89 posts tagged “war on terrorism”

Your government at work.

Mandi Hamlin was just trying to grab a flight from Lubbock, TX. She made it through the main security scanners and her various metal piercings hadn't set off any alarms. Then she was wanded by a female TSA employee and discovered that, without her knowledge, her breasts had joined Al Qaeda.

Read the article.  It only gets better.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Homeland Security.

Wait, wait.  I have a better joke...

And that is God will save us from the clutches of terrorism.  Well, at least those in Kentucky...

Specifically, Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God's benevolent protection in its reports, and it must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

And it gets even better...

The time and energy spent crediting God are appropriate, said Riner, D-Louisville, in an interview this week.

"This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky," Riner said. "Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government."

Well, thank goodness that our government representatives have the wherewithal to utilize appreciative words to obtain blessing from the spirit above to close the "security gap."

Homeland Security who?

While the story about Iraq's yellowcake does not seem to be a very big deal since the UN has known about it following the first Gulf War, it does make me think about Saddam a bit more.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Even if you don't think about the implications of such a stockpile with Iraq falling into the hands of Iran, think about this:

Would you trust Saddam in 5, 10, 15 years (if we didn't invade) with 550 metric tons of concentrated uranium?

I wonder if he was saving it for his sons and their future regimes?  Uday and Qusay?

I wonder if some of that yellowcake went to Syria for their program prior to Israeli attack?

Why didn't the UN remove this over the 10 year post-Gulf war period?  Was it too hard?  Were they too weak to do so?

The Nigeria yellowcake story it seemed to me was a big deal because of the thoughts and implications of such potential material in Saddam's hands.  Why didn't the U.S. push for the removal of all of the material he already had then?

It just reinforces, in my mind, the uselessness of the United Nations when it comes to dealing with aggressive regimes.  And it reinforces the uncertainty of what Saddam's intentions were with such material (from when he was originally trying to build nuclear capability back in the early 80s to what he might have done with it in the future).

Philip Swarts writes a piece in the Daily Northwestern about a speech by Dinesh D'Souza.  Dinesh has an opinion about the culture of this country and the 9/11 attack.

Muslim extremists are attacking America because not everyone in the U.S. follows a moral code given by an "external being," D'Souza said. This new moral code leads to acts such as adultery and gay marriage, he said.

"The radical Muslims exploit the idea of an ... immoral America," D'Souza said. "This is their main recruiting slogan in the Muslim world."

D'Souza said the world's perception of America as an atheistic, immoral society is a result of the popular culture America exports.

"That's not America," D'Souza said. "That may be Hollywood, that may be one face of America, (but) that's not the way that Americans actually live."

Ummm...  Dinesh.  They are attacking us because most of us don't believe in Allah.  They attack us because most of us don't read the Qur'an.  They attack us because of the freedoms we believe in!

It is more than just some Americans not believing in god.  It is a lot more than that.

What really grinds my gears on this one is that there is an underlying tone that only atheists have this supposed immoral aura because we don't believe in an "external being" -- hence leading to "immoral acts" of adultery and gay marriage. 

Well, the last time I checked sir... there were plenty of Christians engaging in your supposed immoral acts.  And when I checked again... they are the ones who should be following the rules of this supposed "external being."

Radical Islam wants to attack this country for *everything* this country stands for... and just because that means as an atheist I have the freedom to worship nothing doesn't mean that is the all encompassing reason to a terrorist to attack me and my fellow citizens.  They want to attack us because this country grants me that right!

The answer is not trying to cower to these people in the name of morality.  But to show defiance...

I would much rather stand with fellow Americans who strive for gay marriage rights than try to adjust my "morality" so that Islamic terrorists won't attack.

Life.  Liberty.  The pursuit of happiness.

Our military is making Iraq more secure and reversing the negative trends that had made Iraq such a political controversy.  You just cannot ignore the evidence unless you are in denial.

This is kind of like global warming -- there are trends that are evident today and although the end outcome is still controversial -- the conglomerate of trends and current facts do tell a story of what the end outcome will most likely be.

Iraq is definitely showing positive trends and Kimberly Kagan has a great piece about how it was (and continually being) achieved.

