The Perils of Trying KSM in New York

The recent decision by the Obama Administration to try the 9/11 conspirators in New York City, but blocks from the attack on the World Trade Center will prove to be an awful one.

This is an awful decision for a number of reasons. The most prominent is the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will use the trial as a venue to espouse his belief in jihad and put the victim, the United States, on trial. He will discuss why al-Qaeda attacked the US in the first place, for our support for Israel, and the overall Middle Eastern policy of the United States. After he's done that him and his defense team will put the Bush administration and the CIA and their usage of enhanced interrogation techniques on trial. This serves no purpose. He'll make sure to divert attention from the fact that the US was attacked to why al-Qaeda felt compelled to attack.

Secondly, there is no precedent upon which the US has tried such a figure who has been captured in another country. Since KSM was captured in Pakistan the FBI was not able to follow its regular proceedings. After his capture he was taken to a secret prison where he was interrogated and although he eventually ended up giving lectures on al Qaeda, he was initially subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. It was these techniques that got intel that allowed the US to prevent further attacks such as the one on the Library Tower in Los Angeles. This evidence though will not be admissible in a federal court whereas it would've been in a military tribunal.

When these facts are revealed in an American court the information will be disseminated throughout the world and be displayed on al Jazeera where it will inflame the Muslim world. These trials will do more damage to the effort against Islamic extremism than help in showing the world how humane the US is. This decision will go down as one of the worst in the Obama administration and drag out for years in a media circus.

A Runoff Election Won't Make a Difference

On 20 October Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he would allow a runoff election to take place to assuage the concerns of the Obama Administration.

The problem that the administration has not yet realized is the fact that a runoff election will not make much difference. Whether Hamid Karzai or Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is in office the culture of corruption that reigns in Afghanistan will still be present. Troops on the ground are what is really needed.

One of the primary needs in a counterinsurgency strategy is to control the population. Different strategists have different force ratios, yet all agree one needs a sufficient amount of troops to provide security to the population. Unless a populace feels secure they will not likely provide the intelligence necessary to track down the insurgents/terrorists the US is seeking. Even Vice President Biden's counterterrorism strategy will not work without more troops. That's why it is so essential.

Even though having a legitimate government in power is important in counterinsurgency, it appears that regardless of who wins, the government will remain a weak one with the same entrenched corruption in its bureaucracy. That being said, the administration should focus on getting General McChrystal the resources he requires. This decision should not be postponed on these merits any longer. Considering in a country with such a history of corruption Karzai could still win, and the corruption could continue, it leaves the United States in an obvious bind.

The establishment of security is what is required. Once that can happen the other issues can be addressed in the proper fashion, as they should be so as to fully succeed in this strategy.

An American President Wins the Peace Prize

This morining it was announced that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is absurd, so absurd even liberal supporters are surprised.
 
President Obama has been in office a little over 8 months, and has not accomplished anything that would warrant him being awarded such an honor. Could he accomplish something in the future? Of course he could. He could surge in Afghanistan and bring stability to the country for instance. That would be an accomplishment worth praising, but as of now he hasn't done anything to deserve it. So why give it to him?
 
This is clearly a political move. The committee obviously chose to bestow such an honor upon him because he is the opposite of George W. Bush. But wait, is he? Currently he is prosecuting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and is considering sending additional troops to the latter. Hopefully he does. He is using UAVs en masse in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a tactic that kills more civilians. He is using rendition, which is far worse than anything that happened at Guatanamo Bay.
 
So what say you?

An Evolving Afghan Policy

It appears as if the Administration is split over how to proceed in Afghanistan, a split they cannot afford to have.

General Stanley McChrystal wants an additional 30,000-40,000 troops, something Admiral Michael Mullen and General David Petraeus support and Secretary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke are leaning toward. On the other hand Vice-President Biden and National Security Advisor Jones do not. Secretary Gates is on the fence.

This is a problem that needs to be amended quickly. President Obama, lacking in experience, is dependent on these advisers and when a split of such proportions exists, he is in trouble. Whereas he does in fact need to listen to his advisers he also must choose a side and stick to it, preferably in favor of sending more troops.

Afghanistan cannot be lost. If the US was to pullout it would be an enormous triumph for the forces of Islamic extremism, al-Qaeda would once again gain a foothold, and the return of the Taliban would likely destabilize Pakistan. If he decides against it, also his campaign rhetoric of committing to Afghanistan will appear to be all for nought.

He does have an important decision to make; go all in, in a counterinsurgency campaign that succeeded in Iraq, and is manpower intensive, continue strategic assaults with UAVs and Special Forces units, as Biden is recommending, or as many in his party and especially the left wing are saying, leave entirely. It is time for President Obama to sit down, listen to all sides in his Cabinet, and make a choice.

RIP Irving Kristol (1920-2009)

By Johanan Raatz

 

  A few weeks ago on September 18^th Irving Kristol, also known as the "Godfather of Neoconservativism," passed away at the age of 89. He wasn't a movie star or a famous politician, but his ideas have permanently changed the face of American politics.

  Born in 1920, Kristol started his life in politics as a student of City College of New York, where he became a vocal Trotskyite. Though a Marxist at the time, he had the moral clarity to oppose the totalitarianism of Stalinist Russia.

