Dismal State of our National Security

Within a six month period in 2009 we've had the Fort Hood shooting by a devout Muslim, the Nation of Islam-affiliated cop massacre near Seattle, and the "angelic" Muslim from Nigeria in a miraculous failure to blow up a Detroit-bound plane.

These terrorist attacks all have one thing in common.  Our failure of acknowledging the root cause of the terrorist threat.  No, the root cause is not "poverty" or "the haves vs. the have nots" or "racial discrimination" or "religious discrimination."  It is not the "evil US suppression" of other peoples or nations, although this is a popular "blame-America-first" belief.

The root cause is our failure to understand the basic historical teaching and goals of Islam, and the motivation of those who become devout in its practice.

Instead we have leaders who believe Islam must be respected and dealt with benevolently.  We have sympathizers who continue to insist that Islam is a "religion of peace."    We have national security leaders who confusedly profess that "the system worked really, really smoothly."  We have a President who rewards Islamic nations while snubbing our allies - who has the Islamic threat totally off his radar of national concerns.  Heck, he doesn't even recognize any "terror threat" as a high priority, never mind admitting that 99% is Islamic motivated.

We have been "reactive" and not "proactive."  We are being severely manipulated by our failure to acknowledge the root problem.  After 9-11, we had cockpit doors fortified and searches of passengers for box cutters.  After the shoe bomber, we all have to remove our shoes in the security line-up.  After the European plot to carry small vials of liquid explosives onto planes, no one can bring perfume, aftershave, or liquid medications in our carry-ons.  Literally tons of these were confiscated at the gates.  As a result of the underwear bomber, we will either have full body scans revealing every mole or be subject to pat downs up to our crotch.  When the devout Islamist conceal their explosive of choice in their body cavities, we may be induced to accept body cavity searches as well.

Don't you think we are missing something here?  Instead of punishing Americans who love our freedoms, why don't we focus on those whose ideology promotes the terror?  Instead of reducing the freedoms of those who respect freedom, why not reduce the freedoms of those who want to destroy our freedom?  Is this approach too logical?  Yes, it involves profiling.  Before the Islamic cancer spreads further, every individual who claims Islam as their faith, and every individual from an Islamic-dominated nation must receive special attention.  This special attention must be carried out at the airport gates as well as in our selection of individuals for sensitive positions in our government and defense organizations and industries.  This is the least we should do.  Others may soon be calling for the deportation of all who profess a devout belief in Islam, or worse, especially if we experience another successful attack of 9-11 proportions or worse.  We need to stop our demeaning harassment of the innocent majority out of our insane desire to not offend those who profess their offense toward us.

We know our President is not with us when he declares in his book "Audacity of Hope" that he promises to “stand with them [Muslim immigrants] if the political winds became ugly.”   I take that to mean that he will defend Islam and Muslims in this nation no matter how severe the political backlash might be as a result of future Muslim atrocities.  Stunning.

Daniel Pipes, in this pointed article about our security failures, asked "What size disaster must occur to inspire a serious approach to counterterrorism?"

I would add "What size disaster must occur and how much of our culture and freedom must we sacrifice to inspire a serious approach to Islam?"

LiveJournal Tags: Islam,Islamic terror,root cause of terror,Muslims,national security,Obama,reacting

Obama’s foreign policy: A possible positive result

Obama has done a lot of things that cause conservatives to believe he is screwing up our national security and relationships with our allies.

But there may be one bright spot. We are no longer perceived as being the lead defender of the west. We have relinquished what many perceive as the Bush junk yard dog mentality. No more “Matt Dillon” galloping to the rescue of the young maiden.

The other “townsfolk” now know they have to share the burden for law and order in their territory, their national defense. But the big question remains: Do they have either the will or the means to defend themselves? History over the past 95 years says they don’t.

Oh well. It was a thought, anyway.

On a related note, Yahoo News reports “…commentators on the left say the military ought to keep its advice private without trying to influence public debate, with New York Times columnist Frank Rich accusing the generals of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan.”

But the military rightfully doesn’t want to take the fall for the failure of a political solution to the Afghan war. They are right to lay out what is needed from the military perspective. If the President fails to heed their advice, the failure is properly on his shoulders. No wonder Obama is dumbing down his definition of “victory.” He is preparing us not to expect very much.

