ve noticed that about Hillary Clinton too, and I agree that if she continues to be evasive when she could answer a question with a short, direct statement, she could end up coming across as insincere and robotic like the old Al. Well except for the new giggle.

But here’s is a part of Rich’s column that really got my attention:

We are repeatedly told that with Barack Obama still trailing by double digits in most polls, the only way Mrs. Clinton could lose her tight hold on the nomination and, presumably, the White House would be if she were bruised in Iowa (where both John Edwards and Senator Obama remain competitive) or derailed by unforeseeable events like a scandal or a domestic terror attack.

I’ve seen this before in other columns by presumably intelligent pundits and I just don’t get it.

Why will another terrorist attack in America hurt Democratic candidates and help Republican candidates?
 
Who was our president on September 11, 2001?  You’d think it was Bill Clinton based on the crap you read in the papers, but it was George W. Bush. 

Who was handed a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US?”  You’d think it was a Democratic president, but it was George W. Bush, a Republican.
 
And if we are attacked again while he is still president are we to believe that the public would rally around the Republican candidates?
 
Is Rich right?  Are there millions of dumbasses out there who would support the man who would have twice failed to prevent a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  Would they then support another Republican candidate for president?

Why?

Today’s story from the Associated Press sounds oddly familiar…

The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the United States.

I guess there’s a chance that Bush might even read this NEA report.  In it he’ll find that:

The report lays out a range of dangers — from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a “persistent and evolving threat” to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.

…

The new report echoed statements made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, including the assessment of spy agencies that the country is in a “heightened threat environment.” It also provided new details on their thinking and concerns.
 
For instance, the report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida’s ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

But, the report quickly adds, analysts are concerned “that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge.”

So the message here is the same as it ever was:

When General David Petraeus reports to Congress and the American people in the fall he will, no doubt, put his best face on the short-term results of the increase of US combat forces in Iraq that has come to be known as the “surge”.  He will fail.

He will report some successes. Yes, some neighbourhoods in Baghdad are a bit safer now and even some of the local markets can function almost normally; yes, sectarian torture and murders in the city are down from the unsustainable levels of late 2006.  Yet even in Baghdad the mayhem continues, with car and suicide bombings, shootings and kidnappings; the dumped bodies, often mutilated, like so much refuse are still turning up in their dozens – every week. 

Elsewhere, the violence has escalated particularly in Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad where US forces are struggling to counter the increasing insurgent attacks amid rising casualties.   South of Baghdad 4000 US troops continue to search for two missing American soldiers who were snatched (dead or alive – we still don’t know for sure if the insurgents are simply yanking our chain by pretending they have live prisoners) in a daring raid that overwhelmed an inexplicably isolated patrol that should never have been so vulnerable.  The other five Americans and an Iraqi interpreter in the group were killed.

The insurgents continue to kidnap and kill Iraqis at will, sometimes using a favourite tactic of setting up a phoney checkpoint to stop traffic and then dragging their victims out of their vehicles.  Just today, it was reported that five British citizens were snatched in the very heart of Baghdad from the Iraqi Ministry of Finance by men wearing police uniforms and travelling in a convoy of nineteen vehicles, who then headed off in the direction of Sadr City.  This incident, at least, may have a happier ending than most such events since the Shiite militias have less of a motive and track record of murdering westerners than their Sunni counterparts in Iraq.

The fact is that the chaos continues unabated, barely slowed by the US troop surge; even a force surge to nearly 200,000 troops is too little too late. The insurgents have not relinquished the initiative.  They have repeatedly displayed their adaptability and tactical agility.  They match snipers with their own snipers; they counter the mobility and armoured firepower of the Coalition forces with increasingly effective and deadly improvised explosive devices; they mount daring raids and strikes showing a sophistication in planning and execution that American commanders cannot help but respect.  How long, one might ask, before they strike a truly devastating blow by attacking and overwhelming one of the larger platoon-sized US troop outposts? 

