StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Just an update on the on-going "hub-bub" over surveillance and monitoring of the media by the government.

Pentagon Moves Toward Monitoring Media
The U.S. command in Baghdad is seeking bidders for a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for monitoring the tone of Iraq news stories filed by U.S. and foreign media.

Proposals, due Sept. 6, ask companies to show how they’ll "provide continuous monitoring and near-real time reporting of Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. media," according to the solicitation issued last week…

…The winner of the contract will likely also be required to develop an Arabic version of the multinational force’s web site…

…The military last year was criticized for a public relations in Iraq that included hiring a consulting firm that paid Iraqi news media to carry news stories written by American troops.

Pentagon officials have defended the program as a necessary tool in the war on terror. But critics have said it contradicts American values of freedom of the press.

Let’s hear it folks!  What do you all (y’all) think?

Current Affairs, National Security Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

The question is reliance on technology to solve the issues of counterterrorism.  It could be actually that the question should be the reliance on "what" technology instead.  To an extent, the structure and process of the government selection and filtering process favors the large companies and not the smaller innovative companies.  I can think of three of which I am familiar (companies) that have solutions that could provide solutions if given the opportunity.  But it is not that simple.

Are we then falling into a Technology trap? The question could well be "Is our national obsession with technology causing us to misdirect our terrorism-fighting efforts?"

Technology has become so intertwined with homeland security it would be difficult to name a security program in which technology isn’t the main driver or an important underpinning.

From sensors designed to detect explosives to sophisticated data analysis software, technology is considered a national advantage in the war on terrorism. This should hardly be a surprise given America’s techno-centric orientation and historical leadership in innovation.

The questions are being asked, "What’s the optimum mix of technology and old-fashioned, feet-on-the-street human intelligence? What is the best way to balance the interests of robust national security and civil liberties?" and "To what extent can technology truly help?" [in fighting terrorists].

Even more so, "terrorists do not depend on sophisticated technology for many types of attacks, noting suicide bombers’ ability to transport explosives without drawing attention to themselves and detonate them with relatively simple technology. That simplicity coupled with the intellectual sophistication of university-educated terrorist leaders makes thwarting terrorism through technology a difficult task, he added.

“It’s going to be very hard for us to find a technology…that will neutralize the threat…”

The answers lie beyond reliance on technology to address or neutralize the threat of terrorism, and it probably lies beyond even the use of the "right" technology.  But then you have to deal with the very real problem of when technology is not implemented as intended.

That is what we may be seeing now in the premature (but late) implementation of the Transportation Workers Identity Card (TWIC).

TWIC effectiveness may be compromised
The Transportation Security Administration’s newly disclosed plan to begin implementation of the Transportation Workers Identification Credential without requiring card readers is running into opposition from a biometric industry representative.

“This is half a TWIC—a glorified Flash Pass,” Walter Hamilton, chairman of the International Biometric Industry Association non-profit trade association, said today. “I’m concerned that the TWIC will not be used in the way it was intended.”

The credential is a card with a microprocessor that uses radio frequency to convey information wirelessly to a card reader. The communication with the reader enables the card to be read and the information verified…

… The FIPS 201 standard presents difficulties in comparison to the card technologies deployed in the TWIC prototype phases, according to Hamilton and others. For one thing, FIPS 201 does not include software to permit secure contactless reading of the biometric information on the proposed TWIC card, Hamilton said. With contactless interfaces, the card can be read wirelessly at a distance. Contact interfaces, such as those used for most ATM cards, require the cards to be inserted into a reader to be read.

“There is no contactless access to the biometrics on the card,” Hamilton said. “Without that, the promise of the TWIC is unfulfilled. You have to be able to bind the person to the credential.” Without the biometric verification, there is nothing to stop people from trading and sharing TWIC cards and assuming false identities, he said…

Seems like something is wrong here.  Like trouble IMO.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions, Technology Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Sorry I’ve not posted for a few days, but "my day job" had me consumed with ‘playing chicken with a Mack truck" and I simply had no free time.

Anyway, the first anniversary of Katrina (and then Rita) has come; the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11th are soon.  With all of the money spent on homeland security, are we prepared or do we simply want to believe that we are better prepared than we were?

Thanks to my subscription to the Homeland Security Daily Newswire we have this:

9/11, Katrina anniversaries highlight radio interoperability problems

Perhaps it is a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Have emergency responders failed to develop integrated emergency radio systems? Roger that. The anniversaries of the 9/11 attack and Hurricane Katrina bring the issue to bear. Here is how the AP described a problem that is becoming all too common across the homeland security sector: "While the hurricane debacle brought new immediacy, action has remained scarce beyond the creation of more joint panels and task forces that, like their predecessors, have been bogged down by disagreement over how to do it, how to pay for it, and the frictions that typically arise whenever multiple arms of government ‘work together.’" That the reporter chose to put ‘work together’ in quotes says a lot in and of itself.

Take the case of Philadelphia. Brotherly love has done nothing for the city’s emergency radio systems. "The police and fire emergency radio communication systems are unreliable on the underground sections of the city subway. The ambulance dispatching system does not allow city rescue crews to communicate directly with hospitals," reports the New York Times. Consider also the case of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Reports the Tulsa World: "The state is spending $28 million to extend an 800-megahertz radio signal linking first-responders across the state. While the radio channel will cover a large swath of Oklahoma, key cities such as Broken Arrow and Oklahoma City would be dead to the signal without a frequency patch."

What is to be done? DHS already offers grants through the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM), but the program has little oversight or coordinating authority. Jim Carafano of the Heritage Foundation offers a few suggestions, neatly summarized for us by Christian Beckner of the must-read Homeland Security Watch blog:

1. Put first things first
2. Open emergency management frequencies as dual-use spectrum
3. Don’t send money; set standards
4. Buy services, not infrastructure or technology

Despite Steps, Disaster Planning Still Shows Gaps
[Alternate source for the article]
…In New Orleans, extraordinary steps have been taken to care for the disabled, the elderly and tens of thousands of others without cars if another major hurricane arrives. In New York, city officials say, up to three million people could be evacuated from coastal areas and 600,000 accommodated in shelters stocked with food and supplies.