  After college, he served in the 12^th Armored Division as an infantryman during World War II. After the war he came to see that Marxism could not work, and instead began to embrace Western ideals.

  Later, when the Cold War was in full bloom, his ideological evolution led him to become a hawkish member of the Democratic Party. During this time his career as a political writer began in earnest. He worked for several public policy magazines, including Commentary, The Reporter, and The National Interest and Encounter, the last two of which he helped found.

  Then during the 1960's, something happened that would change his political outlook significantly: Irving Kristol was "mugged by reality." The counterculture broke out, causing him to see how many liberal programs despite their best intentions caused negative results due to their naïve treatment of human nature.

  At this time he, along with a number of other like-minded intellectuals, became increasingly disgusted with the cultural decadence, moral relativism, and disrespect for authority of the insurgent counterculture. Once this reaction had fully crystallized, a new mode of political thought, neoconservativism, had been born.

  Eventually as the counterculture of the 60's began to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party, he and others like him decided that their party had become too extreme, and they switched parties. Eventually the neoconservative movement that Kristol helped found would rise to dominance in the Republican Party and the political landscape at large, during the presidencies of Reagan and both Bushes.

  After helping to found neoconservativism, Kristol would go on to become a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002, seven years before his death he received the Medal of Freedom, from President George W. Bush, the highest honor for a civilian.

  Even though many of Kristol's ideas were the product of the 1960's, they are perhaps even more relevant today then when he first introduced them. Kristol provided a rational framework for social and cultural conservativism in refreshing contrast to the moral relativism of the left and the blind adherence to tradition on the right.

  As opposed to brushing them aside as some do, he argued that private morality and civic virtue are necessary for the overall health and greatness of a civilization and promoted patriotism and family values as such. Also he warned against the fetishization of democracy, how the public good should be the prime focus and not necessarily whatever the whim of the current majority happens to be. In a time when most people do not know the difference between a liberal and an illiberal democracy we would do well to take a look at some of his ideas.

  Irving Kristol is survived by his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb, his children Bill Kristol and Elizabeth Nelson and a tradition of uniquely intellectual conservativism that he helped found. Rest in peace Mr. Kristol. May your legacy live beyond you.

Remembering 9/11, Eight Years Later

Today is September 11, 2009, eight years since the horrific attacks on our country. That day is ingrained in my memory as I'm sure it is all of you.

The question is though what have we learned since then. This is our first year with a new administration, an administration for that matter, which has a view of fighting terrorism that differs to a great degree from the Bush Administration. I have detailed these developments here, so won't go over them again, but it could be said that their view is pre-9/11 one, in which terrorism is looked to as more of a criminal matter than an act of war. In my opinion this view is wrong in the light of the threat al-Qaeda poses to the world.

I will not prognosticate what will happen in the coming years with the new regulations going into effect, but I hope whatever happens and whoever is in the White House, whether President Obama now, or others in the future, that we continue to enjoy a homeland that is free from threats.

Mahmoud Abbas: Dossier on Who Israel Will be Negotiating With

Mahmoud Abbas, the supposed "moderate" leader of Fatah in the Palestinian Territories, is in fact anything but. His history is one that is dotted with subversion, collusion, and acts of terrorism.

Abbas was one of the original members of Fatah and has been kicked out of a number of countries in the Middle East for subversive activities in accordance with those activities, among them Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar.

During the Cold War he was the main contact for the Soviets in their dealings with the PLO. This is no surprise considering Abbas went to Patrice Lumumba University where he got his Ph.D.

In 1972 he was an instrumental part in the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, being that he provided the funding for the operation.

In the Persian Gulf War he, as a ranking member of the PLO, colluded with the Iraqi Army in the plundering of Kuwait.

This is not the picture of someone who is a moderate. This is a picture of a terrorist. In addition to his past actions he has failed to moderate Fatah. Instead of being these "moderate" partners of Israel, they are promoting terrorists to lead their security forces and continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

ALERTT :: OBAMA PLANNING ISRAEL AMBUSH AT OPENING OF UN ASSEMBLY!

• This is a recent post that was on One Jerusalem. I feel everyone should be aware of this.
  
  ALERTT :: OBAMA PLANNING ISRAEL AMBUSH AT OPENING OF UN ASSEMBLY!
  Several sources have informed One Jerusalem that the Obama Administration is planning to significantly step up the pressure on Israel by announcing a comprehensive plan for Israel and the Palestinians at the opening of the United Nations General in September. Picture this: The anti-Israel nations of the world surrounding President Obama as he demands that Israel give up sovereignty over Jerusalem, abandon settlements, and recognize a terrorist state on the West Bank. If this happens, Israel will be isolated from the rest of world in a very dramatic manner. The first sign that something was up came when Egyptian President Mubarak said that the Obama Administration was ready to propose a plan in September and the White House rushed to dampen expectations by declaring that they are nowhere near to readying a plan. Our sources confirmed that the Obama administration is contemplating this ambush of Israel at the United Nations. At the moment, friends and supporters of Israel can help derail this insidious plan by:

Helping to publicize the intentions of the Obama administration. Use your access to the Internet to spread the news to family and friends.

When you come across a a news story or discussion about Israel write a comment, and copy the link to this Alert page.