The Iraqis continue to despise the foreign occupation in their midst yet fear the withdrawal of American and Coalition forces for the greater evil that may follow.  Meanwhile, the Iraqi politicians who are being afforded more time to reach desperately needed compromises to unite their country – time bought mostly with American blood – continue, instead, to bicker and stonewall and plan their summer vacations.  The majority Shiites (aided by an increasingly independent Kurdish minority seeking virtual autonomy) have the power and the oil wealth and they give little sign of a willingness to share either with the minority Sunnis who used to control both.

The Republicans in Congress say that the Petraeus report in September will be critical for their continued support, as though a few months rather than years can make the critical difference.  Bush and the GOP have refused to understand that the issue has never been whether this or that tactic or strategy can salvage something worthwhile from this sorry mess.  It is whether our country believes that remaining in Iraq for five to ten years with the concomitant expenditure of blood and treasure is worth it.  Most Americans don’t think so now – and a great many of them never did. 

If the old bromide that it is countries that fight wars not armies is true, it’s equally so that this war cannot be pursued indefinitely with the support of just one political party and its base.  To delay making a drastic rather than cosmetic change in course now that will transition to what should be, primarily, a training and support mission combined with an orderly, phased withdrawal of major US combat forces in Iraq within a specific timeframe, is to put off the inevitable at a cost of yet more American lives.  The only thing about the surge on which Bush is right is that it has brought a spike in US casualties; it has not and will not bring about a fundamental change for the better on the ground. 

It is not good enough to insist that we must stay in Iraq because the presence of al-Qaida terrorists, whom we released in the aftermath of our invasion like some evil genie from the bottle, makes our departure in the foreseeable future impossible.  Nor is it sufficient to devise doomsday scenarios of the bloodbath that will follow our disengagement.  If the only reason to stay in Iraq is because things will get worse if we leave because we came in the first place, then maybe it’s a hard lesson we need to learn about the limits of military power – even of a superpower. 

In the end, the future of Iraq must be charted by the Iraqis themselves.  We can and should help them to make the best of it even as we plan, along with our allies and regional players such as Syria and Iran, for the worst should the violence worsen.

We blundered into Iraq in ignorance and hubris.  We need now to commence preparations for a more dignified, if chastened, departure.     

Opponents of setting a deadline for the withdrawal of major United States and Coalition combat forces from Iraq typically use some or all of the following arguments :

-         setting a deadline tells our enemies how long they need to hang on for victory – or, as neo-conservative William Kristol declares in an outraged tone every Sunday on ‘Fox News Sunday’ during the panel discussion: America’s “surrender day”;

-         we will have handed al-Qaida, who consider Iraq the major front in the war on America, total victory;

-         the al-Qaida terrorists will “follow” us home and we’ll be fighting them on our own streets instead of in Baghdad;

-         if we think the chaos and slaughter in Iraq is bad now, wait until we withdraw;

-         the meltdown in Iraq that’s sure to follow the withdrawal of US forces will engulf the Middle East in regional strife that we will be powerless to contain;

-         the US will lose its credibility and the world will no longer believe we have the stomach for war (that’s one of Vice-President Cheney’s favourites – he of the “other priorities” when he had an opportunity to serve during the Vietnam War);

-         the sacrifice of the troops who have fought and died or been seriously wounded will have been in vain;

-         we have a responsibility as the nation that invaded and occupied Iraq to see the mission through and leave Iraq, if not a shining beacon of democracy in the Mid-East, at least stable and functioning as a state.

