StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Some will call it "dhimmitude" while others will simply call it the height of political correctness gone totally wild.  In the uncertain world in which we live, there continues a tender balance between affirmative actions to combat Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism (otherwise referred to as the Global War on Terorrism, or simply, the War on Terrorism), and what is seen as  an appeasement to the sensitivities of people who practice the religion of Islam (those who, in the majority, are peaceful while they may be silent, but certainly are not terrorists).

Since September 11th, the World has simply gone mad in my opinion.  There is no uncertainty that Osama bin Laden and his gang of terrorists under the umbrella of al Qaeda perpetrated the atrocities of September 11th (as there should be no question of their complicity if not direct involvement in the Madrid train bombings of March 11, 2004 or the London bombings of July 7, 2005 and a series of bloody events around the World).

It is said by some that Islam has been hijacked by these al Qaeda terrorists and yet by others, Islam is referred to derisively as "the religion of peace."

We live in a World gone mad.  And I believe that the rhetoric of anti-jihadists is often as destructive to society as the acts of terror themselves.  Even though we as a World did not recognize the coming of the Reign of Terror as it is today before September 11th, none now can deny that the roots of this evil existed for many years prior.  Simply and sadly, most of our eyes were closed to the reality of the coming age of terror until those planes struck the World Trade Center that morning.

This morning I read something that calls out loudly, and illustrates that we are losing our minds colelctively as a World people.  And many will see this "non-binding resolution" of the European Union as appeasement, or as a victory for the Jihad…or others will recognize it as an act of political correctness gone mad.  As I did some quick searching, I find that this is a subject discussed previously, and I have missed it totally.  The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government
spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their
statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

A previous suggestion is that the term "Islamic terrorism" should be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".  What poppycock!  And yet, it is written that  this act of political correctness "…is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe…"

Utter crap!  Because if we do not call it what it is, then perhaps those who howl at the Moon will be right.  A recent commenter to this blog made a point that:

The war on terror is a misnomer. Ask your favorite soldier — you don’t make war on a tactic. Ask your favorite English teacher — you don’t
wage war on a noun either.  The time has come to Declare War on Jihadists."

To this I responded:

We declared a War on Terrorism following the attacks of September 11th. Since that time, many people have morphed the nomenclature. Regardless of the nuances (and yes, I agree that you don’t wage war on a tactic, and whether "terrorism" is a noun or the act doesn’t actually matter much)…Clearly, the enemy is most specifically the jihad of Islamic fundamentalism. We can argue over this forever. What’s the real point?

Perhaps because of my experiences during the 1960’s and 1970’s when my Negro friends were becoming Black, and Black Power was being proclaimed, and the Civil Rights Movement changed the way most Americans dealt with the differences in complexion that separated, and Dr. King called for a union of all people, I avoid the blanket statements that damn all Muslims and group them together with the al Qaeda terrorists and al Qaeda look-a-likes and wannabees.  The problem I find with this action by the European Union is that it complicates, rather than simplifies our War on Terror (a War Against Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadism).

"Terrorists exploit and augment suspicions."

Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid "providing context" for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences.

"We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding," said one.

However, Conservative MEP Syed Kamall hit out at the lexicon. "It is this kind of political correctness and secrecy that creates resentment among both the mainstream in Europe and in Islam," he said.

Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism.

"This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality," he said. "The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam."

Perhaps some of my new friends who use the word dhimmitude are more right than they are wrong.  Alternatively though, there is still no question in my mind that it is Islamic Fundamentalism that we fight, for it is those fundamentalists who attacked us on September 11th.  It is also clear by this action by the European Union that we, the United States of America, now also fight a battle of public opinion among our European allies who wish to walk tenderfooted on a bed of shattered glass by trying to avoid offending those non-terrorist Muslims (I claim the majority of that religion), who are caught in the middle of a multi-generational battle that will surely shape the way we, and our children, and our grandchildren (and perhaps beyond) will live.

If I sound a bit confused as I write, then you may be right.

To those who have read this far, I thank you…and offer, if desired, that you re-read a few previous posts:

Recruiting Terrorists Among Those Who Have Nothing Else
The "Long War" - How Long?
Why bin Laden Remains Important…

The Right Truth recently wrote an article, Americans Are Not Scared Enough…I suspect that neither are those of the European Union who wish to whitewash reality.  Those who have read this space for any period of time will know that I have some differences of opinion with Ms. Hamilton on certain issues.  Actually as she mentioned on a comment once earlier, we don’t disagree on issues of substance, just on nuances of those issues.  Perhaps it is my perspective that makes it so.

Please also refer to Dhimmitudeland and read - noting that Ms. Gonzalez and I have differences of opinions - and yet, the focus of her website clearly deals with the types of concessions illustrated by this ludicrously politically correct act by the European Union.

 

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Some might say this is a step backward.  Many others would say Hallelujah!  Governor Perry has signed Senate Bill 378 into law that permits Texans to use deadly force in self-defense.  See update: Texas Castle Doctrine Effective Sept. 1

While clearly there are limitations to the use of force…for example, in a car or business, the person using deadly force cannot incite the attacker so as to justify the use of force.  However, this Bill restores the right to self defense without the requirement to retreat first.

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

   

* Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
   

* Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
   

* Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

Additionally, Senate Bill 378 eliminates the possibility of civil suit by the family of the person you happen to shoot as he is climbing through your bedroom window in the middle of the night.