But in large chunks of the country, far more limited progress has been made to prepare for catastrophe, a recent federal assessment concluded. The Department of Homeland Security, FEMA’s parent agency, rated only 27 percent of the states and 10 percent of the cities evaluated as adequately prepared “to cope with a catastrophic event.” Dallas, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City and Philadelphia were among the low scorers…

Interoperable communications, Talking Through Disasters: The Federal Role in Emergency Communications

From September 11, 2001, to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Congress and the Bush Administration have wrestled with the challenge of improving emergency management communications. An unprecedented federal spending spree has yielded scant progress, however, and Washington’s programs should be scrapped. It is unlikely that they will ever be able to achieve, either efficiently or effectively, the goal of cre­ating the kind of emergency communication systems the nation needs to respond to national disasters.

The right approach would include adhering to a set of policies that promote effective public–private sharing of the emergency management electromagnetic spec­trum, create a national capability to deploy a wide-area emergency management communications network for catastrophic disasters, and establish coherent national leadership for emergency response communications.

What Is Being Done?

In the rush to enhance emergency management communications after 9/11, the government’s solu­tion has been to throw money at the problem, mostly through a variety of federal grants.[1] The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM), but SAFECOM has very limited author­ity either to oversee and coordinate federal, regional, and state efforts or to direct funding.

SAFECOM was an E-government project initiated by the Office of Management and Budget before the department was created.[2] By some estimates, SAFE­COM programs will require over 20 years and $40 billion to achieve a national interoperable emer­gency communications system.[3] Likewise, a pro­posed National Integrated Network that would bring together federal law enforcement agents from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Treasury into a single wireless infrastructure may take 15 years to build with a price tag esti­mated at up to $10 billion.[4]

In short, the federal government is spending a great deal of money on projects that are not well-coordinated.

Throwing money at the problem is a troubling strategy. The government’s record with information technology acquisition and implementation is poor. Typically, programs lack clear requirements, as well as strong executive leadership, and underestimate the time, money, and human capital necessary to achieve what is needed. Federal efforts to promote more effective emergency management communica­tions show little promise of doing better…

If you feel better after reading this, well…I don’t.  Communications interoperability, as will as systems compatibility remain as one of the primary vulnerabilities faced by the U.S.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Port security and the detection of nuclear weapons has been a subject of interest both here and elsewhere.  Congress and Port Security and Port Security and Nukes.

Also, the DHS recently awarded contracts to three companies, Raytheon Company – Integrated Defense Systems, Thermo Electron Corporation, and Canberra Industries, Inc. have been awarded contracts with one base year and four one-year options.  The contracts include cost-plus award fee options to cover engineering and development activity as well as firm fixed price options for hardware purchases. The priority for the base year is development and testing of the fixed radiation detection portal that will become the standard installation for screening cargo containers and truck traffic.

But now for the "fun."  While the government process "moves" ahead (ready in 2011), an ad-hoc group of scientists have apparently developed a working radiation detector.  From the Homeland Security Daily Newswire we find this:

Tinkering is a fine scientific tradition. Often a commercial product can not reach its potential until those who have to use it on a daily basis have the chance to figure out how to make it work best on the ground. What if the tinkerers come up with the product themselves, however? It is happening right now in San Francisco with a group of volunteers led by physicist and Sandia Lab weapons subcontractor Stanley Glaros that claims to have built a boat-mounted radiation scanner for less than $12,000 per unit using off-the-shelf parts. Compare this to the $300,000 to $600,000 cost of monitors DHS recently ordered from Raytheon, Thermo Electron, and Canberra Industries, and one can see that the spirit of Edison is alive and well.

Detecting radiological threats is a tricky business. Typically, a container is either pushed through a radiation portal monitor, or a straddle carrier drives over it. Both systems, however, contain a certain danger: once a nuclear or radiological device is available to be tested, it is also in a prime position to be detonated, destroying or rendering inoperable the port and its environs. Better to bring the detector to the boat while its it still far enough away that the effects of a premature explosion can be mitigated and contained. A boat-mounted detector sounds ideal, especially if the price is right.

The Glaros group’s detector uses the same technology–a four inch by four inch by sixteen inch sodium iodide crystal–already deployed in many radiation monitors, including the new advanced spectroscopic portals DHS is now purchasing. "The crystal is like Frodo’s sword," explained a Glaros collaborator, referring to a Lord of the Rings hero. "It starts to glow when the bad stuff’s around, kind of a blue fluorescence." According to Wired magazine, "the crystal’s blue glow is picked up by an Ortec Digibase photo-multiplier, collected into dynodes, converted to a signal and then run through a multichannel analyzer to identify radiological signatures, which are then fed to a laptop where a Maestro 32 computer program compares them against an isotope database."

With their scanner mounted on a borrowed San Francisco Police Department patrol boat, Glaros and his team of volunteers have been trolling San Francisco Bay shipping lanes for eight months. They plan to publish their findings soon in the Review of Scientific Instruments.

Also appearing in Wired News:

• According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there were 650 cases of illicit trafficking of nuclear and radiological materials worldwide between 1993 and 2004. As of February, 75 percent of U.S. ports had no ability to screen for nuclear weapons and only 5 percent of the 11 million containers were inspected at all, DHS records show.

• The freelancers began by running a San Francisco Police Department patrol boat around local shipping lanes while using a common 1-inch-diameter Ranger sodium iodide detector to measure the background radiation at 23 separate locations, from the San Francisco Lightship Buoy down into the Oakland container docks and the Richmond oil docks.

So, will the race belong to the inventiveness of American science or to a government contract?