To these points in turn I would respond thus:

-         setting a deadline above all else tells the world that we have no territorial designs on Iraq or on its resources, that there is a limit to our willingness to have our soldiers fight and die waiting for Iraq’s politicians to make the hard decisions that will make the country governable and able to function as a state, and that only Iraqis can solve their differences and come together as a nation; I would argue also that a phased, unhurried and orderly withdrawal from a country where we do not belong, that we should never have invaded in the first place, and which we have insisted all along we would not occupy indefinitely, is only “surrender” in the minds of ideologically blinded, muddleheaded political flacks such as Bill Kristol – oh, and the president and vice-president;

-         our invasion of Muslim Iraq with our largely Christian armed forces has furthered al-Qaida’s  aims and objectives in a way that few other actions by the US could have matched – so much so, that Osama bin Laden (OBL) must have thought his birthday had come early; it has bogged down and worn out the ground force component of our armed forces, divided us from traditional allies, inflamed anti-American  passions among Muslims throughout the Middle-East and stimulated recruitment for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups;  the last thing al-Qaida wants us to do is leave Iraq, thus they try to goad us into staying by pretending that they will have driven us out – a line that resonates with Bush/Cheney and the GOP base;

-         the “follow us home” line which we hear so often from right-wing pundits, Bush, Cheney and even some, like Senator Joe Lieberman who I used to think had a brain, is hardly worthy of response given its absurdity;  they never actually explain how that would happen (would they charter a plane or six, maybe? hijack a ship and wade ashore on Myrtle Beach, perhaps? persuade some hapless State Department consular officer somewhere to issue non-immigrant visas to them en masse?) or show any recognition that al-Qaida-in-Iraq is a franchise of the main OBL-led organization, is rooted in Iraq itself and will have its hands full fighting for survival after we leave in a country which is 80% Shiite and Kurdish and where even the Sunni minority doesn’t buy into al-Qaida’s evil brand of extremist, fundamentalist Islamic fascism; 

-         the violence in Iraq may, indeed, get worse before it gets better once we depart Iraq, but that may happen anyway whether we leave in a year or five years; in any event, I go back to the argument that it must be for Iraqis to decide their future and that the presence of American military occupiers is as much a catalyst for violence as a positive force to quell it;

-         as for the possibility that the chaos will engulf the Middle-East, all the more reason for us to plan now for such a scenario by engaging our allies in the region as well as in Europe and reaching out diplomatically to Iran and Syria, neither of whom have any national interest in a regional conflict, to contain and limit the conflagration if it occurs;

-         the old canard about the world believing we don’t have the stomach for sustaining a war if we quit Iraq is a  figment of Cheney’s fevered imagination; we will be engaged in Afghanistan for many years to come (if the people there don’t rise up against us for killing so many civilians in air strikes or in undisciplined panic attacks by our troops) if anyone wants proof of our staying power; as for our credibility, we will have regained much in the eyes of the world if we withdraw from Iraq since almost nobody thought it made sense to go there in the first place;

-         I happen to hold the belief that the sacrifices of the members of our armed forces whenever and wherever it has been made, have never been in vain or wasted when we, as a nation, set them a mission that we thought was in the national interest; sometimes our country has been wrong or misguided, but the faithful and dedicated service of our servicemen and women will never be forgotten and will never have been wasted.

Finally, if we break it, it’ll be ours to fix – to paraphrase then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s pre-invasion warning to Bush.  This is by far the most compelling reason to stay in Iraq until some sort of stability and order can be imposed.  After all, our actions precipitated the chaos that followed the overthrow of the established order, introduced terrorist groups into the country, the car bombings, the sectarian murder and mayhem. How can we just up and leave?  Even I, a certified member of the 30% Club who bitterly opposed the madness of an Iraq invasion from the beginning, have a problem with that one.  Isn’t it our responsibility to see this thing through even if it takes five or ten years for the sakes of the people of Iraq?

I can only reiterate my belief that it is in the long term interests of Iraq and its people that we leave as soon as possible.  Al-Qaida has stoked the violence in Iraq but once they are deprived of the unifying element of a foreign occupier, I believe the people – Sunnis as well as Shiite and Kurds – will turn on them and destroy them.  Only if the Shiite politicians in Baghdad myopically fail to share power and the nation’s oil wealth with the Sunni minority will the latter be tempted into an unholy alliance with al-Qaida.