Encourage friends and family to Sign the One Jerusalem Petition.

By focusing public attention to this ambush, we can help avert it.

Much Ado About Nothing

By Johanan Raatz

Several weeks ago, a CIA program was declassified revealing that the intelligence agency was planning to hire the private military contractor company Blackwater USA (now Xe International) to assassinate top Al-Qaeda operatives. Because the program was only in the early planning stages it had not yet been revealed to congress.
Once it was CIA director Leon Panetta released it to congress it was received with much whining and obsessive bluster. Rather than being viewed negatively though the so-called "scandal" of this program was actually a good idea for several reasons:

1.) The CIA has had long standing close ties to Blackwater so it would only be reasonable for the intelligence agency to work with them. Blackwater's intelligence division, Total Intelligence Solutions is even run by former members of the CIA including former Coordinator for Counterterrorism Cofer Black and Deputy Director of Operations Robert Richer. Thus it is only logical that the two organizations would work together.

2.) Blackwater has had an excellent track record in accomplishing their objectives. They have a perfect 100% success rate in protecting their "nouns" or VIP's they are assigned to guard, and have been a useful partner in the Global War on Terror. In many cases they are hired so that they can fight without there hands tied by meddlesome regulations. In this way they have certain advantages over governmental agencies.

3.) While the CIA is solely American, Blackwater has operatives from all over the world, including Iraqi's. This provides valuable experience that can simply not be taught to government agents, allowing for greater flexibility in CIA operations. Additionally it has another advantage. Using foreign Blackwater operatives the CIA can remove American fingerprints from their operations as has already been pointed out by at least one CIA official.

With all of this in mind the question changes from why should the CIA work with Blackwater on counterterrorism operations to why shouldn't they? With the aforementioned reasons in mind it would be only logical that they would and in fact foolish for them not to. Tantrum throwing congressmen and blubbering bureaucrats would do well to think on this and let the intelligence agency do it's job without meddlesome interference.

The Politics of Interrogation

With the announcement of the formation of an interagency interrogation unit and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate, we are seeing more of the Obama administration's misguided policies regarding the War on Terror.
 
These announcements are very disturbing. The appointment of such a prosecutor to investigate past interrogators could go in unknown directions. Even though it's intended to solely look into these people and their activities, it could spiral out of control and go after Justice Department attorneys like John Yoo among others. The real White Whale for the Democrats though is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Since they never could impeach President Bush and Dick Cheney, they will stop at nothing to go after them after they've left power.
 
The new interrogation unit also is a problem in the making. Considering it can only abide by the Army Field Manual, it cannot use many of the techniques that were vital in breaking high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives. Besides waterboarding, temperature modifications are not allowed and stress positions. This will demoralize the CIA to no end and their interrogators in particular. Also we must keep in mind how will this affect our influence and relationships with allies, especially allies in the region who may not want their participation made public. This could result in the drying up of intelligence,  and in the long run affect how we are able to conduct operations in the Middle East and other places.

President Obama and the Future of Afghanistan

Afghanistan is at an important point in its history right now. It has just had an election in which both candidates, incumbent Hamid Karzai and challenger and former foreign minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah have declared victory. There is said to be a runoff election. This, though important, is not only part of what will determine their future.
 
The other part is President Obama's choice in how to proceed in the war there. He has increased troops, and may do so again if General McChrystal asks for it, but it is not a sure thing. His problem though is that the war is starting to take its toll on the left wing of the Democratic Party. They are starting to get tired of the start of the trickling death toll that they hear on the news. Obama's problem is he is in fact a creature of this faction. He most likely shares many of their views, and they did bring him to power. Some of the more liberal in Congress want a timetable of sorts, but they do not realize this is impossible. The war in Afghanistan is a war that is primarily a counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign. These historically take longer. If President Obama takes the easy way out and succumbs to pressure he will look as if he was disingenuous when he committed, in his campaign, to fight the war in Afghanistan more aggressively. It will take courage on President Obama's part to continue and in tun support the allies we have there. It will be a long, hard slog, but what must be realized is that the alternative to leaving would result in disaster.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

As a fair-minded person I would like to take some time out to commend Bill Clinton for ensuring the release of Euna Lee and Laura Ling from North Korea. Even though we do not know the details of the release, former president Clinton should be congratulated for saving these women from years of hard labor. Granted, Kim Jong Il did get propaganda out of this, having his picture taken with him, but we must look at the human rights achievement here for now and analyze the details later.

Quick to React, But Only Sometimes

President Obama's quick reaction the "racial controversy" in Cambridge involving Professor Henry Gates and Sgt. James Crowley, shows much about him.
 
  It shows he is quick to react when it is an issue that appears easy to him, and he might know about through personal experience. The fact of the matter though is he said I don't know all the facts, but continued to say the police acted stupidly. He should have said no comment or it was a local matter and leave it at that.
 
Now you might wonder how does this relate to this blog's purpose, to analyze foreign policy. Unfortunately, it is all too connected. Even though he reacted to this question in seconds, he waited for over a week to make any comment supporting the Iranian protesters. He has shown timidity to face down thuggish dictators, but not to call police stupid. Does that make sense to you? It seems it should be the reverse. Another question we must ask ourselves is, what does this portend for the future? President Obama needs to come out quicker on these international issues, and stand up for the plight of the oppressed wherever they may show themselves.