Current Affairs, National Security, Opinions, Technology Sphere: Related Content

6 Comments »

This comes as a result of a periodic email I receive from US-CENTCOM Office of Public Affairs.

General John Abizaid updates on the global war on terror.

The Hugh Hewitt Show

HH: I welcome now General John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, calling this morning from, I believe, Qatar. General, welcome. It’s good to have you.

JA: Well, thank you, Hugh. I’m happy to be here.

HH: Can you begin, General, by giving us an overview of the situation in Iraq as of mid-August, 2006?

JA: The situation in Iraq right now, as you’ve seen, of course, there’s an awful lot of sectarian violence, particularly in the Baghdad area. We’ve found it necessary to move additional troops down into the Baghdad area by extending some forces that we were going to redeploy to help shore up some of the work that the Iraqi Security Forces are doing. We’re putting additional Iraqi Security Forces in the field there as well. It’s very clear to all of us that have been serving in this region that Baghdad’s the key to Iraq, and that we’ve got to get the levels of sectarian violence down in order for Iraq to stabilize. We’re confident it can be done. We’ve seen some changes already that are somewhat positive. It’s still too early to say, but the combination of Iraqi Security Forces and our forces, along with some measures being taken by the new government, we’re confident can, over time, move Baghdad in the right direction.

HH: General Abizaid, are you confident as well that victory is possible in Iraq? And what will that look like?

JA: Yeah, no, I’m very confident that victory’s possible, not only in Iraq, but in the broader Middle East, if you consider victory being a Middle East where extremism is not tolerated, and doesn’t have a chance of going mainstream in the region. I certainly think that in Iraq, there’ll be violence after the time that American forces depart. I think that the sectarian issues are deep, but they don’t need to be fatal. I believe that over time, as you build institutional capacity and the Iraqi government, and especially in the Iraqi armed forces, that Iraqis will be able to do more and more of the day to day security work. And as that happens, we’ll be able to bring our forces down. A lot of people…

HH: Do you have enough troops, General, to do the mission, to achieve that stability and victory?

JA: Yeah, Hugh. We have over 200,000 American troops in the Middle East. That’s down from a high of 375,000 back in ‘03. But more importantly, there’s over 275,000 Iraqi troops, 70,000 Afghan troops that are fighting directly with us, and then you go to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where they’re fighting against the extremists with quite a few troops as well, and throughout the region as well. So if it was my opinion that the people in the region weren’t willing to fight against the extremists on their own, then I would have a different conclusion than what I just gave you. But all indications are that the people out here are not interested in having their countries turn into Taliban-like states. But on the other hand, Shiia extremism and Sunni extremism in the region are very strong, and we need to help the states help themselves against this. And at the same time, we’ve got to keep the flow of natural resources moving through the Straits of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Babel Mandeb, which take an awful lot of air and naval power.

HH: General, what do you estimate the size of the Sunni insurgency, and of the Shiia extreme militias to be in Iraq?

JA: Well, the Sunni insurgency is…it’s difficult to put a number on it, but I’d say it’s certainly less than 20,000 active, and the Shiia militias that are actively confronting the coalition forces are less than about 5,000.  But using numbers in an insurgency, and where sectarian violence is taking place, really, really puts it in more of a conventional footing than is necessary. You know, the numbers ebb and flow, based on what’s going on. For example, after the Samarra mosque bombing, certainly the number of people that were willing to confront the Shiia militias from the Sunni community were much higher than we’d seen before.

HH: Is Syria allowing jihadists free passage into Iraq, General Abizaid?

JA: I’m not sure that I’d say Syria is allowing free passage, but certainly, passage has taken place through there. The numbers of foreign fighters that we see moving through Syria are probably somewhere between fifty and a hundred a month, which is down from what we saw as a high of about 100-150. You know, what makes the jihadists that are foreign fighters that come into Iraq dangerous are not their numbers. It’s that they’re willing to be suicide bombers. As a matter of fact, the Iraqi Sunni insurgents generally only want to pull up suicide bombers into the sector, and they’re very, very dangerous in that regard, much more so than their numbers would indicate.

HH: Are coalition forces increasing in their ability to secure that border, General? Or is it simply that there are fewer people who want to come across that accounts for the decline in numbers?

JA: Well, I think there’s certainly a certain amount of pressure that has come from the Syrian security forces, not because they want to help us, but that they realize that these Sunni extremists are a threat to the Syrian regime as well. The Iraqi border control, and the Iraqi government forces, military forces and police forces, are certainly more numerous than they used to be. But again, you know, the primary problem that exists inside Iraq is an Iraqi problem, more so than a jihadist problem, although there’s plenty of money that comes from outside, not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan as well.

HH: We have seen in the Hezbollah-Israeli battle obvious signs of Iranian support for Hezbollah. Do you see Iran supplying surrogates inside of Iraq, General?

JA: I see Iran supplying expertise, equipment, and training to Shiia extremist militia groups. Although they hide their hand very, very well, there’s no doubt that on the one side, you’ll get Iranian government officials talking about how they want to stabilize, and help stabilize Iraq. And on the other hand, you get their intelligence forces, the MOIS, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force people, actively participating, again, it’s hard to say what the numbers are, but there’s no doubt that the IRGC, Quds force in particlar, is playing a very unhelpful role with some of the Shiia groups.

HH: I don’t know what that is, General. Can you explain a little bit what that force is?

JA: Well, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force is a terrorists training, paramilitary and terrorist organization group, sponsored by the Iranian government. They would have a different way of describing it than that.

HH: Is it active in other places besides Iraq?

JA: Yeah, you certainly see the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds force people training people in Lebanon’s Hezbollah. You see some presence of them in passing weapons back and forth, and money back and forth to Lebanese Hezbollah. And they certainly trained some Lebanese Hezbollah fighters inside Iran. They also train other groups, especially what they would consider groups that are interested in Iranian Revolutionary thinking, and you see this in groups such as some of the Hamas paramilitary people that are operating inside Palestine and Israel.