"As we assess the security gains made over the past four months, I attribute the progress to three prominent dynamics," General Odierno explained. "First, the surge allowed us to eliminate extremist safe havens and sanctuaries, [and] just as importantly to maintain our gains. Second, the ongoing quantitative and qualitative improvement of the Iraqi security forces are translating to ever-increasing tactical successes. Lastly, there's a clear rejection of al Qaeda and other extremists by large segments of the population, this coupled with the bottom-up awakening movement by both Sunni and Shia who want a chance to reconcile with the government of Iraq." These dynamics worked together to improve security.

The ball is in the Iraqi's court to use this period to create political solutions from the stability our military is helping create for them.

Here is Michael Yon in an interview with Hugh Hewitt about the situation:

HH: Tell us what the Iraqis are telling you about this lull or peace or improvement. What do they think is going on here, and how long will it last? 

MY: I don’t believe this is a lull. I believe this is the real thing. I believe that we’ve seen lulls before, and I’ve always been very circumspect on taking a chance and saying hey, this is the real thing. But I’ve seen a change in the mood of the people, and it’s remarkable. And I believe if we can just continue to help them progress, and we’ve got a little bit more serious fighting to do up in Ninewa Province, and then in Kirkuk and Salahaddin Province, and also out in Diayala Province, those four provinces. Other than that, I think really, it’s a matter of pouring on the juice and helping them to get this country going again. I mean, they’re just finished with the war, as long as we can help get the monkey off their back in the form of al Qaeda, which is pretty much crushed at this point.

The military has al Qaeda on the run and is giving the Iraqis hope for a brighter future.  Continued support for the Iraqis is a win-win for them and the United States.  We can help them get their new nation to a better place and we can get a new ally in the war on terrorism.

Yon on the Iraqis:

They’re increasingly happy. The optimism you can see is increasing month by month. They don’t trust their press any more than we trust ours, by the way, and they point that out daily. And they don’t trust their government any more than we trust ours, apparently a lot less. But their optimism is very high, because they’re seeing changes, and they’re demonstrable changes.

A rock and a hard place.  That is what the situation is like in Pakistan at the moment.

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a pretty good assessment:

The United States and Great Britain have both condemned Musharraf's actions. The situation is very bad: either Musharraf is correct in assessing the danger posed by Islamic extremists, in which case Pakistan is in worse straits than I had realized, or he is using the extremists as a pretext to prolong his own quasi-dictatorial rule. Both alternatives are grim; the truth is perhaps a combination of the two.

It is impossible to say, at this point, how events will play out, but my instinct is to be sympathetic to Musharraf. It is important to distinguish between permanent and provisional enemies of democracy. The struggle against Islamic extremism is analogous in some ways to the cold war. In a number of countries in Latin America and elsewhere in the third world, authoritarian governments limited their citizens' rights to varying degrees and carried out more or less ruthless campaigns against Communist insurgencies. In all cases, they were bitterly attacked by the Left and by "world opinion" in general.

But Communism, like radical Islam, is a permanent enemy of democracy. The handful of countries that remain Communist--Cuba and North Korea may be the last survivors--are islands of primitive despotism. All around the world, on the other hand, authoritarian anti-Communist governments have yielded to democracies, in many cases highly prosperous ones.

I am inclined to believe that Musharraf does intend to bring modernity, including a viable democracy, to Pakistan. If the current measures enable the government to fight the extremists more effectively--a big "if"--the sacrifices they entail will be worthwhile. We can be sure that if the Taliban and similar groups succeed in seizing power in Pakistan, the consequences will be infinitely worse and far more prolonged.

One more thought: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If the situation there is as grave as Musharraf says, the United States may be confronted, in a few years, by the prospect of al Qaeda and its allies actually possessing the weapons which they have so long sought. Is there a single person who seriously believes that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are the people we want dealing with such a crisis?

It is hard to support somebody who is declaring a state of emergency and limiting rights... and it is hard not to support somebody who wants to take out the growing Taliban movement occurring in Pakistan.  This is the gray area called the war on terrorism.

But if Pakistan becomes the Taliban Afghanistan of old and there are nuclear weapons involved...  sigh...  I wonder how India will react?  I wonder how the Iranians get involved?  I wonder what Clinton or Obama would do?

This could turn into one unstable region.  And I will have to say that this is occurring independently of the U.S. / Iraq situation.

Our outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan only becomes more and more important now!