Here is a gem of a quote from George Will:

"A presidential strategy is half-baked if its author decides it is dubious after its first collision with difficulty. "

Obama in Action

Classic Obama exercising his change in the realms of the economy, national security, and foreign relations.

Stupidity in defense of liberty is no virtue

From the mid- to late 1960's, civil strife in this nation was rampant. Leftist anti-war radicals were rioting on college campuses. Black street gangs were rioting in our major cities, and fears of a right-wing racist backlash were rampant. During this period the nation was in fear of insurrection. The national guard was called out on many occasions and US Army troops were also called to defend life and property. Because the US Army was involved, Army intelligence services were required to help understand the situation and the individuals instigating these riots. Pertinent FBI reports were monitored by our military intelligence specialists. There were some instances of Army special intelligence agents also monitoring US civilian activities when Army personnel had to be involved in suppressing these college campus and urban riots.

There was one chap in Army intelligence (I'll call him "Weasel 1") who disagreed with the concept of the Army gathering some of its own intelligence in preparing itself for its assigned riot control mission. In fact, his complaint went to the US Supreme Court as Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972). Specifically, the complaint accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The case was dismissed for "lack of ripeness", meaning it was determined that no harm was done. Not surprisingly, Weasel 1 became a law professor and does work for the ACLU. Weasel 1 and the ACLU thrive on stupidity in defense of liberty.

This 1960's history reminds me very much of the concerns of present day "Weasel 2" and his radical left cohorts. These Weasels are consumed with concern over the CIA's methods of interrogation, not of US Citizens, but of wartime captives who were involved in the worst ever atrocity against our nation, the 9-11 attacks. They also believe that our nations "values" are harmed in the eyes of our enemies because of our "enhanced interrogation methods" and because we chose to detain terrorists at Guantanamo, Cuba, during wartime, which by the way, we are still in. Weasel 2 also thrives on stupidity in defense of liberty.

Dick Chaney, who's primary mission as past Vice President was national security, gave a speech today (right after Weasel 2's speech) on this very subject. Mr. Chaney provides essential reminders of why we did what we did. More importantly, he reminds us of the ongoing threat - the ongoing need to continue the practices that kept us safe over the last eight years. We cannot consider his work "mission accomplished" as Weasel 2 apparently does. The threat remains, and is, in fact, even greater today given the progress of our enemies in developing and likely distributing nuclear weapons (see Iran and Pakistan.)

Dick Chaney's speech is a "must read" for anyone wanting to understand our past actions, and why we cannot adopt new policies that put the concerns of our enemies ahead of our national security.

Prioritizing Security Threats in the US

The Department of Homeland Security announced to all the police agencies in the nation to be aware of a growing threat of "right-wing extremists" in the United States. The announcement specifically referenced concern about those who are opposed to abortion and illegal immigration. They also alluded to those who are concerned about higher taxes, runaway growth of our federal government, loss of states rights, loss of jobs, loss of homes, and those who are concerned about official Washington obliviousness to the growing threat of Islamists in this nation. Pissed off returning war vets are specifically targeted as potential right-wing culprits. What a freakin' slap in the face to them!

Adding up all of these "malcontents", that would make about 80% of the US population "right-wing extremists" - all of middle America, in essence.

Here is the pdf of the Homeland Security warning.

And why, exactly, wouldn't "left-wing extremists" and middle of the roaders also become troubled and write, talk, and demonstrate about the economy, loss of jobs, loss of benefits, and loss of homes? Why does this government believe that only "right-wing extremists" are concerned about these sorts of things?

Following is my "national security risk assessment." These are all priorities that should come well ahead of the bogus concerns about the threat of middle America.

1. Islamists, violent jihad version: Radicals associated with Islam, al Queda, Iran, etc. who desire to use a dirty nuclear device, high altitude EMP device, a viral contagion, or other WMD against this nation with the intent to destroy our economy, infrastructure, and government.

2. Continued dependence on foreign energy sources.

3. Left wing US-hating radicals in this nation such as Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Nancy Pelosi, most Obama appointees, and other proponents of socialism who desire to create a paternalistic, entitlement-centered, incentive-eroding, resource-sucking, mega-goverment.