So the response to the obvious question of "Did you feel threatened, Mr. Warning?" is a loud and definitive, "Yes!"

Here is Governor Perry’s official press release (he looks "good" in the picture, doesn’t he???).  Now if he could only get his position on the border right…

Note that Texas is not the first state to approve this controversial law.  According to the Jurist:

Georgia enacted a similar law last July, and Florida adopted [JURIST reports] a "shoot first" law in 2005. Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota all have enacted similar legislation as well. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence [advocacy website] has continually called such legislation "phenomenally dangerous," but the National Rifle Association [advocacy website] maintains that these laws are necessary to protect innocent citizens. AP has more.

State Representative Joe Driver and Senator Jeff Wentworth sponsored the bill.  This post is a follow-up to: The "Castle Doctrine": Putting the "Home" Back Into Homeland Security

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Their lives are filled with hopelessness and a desire for a better life in the "here after."  That is what budding jihadists seek when they join the "club" of suicide bombers.  We, as a very large group of potential targets, I believe, fail miserably to understand the "hows" and the "whys" of terrorist recruitment.  What we choose to see (understandably) is the result…the death and destruction and blood and mangled bodies…and shattered lives.

I believe, as many intelligent folks, that there are striking parallels between recruitment for the jihad, and the ways in which kids from the ghettos end up in street gangs.  Others, I think many others, simply reject this thinking as "touchy-feely" and decry Islam as the "relgion of peace" and toss a blanket over all Muslims and say that as a group, all Muslims are bad.  Sorry, despite my involvement in security efforts (even my "peripheral" involvement is more than most can claim), I cannot abide by that generalization.  Please note however, that as pointed out below, not all jihadists come from desperate conditions.

So this is the story of HOW TWO TEENS WERE RECRUITED FOR JIHAD, and then perhaps, a little "touchy-feely" to insense a few people who simply think that Muslims are born to kill us all.  These boys say:

"We were told to fight against Israel, America and non-Muslims," said Muhammed Bakhtiar, 17, explaining why he wanted to become a suicide bomber. "We are so unhappy with our lives here. We have nothing," he said.

Most of us…most Americans or Westerners simply cannot relate to this desperate outlook on life.  But that is what characterizes the youths who choose death over life.  So these two boys Muhammed Bakhtiar and his friend, Miraj Ahmad leave their homes in the Northwest frontier area of Pakistan ("about 600,000 people live in their hometown of Buner, a green valley surrounded by high
mountains. The area is underdeveloped and the climate is harsh.") to go to attend  the Muridke madrassa right outside of Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city. The madrassa or religious school is run by the Jama’at-ud-Da’awah, the charity linked to the outlawed terrorist organization, Lashkar e Taiba. And Lashkar e Taiba has links to al-Qaida.

The dissonance of images of this school is striking.

• bearded armed guards sporting
  Kalashnikovs

• a cricket
  field, swimming pool, all sorts of sport activities

• religious instruction

• computer sciences,
  engineering and pre-med classes

AND MOST ALL…

• jihad

As much as the more hardline conservative bloggers would damn all Muslims, this cannot be so.  Young boys and girls are given choices…fight or die.  When you have nothing, these choices may be attractive.  Examine these quotes:

"We were told it is our choice to become a freedom fighter or a suicide
bomber," explained Ahmad, who had a neat beard and wore a white Muslim
prayer cap. "But we should never fight against Pakistan."

"The jihadi man who brought us to Muridke told us we would become great
by fighting jihad," said the clean-shaven Bakhtiar. "We knew we could
never become great if we stayed in Buner. I wanted to become great."

This is not a sentiment that any rational thinking American or Westerner can understand.  It is an expression of a disenchanted youth seeking respite from a life of poverty, hardship and hopelessness.  As difficult as my childhood was…when my Dad was laid off…and often as my parents and I fought, I simply had no inclination to join a gang or turn to a life of violence.  And yet, this is what many young Muslims are confronted with.

The Buner tribesmen (where these two boys are from) who cannot eke out a living from farming often try to leave and work in Malaysia or the Gulf States.

Some, like Bakhtiar and Ahmad, just try and leave. Buner seemed like a perfect place to sign up kids for jihad.

So from the desperate, downtrodden and vulnerable, the jihad recruits young people to the jihad and to kill Israelis, Americans and non-Muslims.

The Headmaster of their school in  Buner denied that his school had brainwashed the boys, and is quoted as saying that, "We don’t support this; suicide attacks are murder; this is against
Islam," said Rahman. "Those boys went to Muridke by themselves, they
should have been here taking their exams, and I no longer want them
back in my school," he said."

After intervention of tribal elders, the boys ended up back in the school.  But here is the point.  The reporters who did this story (Mushtaq Yusufzai, NBC News Producer in Buner, and Carol Grisanti, NBC News Producer in Islamabad)  asked the boys:

"Do you want to go back and learn jihad?"

"I don’t know" said Bakhtiar."Maybe, maybe."

Ahmad agreed. "There is nothing for us here. Nothing."

In a related story, Militants Attack Town in Pakistan, you will find this final paragraph:

In a clash at a boys school in the troubled town on Monday, police killed two militants suspected of recruiting students for suicide bombings.

Too much "touchy-feely?  Then the answers may not satisfy those who cast that blanket over all Muslims and derisively call Islam the "religion of peace."