HH: General, are you concerned with that particular brand of Shiia extremism that is called the 12th Imam branch, or the hidden imam branch, and that their fatalism, or their theology might make them less susceptible to deterrence than other enemies the United States has faced in the past?

JA: You know, Hugh, Shiia mainstream Islam, and Sunni mainstream Islam, in my view, certainly don’t represent a threat to the United States. But when it is couple with the revolutionary ideology, as purveyed by the current government of Iran, it does represent a long-term threat to our interests in this region. And Sunni extremism, as represented by people such as Osama bin Laden, certainly represents a threat to the United States of America, not only in the region, but globally. So I think it’s very important for us to give the moderates in the region the chance to shape their own future. We’ve got to help the moderates in the region face down the extremists, wherever they show up. And it’s a big challenge, it’s a long challenge, and it requires not only military power, but a lot of diplomatic and economic power as well.

HH: Is it all one war, General? Afghanistan, Iran, the Hezbollah-Israeli battle?

JA: Well, from where I sit, it’s all connected. And whether it’s one war or not can be debated from a political perspective. But from a military perspective, as I look at it, the…all of the lines lead back to one or two sources. They either lead back to Sunni-sponsored extremism, or to Shiia-sponsored Iranian extremism. And sometimes, on occasional points in the battlefield, they even cooperate with one another. So it’s certainly connected. No doubt in my mind.

HH: Now General Abizaid, as you look at the Iranian military force posture, is it a significant and sophisticated military force? Or is it simply the benefit of extremism at work, unimpeded by any home grown opposition?

JA: No, it’s a large military force. It’s significant. It’s certainly capable of providing a defense in depth of Iran to any invader that might come in. It has the ability to close the Straits of Hormuz for a short period of time if they were to choose to do that, and they have the ability to use their terrorist arm that you see, for example, such as in Hezbollah, Hamas and elsewhere. And then they also have a significant missile threat that is able to range most of the countries of the Arabian Gulf region, and range as far as Israel. And of course, they’re working very hard to, in my mind, to develop a nuclear weapon.

HH: What would it do to the strategic posture of the situation, General, if in fact Iran became nuclear capable?

JA: I think a nuclear armed Iran in the region is very, very unstabilizing for the region. It would create a regional problem with all of the other major countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It would certainly create a problem for the Turks, it would create a problem for any country that’s within range. And certainly, it creates a problem for Israel, as you couple what Ahmadinejead has said about the survival of Israel in the long run. And as long as revolutionary Iran continues to have what I would call extremist tendencies, it’s hard to envision how you could believe that they would keep their weapons to themselves.

HH: Backing away from Iran for a second, and Iraq, General, what’s the situation in Afghanistan, which too often escapes prolonged study nowadays?

JA: Afghanistan has a lot of fighting going on in the south, where the Taliban, in the Kandahar area, has contested the new NATO forces that are moving in there. NATO has taken over the southern area. That gives them about 3/4’s of the country in which they operate militarily. They’ve got around 23,000 forces, and it was very clear that as they came into that region, that the Taliban would contest that region. It’s also being contested because it tends to be a big drug growing region down in the Helmand Province region, and they don’t like having NATO troops down there for obvious reasons. So there’s a lot of violence in Afghanistan, and in the east, where American forces primarily operate, there’s cooperation between the Taliban and al Qaeda, although very seldom do you see al Qaeda operating openly in Afghanistan these days. The Afghan national government has put together an army of about 70,000 with our help, of course. It’s maturing, it’s a lot better than it used to be. It’s participating in a lot more different actions, not only with NATO, but with us. And we’re confident that while there’ll be a lot of fighting in the Afghan area, that the…President Karzai’s government will continue to stabilize.

HH: General Abizaid, as you look out five years in both Afghanistan and Iraq, what’s the best case scenario that you see for those countries, as we turn into the new decade?

JA: I think five years from now, Afghanistan is continuing to stabilize. There’s an awful lot of work, as you well know, that has to be done in Afghanistan. It’s a country totally devastated by too much war, too much civil war, too much production of poppies, et cetera. And so, it will need the international community’s help for a long time to get on its feet. Iraq, I believe, will begin to stabilize, slowly but surely, and you’ll see the Iraqi government taking on much more of what needs to be done. And in five years, Iraq will be responsible primarily for its own external security, and you’ll see probably American trainers and NATO trainers remaining there to help them. I also see a growing problem with Iran’s internal stability, as people there become less and less satisfied with the quality of life that their government’s given them. And of course, you have the other traditional problems in the region that require some progress. The Arab-Israeli issue requires, I think, some progress in the peace arena, and some international help there. And you certainly will see continued instability in places where the extremists continue to operate, such as in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In many ways, the long term health and prosperity of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are bigger strategic problems for us, and we need to do all we can to help the legitimate governments there fight against the extremists the way that they’ve been doing.

HH: Well, you’re talking about a long, long commitment, General. And as you well know, voices across the political spectrum are starting to use the Vietnam analogy. Thomas Ricks comes up to it close in his new book, Fiasco. Have you read that yet, General?

JA: No, I’ll tell you, Hugh. I’ve got a lot of things to do, and usually read about all the mistakes we’ve made isn’t one of them.

HH: (laughing) Well, what about that Vietnam analogy, which is so corrosive. I know you’re a ‘73 graduate of West Point, and a combat veteran of Granada and the first Gulf War. So you’re not the Vietnam era. But is that a wrong analogy to apply to this situation?