4. Islamists, stealth jihad version - and their sympathizers: Stealth jihadists in US Mosques and Islamic Training Centers who desire to use this nation's liberties and legal system against itself while promoting an intolerant, oppressive Islamo-fascist (Sharia-law oriented) government and legal system. This includes those who shout "bigot" against anyone raising legitimate concerns.

5. Unabated illegal immigration that poses a four-pronged threat: to national security, to the respect for and enforcement of our laws, the draining of economic resources on entitlements granted to law-breakers, and distortion of our cultural balance well beyond any influx of legal immigrants this country has ever experienced.

If our federal government did not intend this document to be a slap in the face of patriotic Americans who don't agree with the extreme left wing agenda of our current administration, then they have a lot of explaining and kissing up to do.

The vagueness of this new "risk assessment" is strangely uncharacterisctic compared to the specificity of similar previous assessments. Is this administration becoming concerned about the discontent it is creating? Are those of us who are not thrilled with the direction of our government but who still believe we are free to express ourselves in for some big government wrist slapping and intimidation? We shall see.

The only "right wing extemism" they can cite is the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, 14 years ago. Ol' Tim has since been executed. Using Tim as the only right wing poster child is like using Osama bin Laden as the only Muslim example of violence, when in fact, there have been literally THOUSANDS of acts of Muslim violence since 9/11 2001! Get real!

Update: Here is the DHS half-assed explanation of their rant against middle America.

"A small band of fanatics..."

As patriotic and well meaning as George Bush may be, he has disappointed me in several areas, the most dangerous of which for our nation is his assumption about the nature of Islam.

The latter shortcoming is illustrated in this excerpt from his farewell address...

"The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, [a] small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace."

A "small band of fanatics" indeed. Has Mr. Bush ignored the near-violent and pointedly anti-Semitic protests in many American cities sponsored and attended by thousands of Islamists over the last couple of weeks? Has he ignored the violent and pro-genocide demonstrations in many nations of the world sponsored and attended by the same "small band?" I'm not talking about U2 or Kiss here.

Has Mr. Bush ignored the over 100 reported atrocities per month committed by Islamists in the name of Islamic jihad worldwide? View these here.

Mr. Bush must certainly realize that the federal government is not spending the highest national defense appropriation since the end of WWII, close to a trillion dollars, plus or minus a few billion to defend ourselves against a "small band of fanatics." C'mon, George. Why do you continue to sugar-coat our pickle in your rhetoric?

And the purpose of our $$$$$$ efforts in Iraq is to create a democracy? I recently read an apt description of democracy in Muslim dominated nations: One vote - One time.

The heart of Islam is the Koran. The heart of the Koran is world domination through spiritual, physical, and violent means. Muslims who are not terrorists themselves are either ignorant of the historical teachings of their religion, are knowledgeable but don't care for that part of it, or are supporters either in spirit, financially, politically, or logistically. What percent of the 1.2 billion Muslims might constitute the "small band of fanatics"? 10% (120,000,000); only 5% (60,000,000?) What part of the 95% are active supporters of the "small band" in one form or another? The US Muslim population is estimated at between 4 and 7 million. How many of these seek Sharia law in this nation? How many support the imposition of Islam here? How many will resort to deceit, infiltration, threat, or terror?

In any scenario, Bush is either the poor communicator the media claims (true), he is ignorant of the nature of Islam and is getting bad advice (most likely), or is purposely toning down his rhetoric for some obscure strategic purpose (possible).

None of these excuses are helpful to our nations' understanding of the nature of Islam and its impact on national security and our quality of life and national survival.

What "Support the War" Meant to Me - in retrospect

Two years ago, this, in a few words, is what "Support the War" meant to me: go in - eliminate Saddam and his command and control apparatus - check everywhere for purported WMDs - get out. If WMD's are later interpreted as al-Qaeda, then our current level of effort and strategy have failed and will fail. The undeniable "civil war" between Sunni and Shia was going on since well before the US arrived. Saddam merely suppressed it. We don't have the will or insight to effectively suppress the fighting rabid dogs that Saddam had. We have no business being there anymore. We need to learn tons more about our enemy before we commit continuing and increasingly misdirected resources toward the fight. The worn belief that we will have left a nation in tatters and "someone else" will fill the vacuum as an excuse to remain is unhelpful and irrelevant. That attitude is just part of our unhealthy national "bleeding heart" syndrome - our liberal and ego-centric belief that we are responsible for all the worlds ills.