Terrorists Are Made, Not Born: Creating Terrorists Using Social Psychological Conditioning
In
this article, published in the Journal of Homeland Security,
Anthony Stahelski says that sociologists and social psychologists have
discovered that terrorist groups use cult-like conditioning techniques
to convert normal individuals into remorseless killers. The limited
global counterterrorism resources, he says, should focus on eradicating
the terrorist group training camps where the conditioning takes place,
rather than on trying to find terrorists after they have already been
conditioned.

Psychologists have thus far been unable to
verify the existence of an individual-level universal terrorist
profile. This disappointing finding makes the search for terrorists who
appear and act normally in a larger population of non-terrorists much
more difficult. However, sociologists and social psychologists have
discovered that terrorist groups use cult-like conditioning techniques
to convert normal individuals into remorseless killers. The premise of
this article is that the limited global counterterrorism resources
should focus on eradicating the terrorist group training camps where
the conditioning takes place, rather than on trying to find terrorists
after they have already been conditioned. Five phases of conditioning
are described:

• depluralization

• self-deindividuation

• other-deindividuation

• dehumanization

• demonization

All
conditioning phases are supported by powerful group dynamics that
reinforce the effectiveness of the conditioning. It appears that most
terrorist groups use all or most of the social psychological
conditioning and support processes described here. Since the
cult-conditioned products of these processes are currently the most
dangerous individuals on the planet, the article concludes with several
recommendations for disrupting and possibly eliminating the groups and
the training facilities, in order to stop the production of terrorist
operators.

Terrorism researchers have generally concluded that
most terrorists are not initially psychopaths, that most terrorists are
not obviously or consistently mentally ill, and that there is as of yet
no identified universal terrorist personality pattern.

These findings are unfortunate…

[Note: Its worth the read...its only 5 pages long when printed out without the footnotes.]

Conclusions
The
first and most important conclusion to draw is the importance of
leaders to terrorist groups. The conditioning process centers on and
builds from the power of the charismatic leader. If the leader is
eliminated, the group is greatly weakened…

…Second, the more
isolated the environment in which the conditioning process occurs, the
deeper and longer lasting the results on group members. Aggressively
disrupting the training camps…

…third conclusion is
specifically directed at the Fundamentalist Islamic groups…the
results here support the idea of aggressively pursuing and eliminating
the funding sources for these schools.

ENDING
I wish to thank any of you reading this far who have not simply given it up and "run for the hills" because of this "touchy-feely" line of thinking.  I might even lose some of what little readership this blog has because of an article like this one.

Those who have read this blog for any period of time know that I am as anti-terror as anyone…and you have seen and read my positions (many of them hardline) on many issues relating to homeland security and national security.  It does not mean that an attempt to understand the dynamics of the enemy we face is wrong.  To some though, doing so may simply tax their faculties too much.  Also cross posted on Real Clear Politics under recent submissions.

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions, Social Issues Sphere: Related Content

7 Comments »

Yesterday’s Washington Post carried an editorial, Hope for Illegal Immigrants that presents an optimistic view of a new immigration reform bill being presented by Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat.  Separately, I heard about another proposal today (discussed afterward) that sounds like a good idea to me, but probably doesn’t have a chance to ever be enacted (illegal immigration = trespassing).

For immigration hawks, there is plenty to like: Before the bill’s citizenship provisions kick in, stringent new standards on workplace enforcement and border security would have to be satisfied. They include a major build-up in personnel and technology monitoring the nation’s border. In addition, the legislation requires tougher penalties for a range of immigration-related crimes and the creation of a system whereby employers can electronically verify that employees and job applicants are authorized to work here.

I like the premise of harsher penalties for businesses that break the law and a build-up in personnel along the border.  That in itself is long overdue.  I’m intrigued by the call for technology monitoring.  We haven’t got that right yet, and I see no evidence that we’ll get it right, even if this new bill was to pass.

But here is the "rebooting" part that seems frankly, silly to me.

The bill would require immigrants here illegally to cross a border and then reenter the country legally — in theory on the same day, or even within hours — thereby "rebooting" and legitimizing their status at any time within six years. This is a political fig leaf that will allow immigration hawks to claim a symbolic victory, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory if it establishes a system so onerous or risky that immigrants simply decide it isn’t worth it and remain in the shadows. For now, the bill’s sponsors affirm that the "rebooting" requirement will be sufficiently flexible and common-sensical — providing waivers for single parents, for instance, and allowing heads of household to "reboot" on behalf of their families — that most illegal immigrants will comply.

So an illegal can become legal by admitting that they’re illegal, leave the country and then cross back into the country and become legal?  I realize that the provisions are not that simplistic, but, step across the border one way and step across the border the other way, and suddenly all will be forgiven?  Of course the bill does have other provisions, some of which the editorial point to as being onerous enough to possible keep some illegals in the shadows.

• immigrants paying a $2,000 fine and any back taxes they owe

• clearing a security and background check

• learning English and civics

• compiling a felony-free record

• submitting proof of past employment

• six year waiting period before seeking permanent residency status

Now, the other idea as I mentioned above is to charge those detained as illegal immigrants with trespassing (on public or private property). 