Obama: The Undemocratic Democrat

By Johanan Raatz

When Americans elected Barack Obama they assumed they were electing someone who adhered to democratic principles. After all, Obama's flowery rhetoric was quite convincing, and "hope" and "change" were in the air.
Now however that these vacuous slogans have been filled with substance we find that the actions do not meet the rhetoric . After the fact it is starting to appear that the Democratic party has nominated and the American people have elected a rather undemocratic Democrat to the presidency.
In America his domestic policies thus far have been mostly ruinous. Unfortunately, Americans are not the only people affected by his policies. Being a leader on the world stage, what happens in America often affects politics across the globe.
Traditionally America has used it's influence to promote the ideals of freedom and democracy abroad. President Obama appears to be changing all of that though. Instead of championing the ideals of democracy he has used America's influence to oppose it. Thus far he has:

I.) Attempted to foist a Chavez like dictator onto the Honduran people: After forcibly attempting to change the Honduran Constitution in a step towards becoming president for life, Manuel Zelaya was removed from the presidency and exiled by the Honduran Supreme Court, under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. Obama has since condemned this legal action as a "coup" and attempted to put Zelaya back in power. Only 28% of Hondurans want him to return though.

II.) Imposed upon the Dominican Republic to remove a newly passed amendment to their constitution, banning abortion throughout their country. The vast majority of Dominicans see fetal homicide as murder and oppose it. Additionally, of the 210 members of the Congress, 171 members voted in favor of the amendment while only 32 voted against it. Apparently cultural imperialism is wrong unless one is trying to push the counterculture and its moral degeneracy down others throats.

III.) Resisted supporting the Iranian people in their democratic movement against the corrupt theocratic regime in Tehran. Ahmedinejad's recent overreach and the subsequent reaction to it was an excellent opportunity to promote democracy in Iran. However, instead of vigorously supporting the Iranian people in their struggle against a dictator, Obama took the cowardly approach and needed to be dragged by his hair to finally -and halfheartedly- take the right stand.

Though I did not vote for him I can not help feel a sense of responsibility towards the people of the world for this man's behavior. Perhaps I could have done more to oppose him while there was still time.
I believe I owe an apology towards the people of these nations for the abhorrent behavior of our current president. I only pray that in time they will forgive us. Hopefully, by then Americans will take their role in the world seriously, and be more responsible in whom they elect to the presidency.

The Democrats Declaration of War on the CIA

This week the House Democrats alongside Attorney General Eric Holder declared war on the CIA.

The House Democrats did so by the fact that the members of the Intelligence Committee signed a clearly partisan letter in which they complained that they were not informed earlier of a plan to assassinate Al-Qaeda leaders after 9/11. This is faulty for a number of reasons. First of all, the plan never went operational. It was only in the planning stages. Also the Democrats would also like more people briefed on possible covert operations, to a maximum of 40 people. That is ridiculous. How are we supposed to keep things secret with so many possible leaks? In addition,. the Democrats can't seem to help themselves. They want to be considered tough on national security yet complain about the CIA's activities.

In a related story, Atty. Gen Holder is going to allow a special prosecutor to investigate CIA operators who were involved in interrogations. This however is a slippery slope. Will it be a witch hunt that'll go so far that it'll lower morale at Langley? Or will it do this AND go further? Will it go after a number of Bush Administration officials? This is an absolutely horrible idea and hope it doesn't go to far.

They Just Don't Get It

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, she gave her support in the fact that she is supporting Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to mediate an end to the crisis. But what end is this administration after? A restoration of Zelaya to be president? In her statement that can be seen in its entirety below, she seems to support the restoration of Zelaya and to respect democracy. What she, and President Obama do not realize though, is that Zelaya sought to subvert the democratic system in his country, not uphold it. The military and Supreme Court acted in the best interest of Honduras, but it seems the people in positions of power aren't realizing the obvious.

Barack Obama and Honduran Democracy

It would appear President Obama cannot get out in front of the recent coup in Honduras fast enough.

To give you all some background, this past Sunday, the military arrested President Jose Manuel Zelaya and sent him into exile in Costa Rica. This was done to prevent a referrendum from being enacted that would allow Zelaya to tun for reelection an unlimited amount of times, rewriting their constitution. This has been attempted by Hugo Chavez in the past to install himself as President for Liife, so it isn't beyond the realm of belief that Zelaya, an all of Chavez would attempt a similar move.

In the run up to the refendum though, the Supreme Court ruled it as being unlawful. Not suprisingly Zelaya rejected their ruling and then fired head of the armed forces, Romeo Vasquez Velaquez refused top aid in the referrendum. He was however reinstated when both the Supreme Court and Congress deemedit unlawful.

The coup was then ordered by the Supreme Court for June 28th. Head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti was then sworn in as president.

In the wake of these events condemnation pured in fairly quickly by such organization as the Organization of American States, UN, and EU. However, President Obama was one of the first condemn the coup. This is interesting for the reason that he got outy in front of this right away, yet he waited days upon days to say anything about the Iranian protesters, even the slightest words of solidarity.

