Things blow up

"Something", well, two things, blew up in Pakistan today and it seems like it was a UAV launched missile attack. President Obama seems to be going after al Qeada on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I would say he is going after bin Laden, but you can't kill someone who is already dead.

I think bin Laden has left us for the hereafter. With most al Qeada tapes, you get fairly new video footage and speeches. With bin Laden, you get recycled footage of him walking around some rocks while someone claiming to be him does a voice over. And in some cases, the voice over is just speaking in generalities, they rarely mention Obama by name or talk about specific current events.

Bin Laden is either dead (my guess) or in really bad shape. I think he died in such a way that no one will ever be sure (for example he died in a cave collapse thanks to a bunker buster). He is just a few wisps of DNA under 100,000 tons of rock.

It was never really about him, and it was a mistake to make it about him.

Anyway, I have looked around at some of the left side blogs to see how this is playing. For the most part, it has been seen positively.

The Huffington Post for a while had this as their main news item with the headline:

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
FIRST MISSILE STRIKES LAUNCHED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OATH

The site had a split picture, President Obama on one side wagging his finger and looking all stern and serious and Islamic Rage Boy's idiot Pakistani cousin on the other side acting all, well, full of rage (other than soccer balls and rage, does Pakistan actually produce anything?). I tried wadding through the comments to see how this was playing to HP's fans, but it is useless. I think 3/4s of the commenters there are trolls (of both left and right).

In any event, I understand why it is being done. When Bush was president I was uneasy about these attacks in Pakistan. That country is barely a country and I worry that these attacks might take down the government and lead to anarchy. By the same token, Waziristan is where the bad guys are, and the Pakistani government barley has any authority there.

I also believe that these attacks take place with a wink and a nod from the Pakistani government. They get to act all enraged to placate domestic audiences while getting rid of bad guys.

On Taylor Marsh's site one of the commenters wonders if President Obama knew about this before hand, or if this was simply a carryover of Bush's ROE. I can understand why some on the left would feel angry at these attacks continuing (though, from my quick view, it is positive, including from Marsh herself).

It is hard to believe now, but back in 2000, Bush promised a "more humble" foreign policy and I remember being annoyed that a day or so after his inauguration, the Air Force bombed some site in Iraq. I remember thinking that it must have been simply a continuation of Clinton's ROE and that Bush knew nothing of it beforehand (ah, those innocent days!) and that he would change the ROE.*

By the same token, this is the policy that President Obama said he would pursue.

Now you see why I pray for the president? Who would want this job?


* Yes -- to preempt the comments, I supported the invasion of Iraq, I supported the surge and I hope that our troops can now leave Iraq, and that Iraq will be mostly stable and most democratic. If you asked me at 8:58 a.m. on September 11, 2001 what my thoughts on Iraq were, I would have said end US enforcement of the no fly zone and come up with a sanction regime that allowed Iraq to buy and sell everything except weapon programs. 9/11 temporarily stopped the drift toward non-interventionism that I started around 1992.

A little more on Ayers

I am of two minds on Bill Ayers. On the one hand, I think Ayers should be sharing a jail cell with the Unabomber and that Senator Obama's relationship with him needs to be better examined (this whole "he was just a guy in my neighborhood" does not ring true). On the other hand, I really have no interest in refighting the culture wars of the 1960s, especially as I was 1 year old in 1968.

But I have never really believed that Ayers was just opposing the Vietnam War. Ayers went beyond that -- The Weathermen's real goal was a communist revolution in America, a dictatorship of the proletariat with all the horrors that would follow.

Much of the right side of the blogosphere has been linking to Zombie Time, which has found an old copy of "Prairie Fire", the Weather Underground's 1974 manifesto. Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, are listed as two of the four authors. They set forth a program of armed struggle, not just against the Vietnam War (which the US was out of in 1974) but rather the structure of society itself.

One ironic thing. Obama is trying to make simself the heir to the Kennedys and the book is dedicated to, among a long list of others, Sirhan B Sirhan, the assassin of RFK.

So am I overreacting? Was all the talk of "Armed struggle" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" just, as Senator Obama might say, mere "rhetorical flourishes?"

If this person, a former law enforcement mole in the Weather Underground is to be believed, no -- come the Revolution, the leadership of the Weathermen wanted reeducation camps and planned the liquidation of TWENTY FIVE MILLION Americans.



But his words alone are not necessary, Ayers's (and Dohrn's) own words say what their plans were.

Barrack Obama was 13 years old when Prairie Fire came out. But if Obama was connected with the Unabomber or an abortion clinic bomber, wouldn't people be asking more questions?

So, once again, does it all matter? I am not sure.

Will the last FARC Members please turn out the lights

Members deserting, its leaders getting killed and it is in retreat on all fronts.