Immigration hawks seek to put two measures on Arizona’s ballot
Advocates for tougher border enforcement
filed two proposed ballot measures in Arizona that would make it a
state crime to knowingly hire those who sneak in the country and
criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants in the state…

Also see: Proposed ballot measure takes aim at businesses that hire illegals

I realize that this has been tried in New Hampshire and failed.  But think of this.  One of the reasons why municipalities like New York City look the other way when it comes to illegals is that they don’t have the jurisdiction (or the budget or jail space), the feds have the jurisdiction.  So, many cities and localities do nothing when they find an illegal immigrant until or unless they commit another crime.  So why not charge an illegal alien with trespassing and then detain them until the feds (ICE) comes in to take care of the dirty work of deporting someone who is in this country illegally.  You might also try theft of services as a charge to hold an illegal.

I know, I’m heartless.  Comments?

More on border policy the British way at Right Truth.

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

2 Comments »

This one probably doesn’t belong here on a counterterrorism blog, but…whatever!  Every once in a while, I’ve got to break the monotony of serious events and analysis.  I suppose it would be terrorism if you ran into one of them in an Australian pond.

Group captures dog-sized ‘monster’ toad
With a body the size of a football and
weighing nearly 2 pounds, the toad is among the largest specimens ever
captured in Australia, according to Frogwatch coordinator Graeme Sawyer.

“It’s
huge, to put it mildly,” he said. “The biggest toads are usually
females but this one was a rampant male … I would hate to meet his
big sister…”

• Highly poisonous

• Imported from South America and not controlled

• have proven fatal to Australia’s delicate ecosystems, killing millions
  of native animals from snakes to the small crocodiles that eat them.

“We kill them with carbon dioxide gas, stockpile them in a big freezer and then put them through a liquid fertilizer process” that renders the toads nontoxic, Sawyer said.

“It turns out to be sensational fertilizer,” he added.

More about "Frog Watch" can be found here.

More "fun" with animals:

Current Affairs, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Since the glitz, glamour, buzz and misconceptions surrounding Radio Frequency Identity chips (RFIDs) tends to complicate my life on my "day job," I continue to take no small glee in reading articles that highlight the vulnerabilities of this "magical technology" (which is it not, despite what some of the "experts" - RFID’ers all - would have you believe).

RFID holes create security concerns
The recurring topic of RFID security flaws has been making headlines again lately. But unlike new
e-mail viruses or Internet worms that demand the immediate attention of
the IT department, this threat isn’t a front-burner security issue…at least not yet…

• Earlier this month a security expert cracked one of the U.K.’s new biometric passports that use RFID to store personal information.

• …at the RSA Security `07 conference, a company called IOActive
  demonstrated an RFID cloner that can steal codes from building access
  cards.

• UPDATE: Black Hat: Much ado about RFID

• headlines from the past year that the U.S. Department of State plans to issue passports with RFID chips containing personal information

• reports that an RFID virus could be developed that make tags vulnerable, and suddenly the technology seems about as safe as sending confidential data over Web mail…

RFID security holes are only truly dangerous if the information stored on these tags is valuable. In most enterprise applications of RFID today – many of which are still in their early phases – that’s not the case…

Powerful organizations including retailing giant Wal-Mart and the U.S. Department of Defense are using the technology and requiring their suppliers to do the same, which will increase the technology’s adoption, and with that security concerns will mount.

There are a number of reasons why RFID is vulnerable:
                     

•
The tags are physically small, making it technically difficult to
engineer protection for them…                   

• RFID tags are mobile…and are therefore exposed to more unauthorized users than most technologies…

•
The tags aren’t always carrying sensitive data…
                     

• The tags are
used in hundreds of ways, making it difficult to standardize on when
security is needed, and how much…

Decidedly, my glee is selective and self-serving.  Too bad!

Related articles from Network World
Security expert cracks RFID chip in U.K. passport 03/06/07
UPDATE: Black Hat: Much ado about RFID 02/28/07
Wal-Mart and the Three Great RFID Lies 03/15/07
Industry group urges caution for RFID-enabled ID cards 12/05/06
Second U.S. state to nix forced RFID chipping  03/22/07
RFID threats: Don’t be alarmed, but be aware  03/22/07
InnerWireless buys PanGo Networks  03/21/07
AeroScout updates location-tracking wares  03/13/07
Security expert cracks RFID chip in U.K. passport  03/06/07
CEBIT - Trade show wrestles with an ‘image crisis’  03/06/07
Black Hat event features RFID tiff, cybercrime update  03/05/07
                   

Previous Posts on RFIDs         
                     

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions, Technology

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

If there has ever been a problem that simply screams for data fusion (and I have to believe that they are working on the problem), its that the Terror Database Has
Quadrupled In Four Years.

Called TIDE, for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, the list is
a storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community
believes might harm the United States. It is the wellspring for watch
lists distributed to airlines, law enforcement, border posts and U.S.
consulates, created to close one of the key intelligence gaps revealed
after Sept. 11, 2001: the failure of federal agencies to share what
they knew about al-Qaeda operatives.

The "problem" is that there are now nearly a half million separate files being drawn from a variety of sources and being fed to the Justice Department (National Crime Information Center - lookout for law enforcement), Homeland Security (Interagency Border and Inspection System - cannot cross border), the State Department (Consular Lookout and Support System - barred from obtaining visa), and Transportation Security Administration - No Fly List…barred from flying and Selectee List…can fly but under greater scrutiny)…take a look at this complex system of data, Feeding the Terrorism Clearinghouse.

Of course, there are some who would tell us to have no data bases like this and to "stop creating terrorists by staying out of other peoples’ business."  Now, in my opinion, that is an impossibility.  At the same time, the conglomeration of information is problematic as well.