JA: Well, there are things that you can apply to the situation that makes sense about Vietnam, and then there’s things that really aren’t applicable. It’s like any sort of historical parallel. You have to look at it carefully. Certainly, if you look at Iraq, Iraq doesn’t have the external sort of support problem feeding the insurgency the same way that existed with our forces fighting in South Vietnam, with the huge amount of support coming down from North Vietnam, supported by two big powers, the Soviet Union and China. That gives us an opportunity to stabilize Iraq and to get Iraq moving in the right direction, provided that the legitimate powers in the region accept it in the direction that it’s going. I think it is a long-term struggle in the Middle East against extremism. And it’s extremely important that we win that fight by helping the people in the region help themselves. Because if extremism ever becomes mainstream in this part of the world, then I think our problems will pale by comparison to what we currently have.

HH: General Abizad, is the American media, and I understand fully your commitment to 1st Amendment freedom, as every member of the American military is always quick to say. But is the American media making your job easier or harder in securing stability, and in ending extremism in the region?

JA: Well, I don’t know that I want to characterize what the American media is doing or not doing, other than to say it would be a huge help for everybody if we started talking about our enemies out here, what they stand for, what they want, what their vision of the world is, why they’re dangerous, and how this is a worthy fight to fight at this level now, rather than letting it wait to get worse.

HH: What is their vision of the world, the enemy, General?

JA: And I think that’s the unspoken story, it’s the enemy.

HH: General?

JA: I’m sorry, Hugh. I didn’t understand…

HH: What is their vision, the enemy’s vision of the world?

JA: Well certainly, if you look at al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, all you have to do is go on to one of their website. But you see it is to drive out the United States from the region, overthrow the regional powers, take over the Sunni Arab world first, and then the Muslim world, and install a Sharia type of government that would look very much like the government that they installed under the Taliban, when the Taliban ran Afghanistan. And if you want to know what that looks like, it’s executions in the soccer stadium, no rights for women anywhere, Sharia law strictly enforced, no music, you name it. And the people in the region really don’t want that kind of a future for themselves, or for their kids.

HH: And the vision of the Iranian revolutionary regime?

JA: Well, the Iranian revolutionary regime has a different sort of a notion, but it’s one that’s primarily a world in which Iranian influence and power call the shots in the Middle East, and done so under the current Shiia revolutionary precepts that you see played out in Tehran, which again, is very, very restrictive. Not as restrictive as what Osama bin Laden brings, but certainly more restrictive than the people like. When you ask Iranians whether or not they approve of this government, they’d just as soon get onto some other kind of government that’s more liberal.

HH: A new force has risen in Mogadishu, General. And how much does that concern you? And what steps are being undertaken to contain it?

JA: Well, it certainly concerns me. It concerns me, because the United Islamic Courts represent a theological movement, not necessarily far removed from the thinking of al Qaeda. They have claimed that they have no links, but we certainly know that there are some historical linkages between people that are high up in the UIC and between people that have helped work the Horn of Africa for al Qaeda, and that concerns us greatly. Whenever one of these extremist movements starts to gain mainstream anywhere, even in a place like Somalia, it needs to be a real warning for the international community.

HH: General, I’m aware of your time, so I don’t want to abuse it. I’ll do two more questions, unless you want to go longer. I’ll go as long as you want, but I know you’re busy. Is the issue of pre-invasion WMD in Iraq closed in your mind, General?

JA: Well, I always hesitate, Hugh, to get involved in this issue that’s become so highly politicized. Let me just say the issue of WMD is probably the single most important issue in the region. And every day, I deal with the intelligence of looking over what al Qaeda talks about. And as a matter of fact, all you have to do is go to their websites. They are looking for safe havens so they can gain time to develop WMD of some sort, whether it’s chemical, biological or nuclear. They have the intent to use it, they have stated it openly, over and over again, and were it not for the fact that these people are trying to acquire WMD and intend to use it against us, and the technological capability in the world today might allow that to happen, I’m not so sure that the effort out here would need to be as big as it is. But we’ve got to keep these guys on the defensive. We can’t let them get a safe haven, and we absolutely can’t let them get WMD in their hands.

HH: And General, that leads me to my last question. World Trade Center is in theaters now in the United States. It reminds people of five years ago. How great is the threat to the home front from those WMD that you’ve discussed just now? And do the American people fully appreciate that threat?

JA: I can only say that as I…when I go home and spend time where my headquarters is in Tampa, or when I spend time where I’m from on the West Coast, it’s hard to really notice that there’s much of a war going on, thinking that there’s a World War II level of effort going on in the middle of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa, is hard for most people to appreciate. I think it’s important that people understand the dangers of not contesting this area. If we let the extremists get embedded, if we let the extremists gain ground, if we let the extremists have time and resources, then I believe they’ll eventually insinuate their way into the mainstream. They could then gain territory, gain time, gain weapons of mass destruction. And over time, they’d move us to the war that we’re all, the big war that we’re all trying to avoid. So I can only tell you that what we’re doing out here is very, very important for our security. We were actually fighting these people well before 9/11, and it takes a little bit of time and effort, but people need to educate themselves about why we’re fighting who we’re fighting, and what it means if we back away from them. I think our young troops that are out here fighting are doing a wonderful job, and an absolutely necessary job. And I’d also like to say, just to kind of close up, Hugh, is that I don’t believe it’s necessary to stay out here in this huge force size forever. We can, over time, get our own forces down as long as the moderates in the region are willing to stand up, take responsibility, and move against these extremists on their own. So helping them help themselves is really the key to our success. I believe we’re doing that in a lot of places. It’s a hard fight, it’s a long fight, but with patience and perseverance, we can do it. We certainly have got the courage of our troops to rely upon, and they won’t let us down.

HH: General John Abizaid, thanks for the time this morning, thank you for your service, and for the service of all the men and women in the United States military that you command, and we look forward to having you back again, General.

JA: Thank you, sir. Bye.

End of interview.

• FULL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
• AUDIO VERSION

Current Affairs, International Issues, National Security Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Last month I posted about Smiths Detection supplying an explosives detector to the NY City Police Department.  Well, Smiths is at it again.  This time, supplying a lightweight chemical detector for a new advanced reconnaissance robot for the Army.