Now hostage (and former Colombian presidential candidate) Ingrid Betancourt and 14 others, including 3 Americans, were freed without a fight.

Hopefully, this will mark the end of FARC.

Life Imitates The Onion

The Onion: Al-Qeada Takes on 9/11 Truthers

Life: Al-Qaeda whines that they really did 9/11 -- and that the conspiracy theories are really a plot by Iran (in cahoots with the USA!) to make al-Qaeda look bad. (granted according to the article, the tape has not been authenticated yet and I am sure a Truther will say it is a CIA/Mossad/Stone Cutter forgery).

Who supports jihad?

Andrew Sullivan notes that a recent study shows that among Arabs, the richer you are, the more likely you are to support jihad.

One could probably spin these numbers lots of ways. But there is much anecdotal evidence that the usual line that "poverty breeds terrorism" is not really true. Bin Laden is [was?] a billionaire and we do not see much terrorism in Sub Saharan Africa.

Sullivan believes the problem is religious ideology. While I have little doubt that is part of the problem, I believe the larger part of the problem is simply the authoritarian nature of those governments. In Western societies, those who are wealthier or better educated are more influential politically. They can give money, host talk shows lobbing soft ball questions toward favored candidates, establish think tanks and run for office. (As an aside, I think that is one of the reasons Hollywood is so far left of the rest of the country -- they have money and glamor but generally are locked out of political influence.)

But if you are a wealthy or educated Saudi you probably find yourself locked out of government. There is no parliament to run for and any think tank will be censored. So you turn to religion and jihadism.

If this sounds far fetched, think back to European history. The Glorious Revolution, while portrayed as a religious and liberal revolution, was in any ways the revolt of the "squirarchy" who felt left out of the governing class by an increasingly authoritarian James II. The French Revolution began as an attempt of the urban middle classes and wealthy to take control of the French government (and it rapidly spun out of control). Even our own revolution was the result of the local elites wanting to control the colonies' destiny, not some far distant parliament.

I know most Americans have given up on democracy as a panacea for the problems of the Middle East (Sullivan seems to), but liberalization of the political structures in the Arab world is needed to stop jihadism. If wealthy and educated Arabs are in parliament or able to have influence in civil society, then maybe they will be less inclined to support bomb throwers.

Al Gore and the Iraqi Threat

This has been making the rounds on the Internet the last few days.



So in 1992, Al Gore thought that Iraq posed a terrorist threat and that Saddam Hussein was trying to build weapons of mass destruction. How relevant is that for today? Not sure.

A lot happened between 1992 and 2003 and more has happened in the last 4 yours. But what is not talked about much is that what George Bush said about Iraq in the run up to the invasion was not very different from what Bill Clinton was saying for 8 years.

For a good roundup,m check out the Anchoress.

"Truthers" and the bin Laden tapes

Almost since the moment the planes hit, the "9/11 Truth Movement" has been active in trying to argue that either the US (or Israeli) governments plan the attacks or had foreknowledge of the attacks. The most obnoxious truthers are those who claim that the buildings were not brought down by hijacked airplanes but rather by missiles or explosives in the buildings.



Just on its face, the argument is ridiculous. Looking at how Iraq has been screwed up by the administration, the truthers suggest a level of competence that our government has not shown. Furthermore, bin Laden and al-Qaida has stated that they did the attacks. In the latest tape, bin Laden reads what he claims was the last testament of one of the hijackers. Granted one can argue that the tapes are fakes and given the strange issues of the beard and the "freezing" of video, I am maybe reconsidering my previous statement that bin Laden is alive, and open to him being dead.



Still, it is fairly certain that the tapes were produced by al-Qaida. Yet the truthers will soldier on.

Bin Laden's Newest Tape

Bin Laden has released another anniversary tape. More of the same. He rails on about martyrdom, and takes more shots against capitalism, globalization, democracy and the like. While he masquerades as a religious leader, at heart, bin Laden really is nothing more than the latest manifestation of collectivism. Fascism, Nazism, Bolshevism, Maoism, all called for an end to liberty and the replacement by a collectivist system that claims to have all the answers. And for those who disagree, camps and executions await.

Is bin Laden really preaching anything different than these past ideologies?

My memory of September 11

Every September 11, we have a retrospective as people and the press remember where they were on that day. At the time, I was living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan. That morning, I left the house a bit earlier than usual as it was the morning of the New York mayoral primary. My wife called my office after the first plane hit, thinking it was an accident. When the second plane hit, I realized it was no accident.

What I remember most about that day and the month that followed was the smell. The entire area smelt of burnt paper and soldering fire, reaching even into Brooklyn.