TIDE is a vacuum cleaner for both proven and unproven information, and
its managers disclaim responsibility for how other agencies use the
data. "What’s the alternative?" Travers said. "I work under the
assumption that we’re never going to have perfect information –
fingerprints, DNA — on 6 billion people across the planet…If
someone actually has a better idea, I’m all ears."

Considering the imperative (IMO) of keeping a careful eye on things as they occur in this country, I do not see much of an alternative to keeping this information, and keeping it growing.  The prpoblem of course is how to maintain it, and how to ensure that it is analyzed correctly and in a timely manner.  This leads to information sharing and the system of analysis.  Most if not all of the data is initially sent to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center.

Every night at 10, TIDE dumps an unclassified version of that day’s harvest — names, dates of birth, countries of origin and passport information — into a database belonging to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. TIDE’s most sensitive information is not included. The FBI adds data about U.S. suspects with no international ties for a combined daily total of 1,000 to 1,500 new names.

Between 5 and 6 a.m., a shift of 24 analysts drawn from the agencies that use watch lists begins a new winnowing process at the center’s Crystal City office. The analysts have access to case files at TIDE and the original intelligence sources, said the center’s acting director, Rick Kopel.

Decisions on what to add to the Terrorist Screening Center master list are made by midafternoon. The bar is higher than TIDE’s…The criteria each agency use are classified…Some information may raise a red flag for one agency but not another.

"At the end of the day" there will always be issues raised when it comes to gathering and using information on individuals.  Some people will point to the mistakes and instances of mistaken identities as reasons why these data resources should not exist.  I just see an alternative.

FWIW, this is not a new issue.  An article from October 29, 2002 titled Multitude
of Databases Complicates Information Sharing discussed the myriad of information involved in homeland security.  You might also wish to refer to previous posts on data fusion.

 

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

3 Comments »

To be a wife of a politician cannot be an easy life.  The media attention in general, and then the microscope underwhich your lives are lived is much more than many who would consider serving our Country could bear.  Many don’t and therefore, choose not to serve.

This is a short entry, as my time today is short.  Mrs. Edwards’ cancer has returned and it has spread.  When I saw her interviewed a while back about how she had stood up during the last Presidential campaign to the pressures while standing by her husband, I could only sit in awe of the woman.  She has a strength that few have.

Now, this newest challenge confronts the Edwards’ family.  John Edwards, in his belief that he had something to contribute to this Nation has apparently decided to continue in his quest to seek the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.  In Brian Williams’ commentary today, you can find In Sickness… talking about the recurrence of her cancer.

If you haven’t seen it, you should watch it. If your family hasn’t yet been touched by cancer, it will. If you’re looking for a way to deal with cancer in a forthright way and with great grace, this — according to the majority of those I’ve sampled who watched it happen — was it. (follow the link to Williams’ entry to view a 20 minute video).

Today John and Elizabeth Edwards stepped before the media in the very same Chapel Hill courtyard that once served as the backdrop for their wedding reception. Moments earlier, and for some time in advance, the Web site Politico.com was reporting that Edwards was ending or suspending his campaign for office because his wife’s cancer had made a comeback. As I later said on the air: only one of those two stories turned out to be right. Elizabeth Edwards went to the doctor to investigate a pain in her ribcage. They discovered a spot of metastasized breast cancer on the other side of her ribcage.

The news conference that followed was extraordinary for its directness…

You make this issue a partisan political one at the risk of showing yourself to be a heartless, thoughtless, cold, sub-human being.

Edwards Says Wife’s Cancer Has Returned

John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat, said Thursday that his wife’s cancer had returned in incurable form. He proclaimed that he would continue his bid for the presidency, saying, “The campaign goes on strongly.”

The announcement here by Mr. Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, followed an emotional 72-hour stretch…

…Mr. Edwards’s aides said he had not discussed dropping out or suspending his campaign with them. At a midday news conference Thursday, he suggested that in private talks with his wife he had offered to pull out of the race, but she had insisted he stay in.

“I’m absolutely ready for this,” Mrs. Edwards, 57, said. “I mean, I don’t look sickly, I don’t feel sickly. And I’m as ready as any person can be for that.”

Mrs. Edwards’s doctor said at the news conference that she had metastatic, or Stage 4, breast cancer, meaning that it is in an advanced stage that has spread beyond the breast and lymph nodes, in her case to the bone…

I could write more, but we all know, or will know, the story.  It’ll be certain to be a topic of the news shows this weekend. 

Depending on the course of her disease and its treatment, this may be just an interim decision.

No matter your political slant…no matter your religous persuasion, keep Elizabeth Edwards in your prayers.  She deserves that from all of us.

Maggie’s Notebook

Current Affairs, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

Since the initial invasion of Iraq, one of the questions I have held constant is our previously demonstrated inability to understand the cultural construct of the people in countries in which we send our war fighters.  This includes our lack of understanding of the pre-eminence of the tribes and warlords of Afghanistan, and certainly, the desert culture of the Bedoiuns in Iraq (or it should likely be better written, the ancient Middle East)…this is addition to our historic misread of the Vietnamese people and their motivations.

It is written that the Bedouin follows a strict order of life in which he pledges his total allegiance to his family, clan, and the tribe: I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my brothers and my cousins against the world.