Now, he views it through the liberal prism, that the military overthrew a democratically elected government. What he doesn't see or at least is mentioning is that Zelaya was atempting to subvert democracy by the referrendum he wanted to enact. So who is really the one who's undemocratic here?

President Obama, you can't pick and choose which batttles you're going to fight, who's easy to support, and who's not. Plus, anytime you're on the same side as Hugo Chazez, you have a problem.

President Obama's Statement

Here is President Obama's statement regarding Iran. It's bettter than nothing.

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

Martin Luther King once said -- 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

Obama's Iranian Dilema

President Obama has a real problem with the demonstrations. Whereas he doesn't have an issue with them exisitng, his problem is he is not speaking up enough. I'm not asking he call for them to overthrow the regime violently (even though it does deserve that), but he should speak more vocally about his support for their right to protest and have free elections that demonstrate their will. I understand he is waiting to see what transpires, but President Obama, as you said the world is watching, speak up.

Terrorists to Receive Miranda Rights?

Why on Earth would President Obama want to give captured terrorists Miranda rights? The notion is absurd and ridiculous since these people are not entitled to right normally given to Americans.

Since a terrorist has the right to remain silent, he is not compelled to divulge what he knows. This will likely dry up the flow of intelligence, and could result in the loss of life as a result since this intel has to be acted on quickly. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had had such rights we likely would have seen a larger loss in life regardless of the interrogation method.

President Obama is taking us back to a pre-9/11 mentality, where we are to treat terrorists as mere crimminals to be tried in normal courts instead of enemy combatants to be treated as you would in a time of war. This is incredibly dangerous.

He of course is doing this so as to make way for future terrorists to be tried. However, these cases will make still be hard to make due to the way in which a terrorist might have been captured, i.e. divulging sources and methods.

I would hope President Obama would think long and hard about this road he's taking us down, because it is one that will lead to nothing but trouble.

Obama's Cairo Speech

President Obama's speech in Cairo this week was mixed at best. Whereas I agree with the intent of reaching out to the Muslim world, he missed many opportunities and appeared weak in it.I won't discuss the entire speech, but will go over the main things I just mentioned.

On the positive side he did make an effort to talk to the young populations in the Middle East, a population that is largely ruled by authoritarian dictators. If, as he said, the Middle East must overcome the caricatures and propaganda their nations spew out, then we can see a new generation that is open to democracy and the acceptance of better relations with both the US and Israel.

As far as the negative though, there is far more. On numerous occasions he seeks to make moral equivalencies, from the start in fact. He seeks to compare the Holocaust to Palestinians being "forced" from their homes upon the creation of Israel. It seems he wants to make excuses for the Muslim world, taking away the fact that they must take responsibility for their own bad behavior.

He doesn't make any mention of the words terrorist or terrorism though. He also makes no mention of all we have done for the Muslim world, from liberating Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq recently, to defending Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait in the '90s. It seems he doesn't want to take responsibility for anything the US has done in the past, only seeing the here and now and not realizing that the Presidency is bigger than himself.

Another startling part of the speech are the places where he somewhat defends the Iranian nuclear program and apologizes for the 1953 coup, the latter something President Ahmedinejad asked for. This will most likely be played up in Iran for propaganda purposes.

Even though he did say Israel and the US had an unbreakable bond, the fact that he didn't visit speaks volumes. What bothers me most about his speeches overseas is his inability to not apologize for his country. As President he should know better.

When in Danger Appease

Tomorrow President Obama will deliver a speech ion Cairo to the Muslim world, what is not known however is what he will say.

On his last overseas trips he felt compelled to apologize for America's historical faults. It is not known if he will do that again. It wouldn't be a surprise though. If he does do that though he will make America look even weaker in this region of the world, a region where that will not gain respect, but scorn.

That wouldn't be President Obama's first mistake on this trip though. Tat right is reserved for the fact that he is bypassing Israel, and in turn sending a signal that he is not supportive of them in their right to a) build settlements and b) defend themselves against Iran.

Tomorrow I will come to discuss the speech in question, but until then I can only speculate. I do know one thing for certain, President Obama is being tested as Vice-President Biden said he'd be, and whether it is responding to North Korean aggression or standing by a longtime ally, he is failing.

100 Days

Today marked the first 100 days of the Barack Obama administration. Let's take a look at his foreign policy accomplishments:

* The Global War on Terror no longer exists, it is now an Overseas Contingency Operation.

* According to DHS terrorist acts no longer exist either, but were replaced with "man-made disasters." Also returning vets might be possible right-wing terrorist recruits.

* President Obama went on a tour in Europe and Turkey to apologize for every ill America has committed from slavery to how Native Americans were treated to our "arrogance" and the fact that we have been "dismissive" of the Europeans.

* His most recent one though was his behavior with leaders in Latin America. He not only glad-handed Hugo Chavez, but also sat through a 53 minute diatribe by Daniel Ortega without responding.

* On top of of these there are the most dangerous actions of closing Gitmo without creating a plan as to what would be done with these detainees and last week's release of CIA memos detailing the way in which we interrogate captured terrorists. That action was incredibly irresponsible. "Along with this the fact that possible prosecutions were discussed and remain open to some extent is shameful.