Luminex Corporation and Smiths Detection Receive Contract From Department of Homeland Security as part of the Low-Cost Biological Agent Detection System (LBADS) program.
"The LBADS ‘trigger’ sensor is designed to serve as the front end to a comprehensive bio-detection system, in which the trigger provides early warning of a possible attack, followed by a confirmatory sensor subsequently determining actual species identification…"

"The Smiths team approach is to design and develop an optically-based trigger sensor, utilizing our corporate expertise in optical detection technologies to meet the very demanding cost, performance, and reliability goals set forth by HSARPA in the LBADS program…

Smiths Detection is a quality and innovative company with numerous solutions in the detection of agents of terror (CBRN), and has been quite successful in deploying their technologies in airports and other sensitive locaitons.  I’d watch them closely in the coming months to see what they do relative to detection of liquid explosives.  Just my opinion, of course.

Current Affairs, National Security, Technology Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

On the one hand, I’m believing that the London liquid bomb plot has heightened our sense of danger.  On the other hand, I’m believing that the London liquid bomb plot has heightened our sense of danger.

???

Our awareness levels are probably higher now than they’ve been in a while (I mean the public).  Just look at the London to DC flight that was re-directed to Boston this morning because of a claustrophobic 60 year old women…its very likely that the whole mess was overblown…there is no indication that terrorism was involved…but clearly we need to err on the side of caution, especially in light of the London liquid bomb plot.

So now, from Wired News comes the latest…Bomb Threat Posed by Pants, Belts

Taking off your shoes and jacket in the airport is one thing. But your pants? Experts warn that terrorists wearing cargo pants–the type with roomy pockets running down the leg–could easily smuggle liquid or plastic explosives onto a plane undetected. If their pockets were full, or if they were concerned about pat-downs, it would still be easy to carry slabs of plastique close to the body. "Some people have money belts; you could have an explosive belt," said Hans Weber, an aviation security consultant who serves on a scientific advisory committee of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Weber also joined the chorus of critics who believe that X-rays would not even detect explosives in carry-on luggage. A packet of plastic explosives might look like a sandwich, he said. "A big salami or big piece of cheese looks like an explosive in density."

A big salami?

Clearly we cannot ignore any threat…and we have to explore all options…and now, perhaps more than ever, we can’t let our guards down.

Current Affairs, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

If this actually occurs, it is a major step forward in closing a security gap…cargo being shipped domestically via air.

SFO on track to be first to screen cargo
Airport will be a pioneer in federally funded effort to close security loophole without causing delays

One of the major security holes in airport security is the lack of security
screening of the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes. This is going
to change, and leading the change is San Francisco airport where, in
October, the first-in-the-nation checking of all commercial cargo for
explosives on commercial flights will begin. DHS announced in June that it
would launch a $30 million pilot program at SFO in October and then expand
it to two unannounced airports. About half of the money will be spent at San
Francisco. The goal eventually is to have all 448 federally regulated
airports in the country screen all of the commercial cargo that goes out via
passenger flights.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and several other national labs are helping to
determine how to best use existing technology — some of which is already in
place to screen checked baggage — to screen all cargo on passenger flights.

Even without the pilot program, much of the 530,000 metric tons of cargo
that rides on passenger flights in and out of SFO is already screened. Some
cargo is prescreened by shippers, some is screened by the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), and some is spot-checked at random. DHS is
hoping for a system to screen every piece without causing flight delays. The
solution likely will involve technologies such as CT scanners, analyzers
that test for traces of explosives’ residue, canine teams, and manual
inspections. Livermore and other labs — the Oak Ridge and Pacific Northwest
national labs and the Transportation Security Laboratory — will use
simulations and computer models to determine how to best use those
capabilities to handle 100 percent of the cargo.

In view of the terrorist threats to blow airplanes from the sky using liquid explosives, this could be a significant step forward.

Current Affairs, National Security, Technology Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Despite $28 billion program, U.S. remains vulnerable to bioterror attack

The U.S. federal government has spent $28 million in a crash protection program to secure the country against bioterror, and the results are showing. Sites with the potential of being a possible terrorist target in Washington, D.C., including the World Bank and FBI headquarters, have been fitted for new germ-killing air filtration systems. Louisville, Colorado-based Strion Air is responsible for the air-monitoring systems in the FBI and World Bank headquarters. These systems germ-killing ionizing rays and an electrostatic charge that causes microbes to cling together rather than stay in the air. Their other clients include Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California.

Most major cities across the country are set up for technicians to be able to sample air quality and trace any sign of deadly anthrax spores, the smallpox virus, or any other deadly bioterror agents. Experts acknowledge the progress made to defend against typical germ agents, however, some are still concerned with the overall plan of the government toward a bioterror attack, especially with a new breed of synthetic bioterror agents entering the scene. "The U.S. does not yet have a coherent biodefense strategy … that takes into account the full spectrum of possible bioweapons agents, including engineered threats," Tara O’Toole, a co-founder of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Biosecurity, recently told Congress.

The federal government, though, stockpiled more than three million anthrax vaccines and 300 million additional vaccines to protect against smallpox. They have also trained 174,000 personnel to handle a bioterror emergency, and installed hundreds of indoor and outdoor air monitors throughout the country. "I think we’ve made very significant progress from where we were in 2001," said John Vitko, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s biological countermeasures unit. Vitko also said his agency along with the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are able to detect, and respond quickly to biotrerror outbreaks, reducing possible casualties in major cities. Yet still, there are several people that still beilieve that we cannot breathe easily. One of them being Brad Smith, a senior associate at Pittsburgh’s biotechnology center. According to Smith, it was smart to go after the "low hanging fruit," mainly smallpox and anthrax, but there is a need to do more to protect against bioterrorism.

"It is very clear that the technology is to a point now where fairly modestly trained and educated individuals could do a lot of harm if they wanted to create a biological weapon," said Smith. General Services Admistration (GSA) architect Wade Belcher, however, said that retrofitting the 8,920 federal buildings would send costs into the tens of billions.