The US and its coalition of the lukewarm-willing have overthrown a tyrant and afforded the Iraqis an opportunity for a new beginning.  Major US ground forces should stay no more than another year. Beyond that, we should leave dedicated anti-terrorist forces, trainers and air/naval assets to assist the Iraqi armed forces and provide whatever other economic, diplomatic and other help we can to a friendly government. It is past time, however, for Iraqis themselves to determine Iraq’s future without the security blanket of the US Army and Marine Corps.

Rudy Giuliani speaking to supporters in Manchester, New Hampshire on Tuesday:

“If any Republican is elected president — and I think, obviously, I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

…

[He] said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have,” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense (with a Democratic president), we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

Judging from Giuliani’s remarks, you’d think that it was a Democratic President vacationing in Texas when he was handed a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

A confluence of technologies, from the Internet to biotechnology, is making it easier and easier for far-flung hatred to assume organized form, intersect with weapons technology and constitute unprecedently potent terrorism. This growing lethality of hatred may be the biggest long-term problem we face.

Here’s a response favored by many left-of-center and right-of-center thinkers. Address the “demand side” — the desire to obtain and use nuclear and biological weapons — by reducing the number of people who hate the U.S. and the West. Address the “supply side” by improving arms control.

Neocons take the opposite tack: degrade the arms control infrastructure (the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, etc.) and antagonize the masses.

You can even do both at once! President Bush undermined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by agreeing to give nuclear technology to India, a nonsignatory. This ratcheted up anti-Americanism in Pakistan — a Muslim nation with nukes, jihadist recruiters and an unstable government.

From a column in today’s New York Times by Robert Wright titled “The Neocon Paradox.” (Also available here.)

The deployment of additional forces to Baghdad as part of the escalation of the United States war effort in Iraq had hardly started when right-wing pundits and politicians were lauding what they said were positive signs.  These were the same people who had admonished sceptics that early judgements about the success or failure of the surge would be unfair.  Evidently, that rule only applied if the sectarian body count in Baghdad failed to diminish. 

So we have been treated to dour Brit Hume and the yet-to-to-be-right-about-anything William Kristol extolling the surge’s virtues and telling us with almost giddy delight (well okay calling Hume “giddy” might be an exaggeration)  that it’s already working.  Even Senator John McCain, complete with body armour, circling Apache helicopters and about a hundred heavily armed American soldier-bodyguards, ventures into a Baghdad market not far from the Green Zone and proclaims that we’re just not getting the good news back home. 

McCain at least should know better.  It’s in the nature of military men that they will accentuate the positive but the colonels and generals running this operation need to take a deep breath.  Too many times in the past we’ve heard premature pronouncements about progress in Iraq from the brass only to have reality bite them on the arse.  In this case too, there are plenty of reasons to be cautious. 

It was noticeable that the violence in Baghdad began to tamp down even before a significant increase of American and Iraqi soldiers had entered the city’s neighbourhoods.  The militias and death squads were notable mostly for their absence. In fact, US troops have not encountered significant resistance to date.  What this suggests is that the Shiite militias at least have pulled back in anticipation and to evaluate the effects of the surge. Whether it is to find ways to counteract it at the appropriate time or simply wait it out we don’t know.     

The ever-adaptable Sunni insurgents on the other hand simply did what guerrillas do and moved elsewhere. (Did we actually think that they or the Shiite militias would take on the well trained, well-equipped American forces toe-to-toe?).  Violence elsewhere in Iraq has not decreased; in fact in neighbouring provinces, such as Diyala, sectarian strife has actually escalated, with deadly suicide bombings such as the one in Tal Afar which claimed over 150 mostly Shiite lives. This was followed by a murderous rampage of vengeful Shiites including police who shot almost 50 Sunni civilians execution-style. Tal Afar has been repeatedly touted as an Iraqi success story by Bush. 