President Obama, you're off to a great start. Hopefully you don't lower our defenses too much and make us look too weak over the next four years.

The End of a Horrible Week for the CIA

This week can be summed up as horrible for the CIA and it operators who kept us safe after 9/11 after the release of CIA memos detailing our interrogation techniques.

The point of contention here is that the enhanced interrogation techniques the CIA used are now the subject of a possible show trial in Congress to embarrass the Bush administration. This is shameful and President should have shut it down immediately as opposed to waffling on the matter.

The idea that the people responsible for keeping us safe over the past 7 years, whether they be CIA interrogators or Bush administration officials, is wrong beyond belief, especially since these very techniques saved lives. This can be seen in the fact that The CIA memos that were released proved that a second wave of attacks on the Library Towers in Los Angeles.

The memos should have never been released in the first place. President Obama was told by his CIA Director, Leon Panetta as well as previous directors that it was unwise. That was his first mistake. His second was leaving the idea that there would be the possibility of a Truth Commission, special prosecutor, or some other form of a witch hunt. This President is showing a lack of foresight and leadership and is instead of looking forward, like he said he would, is perpetually looking back. I believe only when polls showed such prosecutions were very unpopular that he chose not too.

This week has been horribly demoralizing for the CIA, and I only hope releasing these memos does not result in our enemies being emboldened and the loss of life.

Shameful Behavior by the Administration

This week the Obama Administration has acted shamefully in regards to the very people who protect this country.

First, DHS put out an intel report warning that returning soldiers might be recruits for right wing groups. This is shameful for two reasons. First, shouldn't DHS focus on protecting the homeland against real terrorists instead of perceived ones, people who simply disagree with them? Secondly, I find it absurd that these men and women, who are defending our country, are coming back to be labeled as possible terrorists. Is this how the US government repays their sacrifice?

Secondly, today President Obama released previously classified CIA memos on how we treated detained terrorists and agreed not to prosecute the CIA operatives who acted these interrogations out. He said in part that would end a dark and painful part of our history. That cannot be anymore ridiculous. Since 9/11 we have been kept safe by such practices, and to paraphrase Bill Kristol, it's really big of President Obama not to prosecute them.

The G-20 and Other News of the Week

It would seem the European leaders who once fawned over Barack Obama, aren't as willing to work with him now. Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy, to name but two, are not willing to go along with President Obama's plan, and Russia's Dmitry Medvedev didn't exactly appear willing to aid us in our endeavors as far as foreign policy are concerned. This is not a good way to begin a presidency. If he cannot get allies on board now how does he expect to get their assistance on other substantive issues such as Afghanistan?

In other news a judge in Washinton, D.C. has said detainees held in Afghanistan have a right to question their detainment in US courts. Much like the Gitmo case of last year, this does not bode well for American security. If detainees cn question their detainment they put our ability to fight the GWOT at risk. Luckily, the Obama administration is fighting this, but who knows if it will work considering the precedent that's been started.

Fox Sunday w/Chris Wallace

This edition of Pannel Plus discusses the need for a missle defense in the wake of a poissible missle test by North Korea in a few days.

Overseas Contingency Operation?

It appears part of the change that President Obama has brought to Washington, D.C. has been to change the vocabulary that is to be used to describe the conflict we are facing. This week it has been announced that instead of the Global War on Terror this administration will be using the more politically correct term, Overseas Contingency Operation.

In related news Secretary Napolitano will be referring to terrorist acts as Man made disasters.

If this change is an inkling of what President Obama will bring to our foreign policy, I can't say it inspires great confidence. The fact that the Administration is changing the vocabulary alone would not be an issue, but it appears they doing this so as not to offend anyone. We of course wouldn't want to offend the terrorists of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas, nor would we want to offend any of the radical Islamists. This is a sign of weakness, and will not engender anything but ridicule from these terrorist groups.

Obama's Message to Iran

In President Obama's message to the Iranian leadership on Norouz, their new year, he appears to give tacit approval of plans for nuclear enrichment. While he does say terrorism and arms will not be condoned, his appeal appears to be weak and to a belligerent leadership, a admittance that they have won the battle of wills.


When Iranian officials were asked their opinion of his appeal, they said sanctions would have to be lifted, but also no talks could proceed if we continue to support Israel. This of course is out of the question. A nation such as ours should never cease to support such stalwart allies as we have in Israel.



I do not see this as the great opening to Tehran that the liberal media has been waiting for, but rather another setback by a president who has shown himself to be woefully naive in the ways of foreign policy. The current composition of the Iranian leadership is one that will not be open to negotiations unless their ludicrous demands are met, and as such not leaders any civilized nation can deal with. The only way Iran should be dealt with is if the theocratic dictatorship is overthrown and replaced with reasonable leaders. Freedom and liberty for the Iranian people should remain an important aspect of our strategy to deal with Iran, not accommodation.

More Troops to Afghanistan

With the news that 17,000 more troops are being sent to Afghanistan, President Obama faces his first real foreign policy dilemma. That dilemma being, that the war therein will most likely get worse before it gets better. We will need to put a large effort there so as to avoid a loss. The Democratic Party, most likely won't be happy about it, and there's always been something I've wondered about. That being, that Democrats and assorted liberals railed against the Iraq war and the casualties incurred therein, but are they willing to accept such casualties in Afghanistan, the war Iraq was a distraction from?