Why is this important?  Highlighted by Brian Williams of NBC in his post The Secret, the article, The Modern Seven Pillars of Iraq makes significant observations about the cultural backdrop against which today’s military and diplomatic strategies should be considered.  The question is not whether the Administration will consider them.  It has already been shown that this incapacity exists.  It is also as apparent that to win the War in Iraq, such consideration is critical to the understanding of the social dynamics that exist and which will affect the success or failure of current strategies. 

There is a knee-jerk tendency, especially in the anonymity of the Internet to cast a blanket of doubt (calling people unpatriotic, or worse, anti-American) on those who make critical comments.  So before looking at this very fine analysis, I refrain a few recent posts (especially for any new readers who might happen by as a result of the references to MSNBC).

Iraq: What Civil War? Gas Attacks and Future Stability
Iraq - Why "Winning is Everything"
The "Long War" - How Long?

The Modern Seven Pillars of Iraq was written by LT. COL.(P) CRAIG T. TREBILCOCK, U.S. Army Reserve, served as a Judge Advocate, coordinating reconstruction of the Iraqi legal system, during Operation Iraqi Freedom-1. He has a Juris Doctor degree, with a focus on international law, from the University of Michigan Law School. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.  As Mr. Williams urged his readers, I believe that this is an important article, and should be read (slowly) and understood (you might even consider taking notes beyond the excerpts that follow).  Clearly, unless otherwise noted, the opinions are those of LT. COL. TREBILCOCK.  In spirit of time (that which I seem to have too little of recently) and in hoping that you all take the time and make the effort to read the article in its entirety, I will simply summarize or highlight each of the seven pillars.  These should be considered in the context of what I have already defined as my vision of success in Iraq (it should be
remembered that I believe that "victory" is defined as leaving Iraq in
the hands of a stable government).

When the question is “How can we attain the strategic goal of political stability in Iraq?” a broader set of answers is required. Many of these answers are not politically palatable to the civilian leadership; thus the default unwisely returns to the U.S. military to fix an internal Iraqi cultural and political problem. The answer to the riddle begins with a political change of course from Washington, D.C., not a military buildup in Iraq.

1—Iraqi society is based upon a strict patriarchal hierarchy under which a sheikh has absolute power over his tribe…

2—The primary concern of Iraqi officials is not democracy or the political evolution of a successful Iraqi nationstate. It is the use of their position in government to gain personal wealth, as well as benefits for their extended family, tribe or sect. This observation is not a character attack, but merely reflects the reality that in a Bedouin society, where the foundational social unit is the tribe, one’s primary loyalty and goals run to that tribe…

3—If Iraqis do not value something, they will not fight for it…Yet these same Iraqis are tenaciously fighting the world’s predominant military power tooth and nail in their tribal areas and in their cities. What’s the difference? The insurgents are now fighting for something they believe in—expelling foreign troops and sectarian enemies from the tribal areas and cities that they hold dear…

4—In a society that is evolving from a difficult Bedouin desert existence, where water and other base staples of life have historically been in short supply, the Iraqis have learned that the group that controls the resources of the province or nation lives; he who does not dies. Sharing of resources or power with competing groups outside one’s own tribe is an unfamiliar and foreign concept…

5—Individually, Iraqis are a warm and generous people. As the size of their group grows, however, whether as a family unit, tribe or an entire sect, their generosity to those not within their social circle wanes…armed struggle for power, not compromise and democratic-style debate, is the norm.

6—Trading and bartering for personal or tribal gain is part of the Iraqi/Bedouin culture. Self-sacrifice for the general welfare is not…Increased U.S. military operations will inflame this struggle for political dominance, not diminish it.

7—Iraqis do not share Western concepts on the use, passage or value of time. They sincerely believe that if a matter is truly important, Allah will control the outcome, and the personal efforts of individuals are merely tangential to that outcome.

A further observation made by LT. COL. TREBILCOCK is that:

Building the parameters for mission success upon values and goals that the Iraqis themselves do not care for is potentially leading us toward a political defeat, despite our strength of arms. Accordingly, the disconnect between a nondemocratic Iraqi culture and U.S. political goals will not be settled by sending more troops.

The great military strategist, Sun Tzu is often attributed with a series of quotes regarding "knowing thy enemy."  Two such sayings are:

• If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.

• If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

On the Counterterrorism Blog, Andy Cochran’s article, One Man’s Transformation on Iraq Worth Considering also discusses Col. Trebilcock’s point of view and adds more substance to my own discussion.

He concludes with a prediction of strategic defeat, "In the end, by ignoring the cultural and internal political realities of Iraq in favor of a one-dimensional approach based upon military remedies, the civilian leadership of our military will likely win the battle and lose the war."

His current views contrast sharply to his views in October 2003, seven months after the beginning of the war, when he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times titled, "Why War in Iraq?" Then, it was all about rescuing Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s own rule of terror: "Those who fought to liberate Iraq shake their heads in wonder that President Bush and Tony Blair are still under attack as to whether a particular piece of intelligence regarding WMD was good enough to justify military action when the lives of millions have been saved from murder and oppression.  Although the fighting continues, the groundwork is being laid every day
for Iraq to emerge as a free and stable country in a region
characterized by oppression and instability. On the strategic scene,
these are issues in the vital interest of the United States worth
fighting for." A lot of us shared those views then.