Padilla Guilty

Jose Padilla was found guilty on all counts. Not being either a criminal or national security lawyer, I will leave the legal analysis for others. But the Padilla case has been the one that has bothered me the most of all the habeus cases coming out of the War on Terror. Leaving aside the torture issue (which is a big aside) I am not that concerned that Guantanamo exists. Our military is capturing people on battlefields and they need to be placed somewhere. I do think there needs to be a better procedure to determine whether those people are POWs or illegal combatants, but I do not want the military in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere to be fighting a police action.

But the Padilla case was different. Here was a guy arrested by law enforcement inside the US (though, as he was at an airport, arguably legally outside the country). He was not captured on a distant battlefield holding a rifle or even in the process of engaging in a terrorist act. The fact it took the government three years to try him, and everything that happened in between is a travesty.

Don't get me wrong. From what I read about the evidence, I think he was guilty and I am glad he was found guilty. He was up to no good. My concern is that it took 3 1/2 years to bring to trial an American citizen captured in the ordinary course of activity by law enforcement inside the United States. He was not captured in some foreign land carrying a gun. In the past 3 1/2 years he has been held in solitary confinement and treated such that his mental capacity is now in question. By doing this, the government could have blown the case on Constitutional grounds. Some appeals court may still rule that way.

More on Obama and Pakistan

San from Shadow Warrior wonders about differing treatment between Obama and Clinton regarding Pakistan and Iraq.

I believe the problem with Pakistan is that no matter what we do (we being the US, the West and every non Pakistani) is that it will be the "wrong" answer. It seems at times the outrage industry is the main industry in that country. If I wanted to find a Pakistani flag, it would take some time. Yet, there are always American flags to burn there. And not just US flags -- when the Danish cartoon crisis hit, there were demonstrations burning Danish flags.

But I do not think Obama's comments help matters. My concern about Obama goes back to the 2004 Senate race when he was talking about "surgical strikes" -- there is no such thing. I do think he is a bit too naive for the presidency. Also, with respect to Pakistan, I do worry about the inflaming Islamist opinion. I do not think that Pakistan is about to turn Islamist -- in the last election, the Islamists did not do all that well. And it is a country that in the 1980s freely elected a woman to be Prime Minister.

So in short, I have no idea really what to do about Pakistan. But threatening to launch attacks there is probably not a good idea. However, Obama is not a pacifist and it is good to remember that.

Is Bin Laden Dead?

At the Democratic debates, it is usual to state that the invasion of Iraq is a distraction from getting Osama bin Laden. But considering that al Qeada and Islamic terrorism in general is bigger than just one man, isn't it a mistake in making bin Laden the be all and end all? By building him up, aren't we really injuring ourselves?

The terror question is bigger than bin Laden. If bin Laden was killed, it would not end terrorism.

But is bin Laden still alive? The latest al-Qeada video shows a picture of bin Laden that looks several years old. Others are shown on the videos discussing recent event,s but not bin Laden.

Bin Laden is either dead, or in such bad shape that he cannot be shown on video.

Obama and Pakistan

The blogsphere and the mainstream media has been abuzz by Senator Obama seeming to state that he would invade Pakistan. While that is not quite what he said, he did state that he would strike inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government if there was a high priority target.

This is not entirely new for Obama. He had in his 2004 Senate race discussed the possible need for "surgical strikes" against Iran to stop their nuclear program. This has set off the usual rioting in Pakistan complete with burning American flags.

Attacks in the UK

The three attacks in the U.K. show that you can never be completely safe from terrorism. The British have far more experience attacking terrorism than we have -- the result of 30 years of IRA violence.

The attempt was amateurish. this clearly was the terrorist "D Team". The thing is, most terrorists are jokes until they succeed. Terrorists often are complete morons and losers—why else strap on a bomb vest and expect 72 virgins on the other side. Suppose the FBI National Office did not worry about CAIR and gave permission for an agent to look at Moussaoui's hard drive in the summer of 2001 and in doing so allowed the FBI to roll up the whole gang. It would have been hysterical. The dumb terrorist going to flight school to learn how to take off and fly but not land. The “last testament” of Atta asking for women not to touch his body after death (lest they touch (or really want to touch) his manliness).

But even to call terrorists morons and losers is not entirely true. As of this evening, news reports state that at least five of the suspects are medical doctors. Bin Laden himself is the son of a billionaire. Atta was the son of an educated family. this belies the idea that all terrorism is the result of desperation. Something else is at work here. Molsem anger over Iraq is part of It of course, but then again, so is Afghanistan, threats to intervene in Darfur, Israel and the Palestinians, 500 years of Western dominance and Western decadence. Perhaps no real excuse is needed, and those with some education or family advantages feel terrorism is a way to make a mark in the world. Maybe education has provided the terrorists with time to think and brood. Maybe THAT is really the genesis of terrorism.

If this ABC News report is correct, it could be a terrorist summer. As for me, I intend to take Andrew Sullivan's advice.