President Obama's first test in foreign policy will be, will he able to stand up to the pressure that will inevitably come and stick it out for the greater good.

The Guatanamo Bay All-Stars

While watching Hannity a couple weeks ago I got the idea to discuss exactly which high-value al-Qaeda are at Gitmo. Here they are:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks". He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time. In September 2006, the U.S. government announced it had moved Mohammed from a secret prison to the facility at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Human Rights Watch and he himself have claimed that the American authorities have tortured him, a claim that was admitted to be accurate on February 4, 2008, when it was revealed that he was subjected to the controversial technique of "simulated drowning", also called "waterboarding".
In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay — confessed to masterminding the September 11th attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.
On December 8, 2008, Mohammed and four co-defendants sent a note to the military judge expressing their desire to confess and plead guilty.

Hambali
Hambali (Indonesian). He attended a key planning meeting for the 9/11 attacks in Malaysia (see January 5-8, 2000) and is accused of involvement in many other plots, including the 2002 Bali bombings (see October 12, 2002). Riduan Isamuddin also transliterated as Riduan Isamudin, Riduan Isomuddin, and Riduan Isomudin, better known by the nom de guerre Hambali, born as Encep Nurjaman, born April 4, 1966 (Indonesia) is the former military leader of the Indonesian terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), which is linked with Al Qaeda. He is now in extrajudicial detention in the United States's Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba.
Hambali was often described as "the Osama bin Laden of Southeast Asia. Some media reports describe him as Bin Laden's lieutenant for Southeast Asian operations. Other reports describe him as an independent peer. He was highly trusted by Al Qaeda and was the main link between the two organisations. Hambali was a close friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned Operation Bojinka and the September 11 Terrorist Attacks. Hambali envisioned creating a Muslim state, in the form of an Islamic superpower (a theocracy) across Southeast Asia, with himself as its leader (Caliph). His ambition was to rule Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Cambodia, and parts of the Philippines, Myanmar, and Thailand.
Receiving increasing attention in the aftermath of the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing, in which 202 people died, he was eventually apprehended in a joint operation by the CIA and Thai police. He is currently imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba, after three years of CIA custody in a secret location.








Ahmed Khalfan Ghaliani









Ghalfani is a member of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. He was indicte in the United States as a participant in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. He was on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list from its inception in October of 2001. In 2004, he was captured and detained by Pakistani forces in a joint operation with the United States. Ghailani is currently held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp; he is one of the 14 people who had previously been held at secre locations abroad.






Ramzi Binalshibh









Ramzi Binalshibh born May 1, 1972, is, according to the United States, Germany, and several other countries, a key al-Qaeda member who helped in planning the September 11 attacks. A citizen of Yemen, Binalshibh was the first to be publicly identified as the "20th hijacker," of whom there were several individuals thought to have consecutively been tasked to fill out the single missing slot among the four terrorist teams. Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan on September 11, 2002, after a gun battle in Karachi with the Pakistani ISI and the CIA's Special Activities Division. On September 14, 2002 he was subsequently turned over to the United States, which transferred him to an undisclosed location for interrogation. His profile was removed from the FBI Seeking Information wanted list by October 17, 2002.
Binalshibh remained a prisoner of the U.S., at an undisclosed CIA-led location, until September 2006. On September 6, 2006 U.S. President George W. Bush announced that Binalshibh and other CIA held prisoners had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.




Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri









Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is one of the aliases of the Saudi al-Qaeda member Abdul-Rahim Hussein Muhammad 'Abdul. He is alleged to be the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing and other terrorist attacks, who headed al-Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf states prior to his capture in November of 2002.
On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General Michael Hayden confirmed that the CIA had used waterboarding on al-Nashiri, along with two other prisoners, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubayda. In December 2008, he was charged before a Guantanamo Military Commission. The charges were dropped in February 2009 pending the Obama administration's review of all Guantánamo detentions, but may be refiled. In November 2002, al-Nashiri was captured in the United Arab Emirates. He is currently in American military custody in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, having previously been held at some secret location. On September 29, 2004, he was sentenced to death in absentia in a Yemeni court for his role in the USS Cole bombing.
The U.S. military put al-Rahim al-Nashiri in prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said March 14, 2008. He was held by the CIA for an undisclosed amount of time.