When we feel our national security is threatened, we need to do what we do best: Go in, get it done, and get out. Lingering around to patch up the mess, most of it what we did NOT create, is just feeling too guilty for our own good.

National Priorities - We've Got It Backwards...

OK...I think I've had enough. I finally realize that Bush and much of Congress have our national priorities backwards.

Priority One: We need to learn how to protect our own borders (seaports, coastline, airports, Canadian and Mexican border) before we can even pretend to do Priority Two: Protect Iraq borders.

Our borders are simple and straightforward to defend compared to Iraqi borders. The distinction? - US citizens or non-US citizens. Clear cut. Process those who want to come in according to our existing laws. Enforce the process.

Iraq on the other hand is 1,000 times more complex. They have porous borders with Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Kuwait. They have borders within and between neighborhoods of 100 cities between Sunni and Shia. They have roaming bands of thugs and outlaws who don't have a concept of civilized human life – each of whom has no border. They have an antithetical variety of extreme religious beliefs amidst a culture antithetical to ours. And we think we’re going to control those borders? Wow! Talk about unrealistic. Critics of enforcement of our immigration laws say it is impossible to track or round up illegals in this country? And we're trying to do WHAT in Iraq?

I have a wonderful and logical idea...I don't know why I, or someone, hadn’t thought of this months ago.

If there is any legislative funding rider concerning our continuing and increasingly wasteful war in Iraq, it should be this:

Pull back our troops to outside the borders of Iraq. Reposition three quarters of our troops along our own borders (including seaports and coastlines). First priority: Demonstrate to the American people that we are capable of and have an indisputably strong will to enforce our own borders. Demonstrate that we are serious in dealing with illegal alien lawbreakers in our own country first. Use our border patrol agents to establish an accurate census of illegal aliens who are here and implement an effective tracking system. Immediately deport whatever percent of these illegal aliens who have broken laws in addition to our immigration laws. Give the balance of the illegal aliens a “reasonable time” to make arrangements to leave and seek citizenship through existing, appropriate means. Enforce employer violations of our immigration laws.

Once we have demonstrated our effectiveness at these tasks, then we might have more credibility in pursuing the Second priority, a border enforcement effort in a place like Iraq...if there are any Iraqis left.

But, for reasons that elude me, our leaders will demonstrate they are NOT serious about defending our own borders, and will continue to demonstrate our own lack of will, and thus lack of competence, elsewhere.

The Real National Policy - "Greed"

A guest on the Laura Ingraham show this morning defended the Administration's UAE ports management deal on the basis of an overarching federal policy that is at the heart of the matter.

Why would the President suggest this morning, in response to the warranted uproar of concern about national security, that "people don't need to worry about security?" Is it because another federal policy takes precedence over national security?

What is that "other" policy? As this guest explained, it is the economic vitality of this nation. It is the material wealth of this nation we are concerned with. And he was sincerely matter of fact when he was saying this. He explained that we are part of a global, multi-national economy. We are a trading partner - a trade zone. We have to reach out and be a part of all of it to remain competitive and successful. And the ports deal is a part of it. While the above is not a direct quote, that is the essence of his message.

That "policy" statement explains our lax immigration policy as well.

While I enjoy prosperity and a successful economy as much as the next guy, these policies verge on greed at the expense of security. I think of Pooh Bear getting his hand stuck in the hollow of the tree, not wanting to let go of the honey, while the bees have a field day with the rest of his hairy bear body. Trouble is, our hairy bodies may get blown up, not just stung.

The business interests in this nation are huge and greedy. The President is not immune - he's bought into it. There are billions hinging on this deal. There will be a lot of excuse making by those special interests with the most to gain from "the deal."

"The deal" does not meet the straight-face test with regard to national security. But if we understand that our primary national policy is greed, then what this administration does will make more sense. I hope this helps those who were heretofore as befuddled as I.