According to liberals, this radical Islamic thing... yeah... it is just a figment of our imagination.

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t.

Unbelievable.

So I guess folks there really isn't any evil ideology out there that cause people to do bad things.  Only crazy neocon Americans.

I guess I will go talk to my imaginary friend now.

Noel Sheppard has a good post.

So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.

If they act like sports fans, you have to wonder what team they support?

A must read about Iran.  It was an interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt of Michael Ledeen regarding his new book, The Iranian Time Bomb.

This exchange caught my eye:

HH: ...I’m going to be talking about this book a lot over the next few weeks, because I think people need to read it, beginning with the idea we’ve got to remember who Khomeini was, that the revolution wasn’t because the Shah was too oppressive, but because the Shah was too liberal. Give people a walk back as to where Khomeini came from and what he stood for, Michael Ledeen. 

ML: Well, he hated the Shah because he saw the Shah as the agent of Western feminism, really, in a way, because what got Khomeini more excited than anything else was the very thought that women could teach boys in school, that women could participate in government, that women were increasingly having equal rights, that they didn’t have to cover up their heads, and so forth. And that just drove him crazy, and they were among his first targets when he took over in 1979. He threw the women out of the boys’ schools, he banned them from high office, and he required this humiliating costume that they all have to wear.

HH: I was coming to the Zarqawi connection, because although he is a Sunni extremist who would think that every Shia is Takfir, and especially the Iranian Khomeinists, nevertheless he, too, accepted assistance from, and well-documented in this book. Is that widely recognized or acceded to, Michael Ledeen, in the people who study Iran specifically? 

ML: No, because most people buy into the meme that Sunnis and Shiites can’t work together. It’s one of the great myths of our time. So even though the Revolutionary Guards were…the super-Shiite Revolutionary Guards were created by the super-Sunni al Fatah, which came right out of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, they think it’s impossible to find Sunni al Qaeda and Shiite Hezbollah working together. And so nobody can believe that Zarqawi was operating out of Tehran, even though a year before 2001, the German and Italian governments had evidence showing that Zarqawi was operating a European-wide terrorist network from Tehran, and they have hundreds of intercepts that…and this is public evidence at public trials in both Germany and Italy.

HH: ...A key observation, Michael Ledeen, they are not nationalists, but theocrats. You write, “To ask them to think like a nation state is like trying to use negotiations to convince the Pope that he should think of himself as the grand duke of Vatican City rather than the Vicar of Christ on Earth.” You quote Khomeini extensively on this. This was just…I guess I knew this, but I really didn’t. It’s not a nation state. 

ML: No, no it’s not. Khomeini has the great line, which is anybody…I’m not here to fight for Iran, I’m here to advance Islam. And anybody who is in it for Iran is a pagan. That’s pretty strong language.  

HH: It is. It’s also an insight into what we’re up against, because it’s not going to respond to the typical carrots and sticks that nation states do.

ML: No, so when a Rafsanjani or an Ahmadinejad says we’re going to bomb Israel as soon as we get atomic bombs, and even if the Israelis respond in kind, so what? Suppose they wipe us all out? We would have killed half the Jews, and there’ll still be more than a billion Muslims.

So when rational individuals in the West argue that for logical reasons Iran will not attack and would not use the bomb, when you read this and understand the religious zealous nature of the rulers of Iran, you have to worry about people and a culture that doesn't care about nation states, but more about the status of radical Islam.  When it is a numbers game and borders don't matter, you have to wonder -- would they detonate an atomic bomb in order to wipe out a good chunk of the Jewish state and accept casualties of a retaliation?  One of the reasons I think this is plausible was something Michael Ledeen points out in the interview: "...people say well, why would they [al Qaeda with regard to the Golden Mosque in Iraq] kill their own people, and I say look at Iran. They kill their own people everyday. Every day."

So if you think for a second that they would not sacrifice their own people, think again...  they execute their own people everyday...  in the name of god.  They are not seeking to look good in the eyes of the world, just an entity that they believe is above the world.

And to say that Shiites and Sunnis are incapable of working with each other is one of the greatest lies out of this whole war on terrorism.  In the end the United States and Western civilization are the common enemies of radical Islam...

Salute to one of our fallen by Christopher Hitchens.  Quite possibly, one of the best things I have read this year.  A very gripping piece.