Abu Faraj al-Libbi

Abu Faraj al-Libi is an assumed name or nom de guerre of a Libyan alleged to be a senior member of the al-Qaeda terror organization. His real name is thought to be Mustafa al-'Uzayti. He was arrested by Pakistan's ISI on May 2, 2005, in Mardan (30 miles north of Peshawar). Finding al-Libi was a joint effort of the United States and Pakistan. He is now in American military custody in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, having previously been held at some secret location.
In approximately 2000, he was living in the Karte Parwan district of Kabul, Afghanistan.
In August 2004 Pakistani officials stated that al-Libbi (also known as Abu Faraj Farj) had become "number three" in al-Qaeda as "director of operations", a rôle once filled by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Upon al-Libbi's arrest U.S. and Pakistani authorities continued to claim him as the third most important figure in al-Qaeda.
According to the BBC and VOA reports, he was riding pillion on a motorbike when he and his driver were ambushed by Pakistani agents, some of whom were wearing burqas. A VOA reporter from Mardan said that while being apprehended, al-Libbi tried to destroy a notebook, which U.S. officials are now trying to decode. The events leading up to the ambush began with US agents intercepting a mobile phone call made by al-Libbi. They zeroed in his location to a busy road a quarter of a mile away on the outskirts of Mardan, about 75 miles northwest of Islamabad, and tipped-off Pakistani authorities. Plainclothes Pakistani agents arrived in Mardan and hung out, waiting for him to arrive.
Abi Faraj al-Libbi was named by Pakistani authorities as the main planner of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. He is also a suspect in two assassination attempts against Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraff. According to the New York Times, "Mr. Libbi's suspected accomplice in those attacks was a well-known Pakistani militant named Amjad Hussain Farooqi, who was also implicated in the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in February 2002. Mr. Farooqi was killed last September in a shootout with security forces in southern Pakistan. The importance of al-Libi in the ranks of Al-Qaeda and Taliban can also be judged from the fact that as soon his story of arrest was aired on VOA, the correspondent received death-threats from the local Taliban network in Mardan which was so far running underground.

Abu Zubayda

Based on al-Libi’s tip, al Qaeda’s one-time operations chief, Abu Zubaydah, was captured in March 2002 in Pakistan. According to the U.S. National Director of Intelligence’s (NDI) biographies of 14 key terrorists at Guantanamo, Zubaydah supervised Afghanistan’s “Khaldan group” of guesthouses and terror-training camps between 1995 and 2000. He assisted Ahmad Ressam, the al Qaeda militant whom vigilant Customs Inspector Diana Dean apprehended on December 14, 1999 at Port Angeles, Washington, as he tried to enter America from British Columbia, Canada. Ressam’s spare-tire compartment contained 135 pounds of explosives he planned to detonate at Los Angeles International Airport as the new millennium arrived. Some of the $50,000 that Zubaydah collected from Saudi donors to assault Israel may have helped finance the September 11 attacks, which killed 2,977 people.While Zubaydah reportedly kept his mouth shut at first, he became much more loquacious once interrogators stuck him in a cold room and cranked up the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Evidently not a fan, Zubaydah sang anyway, although a different song altogether. Zubaydah identified Omar al-Faruq, Rahim al-Nashiri, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, as well as other terrorists.

Redefinining the War on Terror

It would seem within his first week in office President Obama is looking to redefine the Global War on Terror.

He has announced his intention to close Gitmo, but he has really not answered the question, what are you going to do with all the detainees? Some have suggested they be moved to Fort Leavenworth, while others have stated other options, even John Murtha suggesting they go to a prison in Pennsylvania. Is that not ludicrous?

President Obama has stated as well that the techniques used in the Army Field Manual are the only ones to be used in interrogations. Although he is setting up a committee which will determine in six months if other techniques can be used as well.

I am hoping the announcement of the closure is but a symbolic gesture to appease the far-left, and he will in fact either keep the prison opened or send the prisoners to a location that is not in the US. Americans have to be kept safe, and allowing them to be on American soil is unacceptable. Also in this note, I am hoping his Executive Orders on interrogation have enough wiggle room so as methods used in enhanced interrogations can in fact be used.

I want to believe President Obama is a practical person and will do what is necessary to protect us from terrorist attacks, and that these are but symbolic gestures to appease his base. This is a serious job he has ahead of him, let us all hope this is true. We cannot afford however to fall into a pre-9/11 mentality and the danger it poses.

President Barack Obama

Even though I did not vote for Barack Obama, I do wish him well. I hope as president he keeps us safe and is able to revitalize our economy, for if he fails, America fails and we cannot afford that at this time in our history. I will most likely not agree with everything he does, yet I am willing to not make any judgments too soon. I have seen too many cases of "Bush Derangement Syndrome," and been turned off by it to act in the same manner. He is our president now, and I will treat him with the respect he deserves.

Congratulations.

What Kind of Vice-President Will Joe Biden Be?

Joe Biden, since the debates has said how Dick Cheney's the most dangerous VP we've ever had. Although a question remain, what kind will he be?

He spent years on the Foreign Relations Committee, so it would be presumed, that he has some expertise in international relations and national security. Even though he has this on his resume though, what will his role be? With a probably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will her presence in the Cabinet overshadow his own? There are many questions that remain to be answered without a doubt. Personally, I believe he will try to exert influence in the decision-making process. How influential he will in fact be remains to be seen though. There are many qualified people in National Security team, so he could easily be pushed aside.

Leon Panetta for DCI? Really?

I find the recent news that Leon Panetta is to be appointed Director of the CIA highly disturbing. Considering his experience, or lack thereof in matters of intelligence it makes one wonder how our ability to fight terrorism will be affected. I partly think this due to Panetta's insistence on holding the CIA to the standards of the military as well as President-elect Obama announcing he wanted to change how the United States went about fighting terrorism. Both these things worry me.

This was a real shock to me. I have been pleasantly surprised with all of his other picks for his national security team, Hillary Clinton, Jim, Jones, and Robert Gates. This choice is truly unacceptable if we are continue to fight terrorism in an offensive manner and remain secure.