U.S. BioDefense Taps New Revenue Stream Through Emergency Disaster Systems by Purchasing 100% Control
City of Industry, California-based U.S. BioDefense has announced that it now has gained 100 percent control of Emergency Disaster Systems (EDS) through a complete acquisition of issued and outstanding shares of the company. U.S. BioDefense is a central Department of Defense (DoD) contractor research, developing, and commercializing biotechnology for homeland security. EDS will benefit from the merger by leveraging the influence of U.S. BioDefense and capital markets allowing it to expand in the industry of emergency preparedeness and disaster recovery, an industry expected to spend more than $24 billion in 2007 in the United States according to industry and federal government reports. EDS was first established as a company to provide earthquake preparedness supplies througout California. The wholly owned U.S. BioDefense subsidiary now counts as its customers governments, industries, and Fortune 500 companies around the world wanting innovative emergency preparedness technology, systems, and services.

Long weekend…More tomorrow.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, National Security Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

In light of the airline bombing terror plot that was "intercepted" in Great Britain, I found this discussion of the liquid explosives to be quite interesting and a reminder that as time passes, capabilities advance and improve (ours and the bad guys).  This was clearly brought out in Evan Kohlmann’s post on the Counterterrorism Blog: "the fabrication of such high-tech terrorist weapons by Al-Qaida operatives inside Western Europe is no longer an insurmountable challenge."

New Devices May Foil Airline Security By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 21 1996; Page A01
The Washington Post

Airline security officials have a recurring nightmare that goes something like this: A nondescript passenger boards a large aircraft. He is carrying entirely unremarkable personal items — nothing metallic and suspicious looking, no bundles of wires, sharp objects or extraordinary electronic gear. The passenger passes uneventfully through airport screening devices, as does all his or her luggage.

The passenger does nothing untoward during the flight and deplanes quietly when the plane lands at the first stop. Then, on the next leg of the flight, a small bomb the passenger has hidden somewhere on the aircraft detonates at a carefully chosen moment, perhaps over the ocean, and triggers a broader explosion that rips apart the fuselage.

Unfortunately, this scenario — of a terrorist able to elude most, if not all, of the airport safety precautions in place or planned for later this decade — is not a glimpse of the future, but of the present. An explosion of this type, albeit smaller and not as deadly, occurred on a flight from Japan to the Philippines in December 1994, and a dozen more such bombings were narrowly averted in early 1995 when those behind the scheme accidentally alerted police to their preparations, according to information being disclosed in a New York city courtroom…

…The new terrorists favor smaller and much less detectable plastic or liquid explosives detonated by miniaturized and benign-looking timers, yet still capable of wreaking substantial destruction…

…"These are the type of things that are constantly upping the ante on staying ahead of the potential bomb-making capability of a terrorist," said Edward Badolato, a former assistant secretary of energy who chairs the National Cargo Security Council, an industry group that worries about transportation security.

Badolato said that besides using materials that are increasingly hard to detect, bombers from different ideological causes appear to be sharing some of the tricks of their esoteric trade with each other, helping to spread knowledge of advanced technologies. He said investigators determined that a fuse used by one anti-Israel bomber in recent years was similar to another one used by the Irish Republican Army.

Liquid explosives hard to detect
By Michael Peel in London
Published: August 10 2006 17:34 | Last updated: August 10 2006 23:50

…The liquid explosives suspected of being at the centre of the alleged aircraft bomb plot could be tricky for terrorists to handle but difficult for checks to detect, bomb and security experts said on Thursday.

The raw materials to make liquid bombs that required no detonator were readily available but the mixture often had a high risk of going off prematurely, people familiar with explosives said…

…Experts said one example of a liquid bomb that could be made from readily avail-able materials was dithekite, a mixture of nitric acid, water and nitrobenzene. Other possibilities included bombs based on nitroglycerine or nitromethane, which is used in the oil industry to clear debris from wells…

I do not believe that the in-place detection equipment is geared to identifying the existence of the components of these liquid explosives.  Someone might ask "why" but that question leads to the issue of the difficulty to be prepared for all eventualities.  This is sort of what I have been saying about being prepared for an undefined, "next" terrorist attack.  We can wargame it, and we can run tests, but we can’t be sure of the form of the attack…this is, afterall, an asymmetric war against a determined foe.

Current Affairs, International Issues, National Security, Opinions, Technology Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Well, the competition for the National Bio and Agro-defense facility has been narrowed to 14 groups which proposed a total of 18 sites in 11 states — in the running.

This relates to my July 29th post:  Safety of Bio-Defense Labs Questioned and to my July 30th post: USDA - Toxins and Bio-Safety and to my post of August 5th: Boston University Biolab Stalled by Court Ruling.

Yesterday’s DHS Press Release: DHS Completes First Down-Select For Potential Sites To Locate Proposed National Bio And Agro-Defense Facility

The following consortia which have proposed sites for DHS to locate the NBAF, in alphabetical order by state, have advanced to the next phase of DHS’s site planning process:

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (California)
• Georgia Consortium for Health and Agro-Security 2-sites
• Heartland BioAgro Consortium (Kansas) 2-sites
• Kentucky and Tennessee NBAF Consortium (Kentucky)
• Mid-Atlantic Bio-Ag Defense Consortium (Maryland)
• Gulf States Bio and Agro-Defense Consortium (Mississippi) 3-sites
• University of Missouri at Columbia
• North Carolina State University- College of Veterinary Medicine
• Oklahoma State University
• Texas A&M University
• Brooks Development Authority and Brooks City-Base Foundation (Texas)
• Texas Research and Technology Foundation
• Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (Texas)
• University of Wisconsin- Madison site at the Kegonsa Research Facility

The consortia that proposed these 18 sites will now be given the opportunity to provide more detailed information in support of their submissions. By the end of 2006, DHS expects to review these more detailed submissions and narrow the potential sites to a small list of final candidates. 