The fact is that it is way too early to draw any conclusions at all about the counter-insurgency strategy of General David Petraeus.  If we really intend to see this thing through it will be years not weeks or months before we find out if our efforts have been in vain or not. One predictable problem, however, is that a US force of 160,000 is simply insufficient to provide security everywhere and, as critics have pointed out, we are increasingly engaged in a game of wackamo.  And could somebody please tell me why, if the Iraqi army is supposed to be taking the lead in this new security operation, twice as many American soldiers as Iraqis were killed in the month of March?

One final thought.  The New York Times today informs us that American intelligence and counter-terrorism officials are surprised and dismayed by the resiliency of al-Qaida, and the speed with which its leadership has reconstituted.  The pre-9/11 senior command which was eviscerated in the west’s counter-terrorism response has now been replaced. The breather that we allowed al-Qaida following the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the organization’s ability to regroup in its Pakistan sanctuaries, has permitted it the opportunity to become reinvigorated and resurgent. 

US experts now anticipate a new generation of savvy al-Qaida fighters more able and battle-hardened than their predecessors to emerge as the next generation leaders.  And from which battleground will they have learned their craft? Iraq, where else?  How nice of us to have provided such a superb training ground.

Earlier this month the United States State Department released its annual global survey of human rights practices.  In addition to the usual suspects of perennial offenders such as Iran, North Korea, Russia, Myanmar, Egypt and Sudan, the report had harsh words for US allies such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan.  The criticisms included poor treatment of detainees such as beatings, electric shock, sexual assault and other methods of torture; it rightly condemned other governmental abuses such as poor prison conditions, official impunity, prolonged pre-trial detention and extra-judicial arrests. 

Fast-forward to this past week when we hear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a senior deputy to Osama bin Laden and alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon has confessed his role in multiple attacks by al-Qaida on US and western targets during a recent “Combatant Status Review Tribunal” hearing at the US Navy facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  KSM was arrested in Pakistan in March 2003 and handed over to the Americans. 

Evidently it took American authorities four years to finally decide to initiate the process of formally declaring him an “enemy combatant”.  So where the heck has he been for four years?  Hanging out in one or more secret CIA-run prisons, possibly in facilities that were once used by the old Soviet Union or its former Warsaw Pact allies, being subjected to harsh interrogation methods that may well rise to the level of torture, and kept out of sight of the International Red Cross.  All of this at the hands of a country that issues an annual survey of human rights practices around the world.  The irony is enough to leave you gobsmacked, as the Brits might say.

And there’s more.  Now that we have presumably wrung all the information out of him that is to be had, KSM’s fate is to be tried eventually before a US military commission for war crimes with rules of evidence that render it not much better than a kangaroo court.  For example, coerced evidence can be introduced by the prosecution; yet KSM may not get to see all the evidence or information that can be used against him if it is classified.   And he is denied habeas corpus rights.

These clumsy judicial instruments devised by the Bush administration when combined with secret detentions and the employment of harsh interrogation methods that likely violate international norms and conventions, have served to undermine our claim to the moral high ground in our “war on terror”.  Rather than a celebration of the differences between ourselves and al-Qaida, the manner in which the Bush administration has pursued its campaign against the terrorists has muddied the water in a way many of us would simply not have thought possible before September 11^th 2001.  In doing so we have managed the feat of elevating the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the status of jihadist warrior, rather than to treat him simply as the murderous thug he almost assuredly is, no matter how overblown his claims to be a terrorist mastermind.

Had we treated KSM like a terrorist criminal and prosecuted him in our criminal justice system or, at least, subjected him to something resembling a fair and impartial trial, his detention and (given his video confessions and other legally obtained evidence) conviction would truly have been something to celebrate.  Instead, during a month in which we preach to the world that its human rights practices leave much room for improvement, the face of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an uncomfortable reminder of how far our own nation has fallen from grace in the last six years.