Do not mistake my statements as being any less
committed to seeing a victorious solution in Iraq (if you do, you have not read all of my previous posts and have no idea of where I’m coming from).  This is not a question of my lack
of belief in the need for us to have removed Hussein (we’re not
debating the merits of the motives or justifications here).  And do not
mistake this questioning of strategy and (mis)understanding as
promoting a strategy that today’s conservative minions laughingly point
to as the "hate America" or the Democrat’s path to defeat.  It is
nothing like that, and in fact is quite the opposite!  It is an objective look at a complex issue.  Unfortunately, we all know
that all too many Americans have a "narrow field of view" when it comes
to the complex issues of the War on Terror (all you need to do is read so many of the words that are spread around the Internet as "gospel").  So when confronted with
opinions contrary to those they’ve formed through dubious sources and
means, the stereotypical reaction is to lash out, instead of making an
attempt to understand.

Understanding of the complex issues that face our Nation in the field(s) of battle cannot ignore the existing societal and cultural context of the countries.  If we continue to ignore them, and continue to flex with military might instead of understanding, the outcomes may be quite different than desired.

Just my opinions.  Comments are invited.

<>

What Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Saying?
Check out what someone else is saying about what I’ve been writing for a year on Villagers with Torches.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, Iraq, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

15 Comments »

Proving once again that the Air Force created an uncontrollable situation out of a controllable one, Michelle Manhart has disrobed for the cameras again, this time to showcase herself for animal rights.

On Wednesday,
she disrobed again, this time posing for a national ad campaign, "I’d
Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" by People For the Ethical Treatment of
Animals.

"I was so
excited when I got the call about a month ago to pose for this
campaign," Manhart said. "This person asked me, ‘Do you know who PETA
is? And I said, ‘Yeah, duh, who doesn’t know who they are?’"

In some of the
shots, she saluted toward the camera while covering her breasts, and in
others, she draped herself over a U.S. flag.

 Well, the "authorities" should probably focus their attention on the base closures and not on Manhart’s boobs anyway (maybe I should do that too).  "She certainly isn’t shy," someone commented.

Pavlov Rules!  Especially considering the number of "hits" from military IP addresses.  Just for the "h" of it, here are all of the previous Manhart posts:

An Interview with Michelle Manhart
Montel Williams Judges Michelle Manhart
Cultures Clash - Manhart’s Playboy Spread and the Air Force
UPDATED: Michelle Manhart Sighting (and she quits Air Force)
Updating Michelle Manhart - Lackland AFB Battle Lab May Close
Michelle Manhart - Relieved of Duty

Current Affairs, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

There are so many reasons why I wish I had written this article, but of course I didn’t.  But I can’t say that I am sorry that Howard Anderson of Network World did.

Wal-Mart and the Three Great RFID Lies

The last time I counted, more than 65 venture-backed companies were committed to RFID technology. Assume a $20 million investment in each, and that’s $1.3 billion invested in RFID. Each company submitted a business plan that essentially said: RFID is going to be the next great multibillion-dollar market (Lie No. 1); every company that sells to Wal-Mart will be required to use RFID tags (Lie No. 2, though this remains to be seen); and Wal-Mart is strongly behind RFID (Lie No. 3).

Well, I just love this!  But please read the entire article.

RFID is a technology in search of a problem. There isn’t a single industry standard yet, who knows how many vendors will be around in five years, and the RFID tags and readers are less than foolproof. The technology is young, and investments now could be obsolete or leapfrogged.

Some recent posts on the subject of RFIDs:
RFID Vulnerabilities and Controversies
Radio Frequency ID Chips (RFID) - Security Vulnerabilities?
The "Problem" with RFIDs
The "Problem" with RFIDs

Not much more to add here.  It just "warms my heart to keep on reading articles like this.

Other related articles from Network World
Shipments of Sony’s Felica RFID chip hit 200 million
Lawmakers working to ban hacked RFID door cards
Company hopes to tame Wal-Mart RFID requirement with IBM system
Wal-Mart keeps RFID momentum after personnel reshuffle

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

1 Comment »

I remember a discussion a few years back when it was discussed that our soldiers were being subjected unnecessarially to enemy fire when in open vehicles, even tanks, because there was no protection "up top."  Well, for some reason, until recently, it was still a problem.

Life-saving turret prototype stems from Airman’s death
Less than 80 days after Airman 1st Class
Leebernard Chavis was felled by a sniper’s bullet near Baghdad, Airmen
in Iraq were testing an improved turret that designers hope will offer
service members better protection.

Airman Chavis, of Hampton, Va., was killed by enemy gunfire Oct. 14
while performing duties as a turret gunner with his security forces
team, out on joint patrol with Iraqi police in the vicinity of
Baghdad.  Airman Chavis, a member of the 732nd Expeditionary Security
Forces Squadron, was part of the U.S. military police training effort
supporting Iraqi police.

"We have an emerging threat that has developed: the sniper," explained Col. Gerard Jolivette, U.S. Central Command Air Forces’ director of force protection. "We’ve lost an Airman due to sniper fire… and this is a mental and physical threat that we must mitigate immediately."

Credit goes to the Airmen from Detachment 7 of the 732nd ESFS and the 447th Expeditionary Logisitcs Readiness Squadron’s vehicle maintenance shop who designed and built the first prototypes of the "Chavis Turret" in Fall 2006 from scrounged materials using pieces cannibalized from junked vehicles and old parts.

Anyone else find that distrubing?  I know that I do!  The problems with our guys taking shots when they’ve risen from some of these vehicles has been going on for a while, so you’ve got to wonder why it took so long?  But you’ve also got to get to the real point here.   Col. Gerard Jolivette, U.S. Central Command Air Forces’ director of force protection challenged the Air Force Security Forces Force Protection Battlelab to come up with a design that increased visibility and protection for turret gunners while maintaining their ability to stay in the fight.

The rest of the story is told in the Air Force Link story and in the post from Potbelly Stove titled News From the Front.

This was accomplished not only because of the guys from Detachment 7 of the 732nd ESFS, but also from the Force Protection Battlelab (guess where its located).  Wanna guess???  Go ahead and guess.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, Iraq, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Well, here ya go.  Its an interview with Michelle Manhart written by Heather Wallace of ORATO "featuring FIRST PERSON, citizen journalism from around the world."

I Was Kicked Out Of The Air Force For Posing Nude In Playboy
By
Michelle Manhart as told to

Orato Editor Heather Wallace

, U.S.A. 03/19/07

I
recently went to New York and shot the Montel Williams Show. It was
less than what we expected, to say the least. I was told I was brought
to the show to be able to express things that the news doesn’t and tell
my side of the story to the American people. However, right before I
walked onstage, I was told, “Don’t let Montel take the stage from you.”
I thought, uh-oh, what’s about to happen? Turns out he wanted to scold
me. I do so many interviews, yet the whole story never usually comes
out in the end result. But there are things the American public needs
to know, and one is that there is nothing protecting our troops when
the military decides to break their own rules.

Quotes:

• I have a perfect record, perfect service, I’ve been overseas; I’ve done
  everything you’d want to do in the military. I have nothing bad on my
  record. I submitted myself to Playboy several times. I’ve been modeling
  all through my military service and I’ve never been told it was a bad
  thing or been warned that I would have to reject an offer if it came to
  me.

• Whether you agree with what I did or not, you need to place those
  feelings aside. Legally, someone needs to be punished for what they
  have done. They have broken rules themselves in order to punish me.

• In the March issue of Playboy, which came out a month after my issue,
  there was an army man posing surrounded by a group of Playboy bunnies.
  I haven’t heard that anything has happened to him. He’s in his uniform,
  in Playboy, which is apparently what I got in trouble for.

• My posing nude has nothing to do with my performance. Personally, I
  think nudity is beautiful. Posing in my uniform was my way of saying to
  people that even though the military depicts us as this brute,
  masculine device, I can be a woman and still do my job better than the
  next. We can go out and fight for our country, be shot at, yell, march,
  but when you turn the page, we’re women and we’re beautiful.

• According to Air Force Chief of Staff: "This young lady made a decision about her future, and her decision
  has consequences, and so I wish her the best life. She’s now got
  exactly what she was looking for." - Gen. T. Michael Moseley.

[Please read the entire interview here.]

For more information about Michelle Manhart, click here.

Visit Michelle Manhart’s MySpace.

Read one of Michelle Manhart’s favorite articles.

To view 1940s Nose Art Collection.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley quote source: MySA.com

Personally, I think that the military over reacted and brought way too much attention to this situation.  But then again, who am I?  I don’t even think Sgt. Manhart is all that attractive.  I think they all would have been better off to focus on the loss of the Force Protection Battlelab at Lackland AFB than to worry about Michelle Manhart showing her boobs.

Thank you Pavlov!  Woof!!! or is that Woof!??

Current Affairs, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Clearly, the outcome of the Iraqi "adventure" is still too far off the predict, but in spite of the constant barrage of bad news and suicide bombers, along with the recent chlorine gas attack (Iraq gas attack makes hundreds ill), there is a real opportunity to achieve stability and a society of reason there.

Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion
poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion
of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Highlights of the poll with over 5000 questioned:

• Some 26% of
  Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shi’ites - have suffered the murder of a
  family member.

• Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a
  relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.

• 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime
  minister, to living under Saddam (26% liked Saddam better)

• 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other

• the divisions in Iraqi society are reflected
  — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while
  the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government.

Regarding the question of a civil war:

• in total, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil
  war.
• 41% of Sunnis
  believing Iraq was in a civil war
• 15% of Shi’ites consider their country in a civil war

I guess the starting point (and maybe the ending point) should be, "who are we to judge?"  In fact, if you read today’s Washington Post editorial, Lessons of War - The fighting in Iraq enters its fifth year you read commentary that describes the situaiton in Iraq as "dire, and very different from what we would have hoped or predicted four years ago."  In what can only be characterized as a negative piece, the editorial goes on to say:

But the war might have spun out of control even under wiser leadership. Decisions that seem so obviously wrongheaded now, such as disbanding the Iraqi army or deploying too few troops, had smart people arguing both sides at the time. Even a larger force might not have stopped the looting; total forgiveness of Baathist officers might not have forestalled Sunni insurgency or might have spurred the Shiites into rebellion. Wars unleash unpredictable and ugly forces, even short and "successful" wars. The United States is still paying a price for the betrayal of Shiites and Kurds after the Persian Gulf War; U.S. forces remain bogged down in Afghanistan after dislodging the Taliban regime in that brilliant, brief campaign of 2001.

Is this an overly negative assessment of the strategic miscues that occurred, or an honest call for a reflection on those strategic decisions and the surround texture at the time they were made?

…the experience has shown the risks of preemptive war. Yet it remains true in a