One of the things I find interesting is the general lack of press coverage in some of the areas, at least based on what you can Google although it is possible that the news coverage will expand within a few hours.

I wouldn’t begin to guess which proposals have the "best" chance of succeeding.  I would say that proposals including a national lab probably have a scientific advantage, although those with research universities might as well.

Two things of course stand out.  One, is that the proposal from SE Kentucky made the cut.

Pulaski survives cut for biolab
SITE IS ONE OF 14 STILL IN RUNNING FOR HOMELAND SECURITY FACILITY

The location of a lab facility working with extremely hazardous material was discussed in the comments in Boston University Biolab Stalled by Court Ruling.  Simply seems to make sense to put such a facility where an accident would expose fewer people makes sense.   Also, one of the principal considerations when the U.S. government established many of the national labs, especially the weapons labs like Oak Ridge, Sandia, Livermore and Los Alamos, was that they were hard to get to.

The other thing that is interesting is that there are four competing proposals from the State of Texas:

• Texas A&M University.
• Brooks Development Authority and Brooks City-Base Foundation.
• Texas Research and Technology Foundation.
• Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research.

I’m not sure what to make of 4 competing proposals, especially when the last three are located in the same city.

Current Affairs, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Apparently, we are being told by the Department of Homeland Security that this newest critical update is critical, and could be used in upcoming cyber-attacks.  After checking with my local networking guy, I am told that even though I am not literally running my computer on a network, I am gaining Internet access through a LAN.

Homeland Security: Fix your Windows (and not with duct tape)
In a rare alert, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has urged Windows users to plug a potential worm hole in the Microsoft operating system.

The agency, which also runs the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), sent out a news release on Wednesday recommending that people apply Microsoft’s MS06-040 patch as quickly as possible. The software maker released the "critical" fix Tuesday as part of its monthly patch cycle.

"Users are encouraged to avoid delay in applying this security patch," the Department of Homeland Security said in the statement. The patch fixes a serious flaw that, if exploited, could enable an attacker to remotely take complete control of an affected system, the agency said…

Exploit For Worst Bug Of August On The Loose
A day after Microsoft posted a dozen patches for Windows and Office, the one pegged by security analysts as the most dangerous is being used in attacks, the federal cyber-agency said.

According to an advisory issued Wednesday by US-CERT, the arm of the Department of Homeland Security that disseminates information about developing computer threats, an active exploit of the buffer overflow bug in Windows’ Server service has been confirmed.

"If a remote attacker sends a specially crafted packet to a vulnerable Windows system, that attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges," US-CERT said in the warning.

In its MS06-040 security bulletin, Microsoft spelled out the problem with Server service, a component responsible for sharing of local resources such as drives and printers, with others on the network…

In these times, being forewarned, is being forearmed.

Current Affairs, Technology Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

This is simply beyond belief!  Or is it?

Calif. Man Arrested After Migrants Allegedly Sewn In Seats
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers arrested a U.S. man Tuesday morning after they say he tried to smuggle three migrants into the country hidden in the seats of his vehicle. CBP officers said they encountered the driver, a 33-year-old resident of Rosarito, Mexico, as he entered the port at about 5 a.m. driving a GMC Vendura van…         

SLIDESHOW:               Images From Arrest

…CBP officers discovered three undocumented migrants sewn into three seats of the conversion van, including the driver?s seat. CBP officers said they carefully extracted two men and a woman from inside the seats…

"This case illustrates the length to which smugglers will go to transport undocumented people into the United States," said Adele Fasano, director of field operations in San Diego.

Current Affairs, National Security Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Seems like Mike Brown doesn’t want to simply fade into the sunset…

Congressman, Ex-FEMA Chief Brown Squabble
A Mississippi congressman hit back at Michael Brown on Thursday after the former FEMA director described him as "that little twerp."

"Brown is an incompetent fool, and everyone in South Mississippi knows it," said Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss…

…"For that little twerp to claim I didn’t recognize death and suffering _ he can just bite me, for all I care," Brown told Playboy…

And from the Homeland Security Daily Newswire
Another insult hurled by disgraced former FEMA director Michael Brown. The target this time was Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota). Brown was criticized by Coleman at a Senate hearing in February looking into the government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina last year. "He came in there and started saying I didn’t show any leadership," Brown recalled. "He kept chastising me. I said, ‘OK, now ask me a question. Give me the specifics so I can respond to it.’ And he turned and said, ‘Well, I’m sorry. I’m out of time, and I’ve got to go.’ He got up and left.

"What kind of man is that? If you don’t have the guts to sit there and listen to my response and ask me questions about my leadership, then screw you!"

"Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job."

Current Affairs, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

I truly believe that the political landscape in Mexico will continue to affect the U.S., including the issues of illegal immigration and "free" trade.  So watching the events surrounding the July 2nd election makes sense.

Leftist candidate escalates Mexico protest
Officials on Wednesday planned to start a partial recount of votes from July’s disputed presidential election, and supporters of leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador escalated their protests over allegations of electoral fraud.

Hundreds of Lopez Obrador activists on Tuesday blockaded the entrance to the Agriculture Department and forced open highway toll booths during rush hour — the latest in a wave of protests to demand a total recount of the presidential election…

…The protests will continue all week, Lopez Obrador said, culminating in what he called an "extraordinary rally" in Mexico City on Sunday, the day officials are expected to finish recounting votes in about 9 percent of the nation’s polling places…

…The seizure of the toll booths, which gave more than 7,000 motorists free passage to the capital, prompted outgoing President Vicente Fox’s spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, to threaten for the first time the use of force.

Fox criticized the protests, saying, "Democracy cannot advance without respect for others and above all without respect for institutions."

Paying attention to that?  Threatening the use of force…IMO, such actions by Fox’s government would be…well, devastating is too mild a word.

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »