KSM To Be Tried At Gitmo?

It doesn't appear likely that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be winging it to Gotham any time soon. Both NBC and the AP are reporting that KSM and four other co-conspirators will be facing military tribunals instead of civilian trials.

Ultimately, a good call - but the one that should have been made all along.

Fareed Zakaria Thinks We Overreacted to 9-11

Everyone's favorite sorta-hard-to-pigeonhole-Indian-American-IndianAmerican Fareed Zakaria has taken to the the airwaves and blogwaves this week to tell us that the United States overreacted to 9-11.  Here's a sample of what he's peddling:

Nine years after 9/11, can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda is simply not that deadly a threat? Since that gruesome day in 2001, once governments everywhere began serious countermeasures, Osama bin Laden’s terror network has been unable to launch a single major attack on high-value targets in the United States and Europe. While it has inspired a few much smaller attacks by local jihadis, it has been unable to execute a single one itself. Today, Al Qaeda’s best hope is to find a troubled young man who has been radicalized over the Internet, and teach him to stuff his underwear with explosives.

Far be it from me to argue with Newsweek Magazine's designated arbiter of all that is centrist and just in international affairs, but isn't there just a tad bit of a logic-bomb in Zakaria's thinking?   Could it be that Al Qadea is simply not that deadly a threat BECAUSE of the "over"reaction of the US and its allies?  Reminds me of the annual New York Times story decrying "filling prisons even as the crime rate drops", as if there is no correlation. 

Does any rationally thinking person believe that Osama Bin Laden and the boys believed that they would pull off the big attack on September 11 and then spend the next 9 years hiding in holes?  No--they saw it as the opening salvo in a civilizational war they were bound and determined to win, one that would include many more attacks in the US on scales both grand and modest.  But that hasn't happened.  And it hasn't happened because we "over" reacted. 

More "over"reaction, please. 

Suspicions of Terrorism in The Netherlands

ABC News is reporting two men were taken off a plane in The Netherlands and are being questioned on suspicion of preparing for a terrorist attack. 

And no, their names aren't "Smith" and "Jones". 

Why America Is Slow To Help Pakistan

The recent torrential rains and floods that struck Pakistan and caused widespread death and destruction have raised an important question:  why -- after the outpouring of emotion after the Haitian earthquake--are Americans not leaping to their checkbooks in a sympathetic rush to send money to victims and NGO's supporting the relief effort?

There are a couple of reasons.  Firstly, Haiti is geographically, right next door--it is in not only the Western Hemisphere, but the Northern Hemisphere.  Proximity matters.

Secondly, I think there are many Americans--count me among them--who would like to see the oil rich Arab nations step up to the plate with their cash on this one--you know, the ones who use Pakistan to develop young Jihadi terrorists the way Major League Baseball uses the Dominican Republic to grow baseball players.

Finally--and this one probably lumps me into the category of misanthrope--I find it hard to reach for the checkbook to send aid to a country that has so prominently figured IN the worldwide Jihad, providing succor to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, with an intelligence service that has played on both sides of the fence for years.  Yes--Pakistan is strategically important to us, and maintaining influence there is critically important.  But I'll leave that relationship to the US government to manage.  I manage my charitable giving, and I simply can't get the pen to meet the check on this one.

I Give You....

....the incomparable Mark Steyn.

A tour de force in the inanity of our approach to terrorism.

New Obama Airline Safety Measures Revealed

Groovy baby! Where are the sexy Stews?

H/T---Bill

Bush Approach a Terror Recruiting Tool?

Frequent Anonymous poster and all-around reliable Bush Basher JPH commented yesterday on a post that had been buried by subsequent stories. The post, Europe Sees Obama Vulnerable On Terrorism is here. Here's what JPH had to say--I repeat it because it is worth raising for group comment and because it reflects current Administration thinking on its approach to the War On Terr0r--whoops--War on Man Made Disasters:

"I will clearly be out of step with the contributors here, but let's go for it. I think GW Bush's policies were the best recruiting tool AQ EVER had.... playing down this rogue element is more likely to bleed them dry then all the guns and bullets in our kit. Moreover, we are more likely to successfully finance this approach than the previous method. JPH.

JPH has raised the recruiting tool issue before, and it is a reliable canard of the left. It sorta goes like this...Bush declared war on terror, this radicalized law-abiding citizens who under other circumstances would simply have gone about their business, and so it can be shown that Bush created terrorists. Quad erat demonstratum.

This view is of course, correct. There were X number of terrorists before 9-11, Bush's response created X + Y. I have no problem conceding this.

However, we must remember that 9-11 and USS COLE happened when there were "X" terrorists. Of course our response created more. That's what war does.

Rich Lowry of National Review has a nice take-down on this theory here. I've dealt with this (raised by JPH) before--the "declaring war on Japan created millions of enemies overnight" argument, one that JPH dismisses (ineffectually, I may add) but which seems to be widely supported here (natch).

But let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume that there was a set of policies that Bush could have followed that would NOT create more terrorists. But which would have made us safer than pre-9-11. What would those policies have looked like? What government approach would have been taken?

I imagine it would look much like....oh....maybe the Obama approach. Change the rhetoric. Go to Cairo and have a dialogue with the Islamic world. Close Gitmo. Try KSM et al in civilian court. Repudiate water-boarding and terror. Etc, etc, etc.

Problem is, the approach ISN'T WORKING if terror monthly recruiting stats are your Measure of Effectiveness. The Skivvy Bomber joined up in the Age of Obama. The five Northern Virginia men who went to Pakistan recently to pursue Jihad were radicalized in the age of Obama. The young man who blew himself up recently with an IED suppository was unleashed in the Age of Obama. Wasn't the world supposed to sit up and take notice when we elected The One? If Bush's approach was a fine recruiting tool for terror (and yes, again, I think it did indeed radicalize thrill seeking Jihadists), what exactly are we to make of the Obama approach?

What we are to make of it is that ANY approach that takes on terror will cause an increase in terrorists--until we start to win. The ONLY effective way in to discourage the recruitment of terrorists in the short and medium term would be to roll over and give up; at which point, the Caliphate wouldn't need terrorists, it would need civil servants. But I digress.

It's time to retire the old saw that looks at terror recruiting as some kind of a badge of dishonor. Bush and Obama both are doing what they can to keep the country safe, and in the process, some will be radicalized. The key now is to "de-radicalize" them. Either with a heartbeat, or without one.

Obama the Profiler

Ah yes, the pleasures of governing as opposed to campaigning. I relish the sweet justice of the Obama Administration engaging in what can only be termed "profiling" in its new policy of beefed-up screening procedures against those who would enter our country from nations prone to terror movements. The camel's nose is in the tent, the slippery slope is now in play--pick whatever metaphor you'd like---but it is an African American Democratic President who will finally put into play a system of "profiling" to make this country safer. Bully for you, Barry. I look forward to the media asking questions about profiling of senior government officials. No, really I do.

This of course, does nothing to increase preparedness against the legions of would-be suicide bombers raised in the slums of Paris or the public housing tenements of England, and who possess EU Passports. No, the Jihad Diaspora will continue to hide in plain sight, spreading its venom against the West even as it procreates on the dole of Western socialism.

But this is a good first step.

Europe Sees Obama Vulnerable on Terrorism

We are reaping what the President has sown, and the Europeans see it more clearly than we do. There's no war on terror, there are just appropriate law-enforcement activities. There are no unlawful enemy combatants, there are only "alleged" terrorists. There's no terrorism, there are only "man made disasters". There are no military commissions, there are only alleged terrorists in the criminal justice system.

The plain truth of the matter is that there has been a seismic shift in the approach that the government is taking to the world-wide Islamic terror movement. While there remains a reliance on the trappings of the Bush approach (because it worked), the attitude at the top has changed, and the country can feel it. America will become less safe unless its guardians in power become more vigilant. They are simply not as serious about this as the average American is. That's not a good thing.

H/T--Instapundit

Maureen Dowd--I'm Sorry, But She Wrote Something Worth Sharing

Most of you are familiar with my disdain for the snarky, embittered, talentless, Maureen Dowd. But this editorial contributes (among its tired tripe) a paragraph that neatly summarizes the US approach to airport security:

"If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?"

Nicely said, what?

We've spent $40B on airport security since 9-11. And since this $40B has been spent in a way that seems to treat everyone on earth as equally likely to commit terrorism, we've essentially spent about $7 per person in 8 years. Until we wise up and realize that profiling IS REQUIRED, we'll continue to have a system designed only tangentially for security, moreso for simply bothering people.

Terrorist Headline

The NY Post is without equal.

Another Downtrodden Muslim Attempts An Act Of Terror...Whoops; Wrong Again!

Nigerian would-be martyr Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has much in common with many other members of the Islamo-fascist terror movement--and that is, he has little or no direct experience with ANY of the many excuses that are put forward to explain the rise of Islamic terror. In his case, he's the son of a Nigerian Banker (perhaps you've received an email from him?) with a degree in mechanical engineering and a buff flat in London-town. The 19 September 11 hi-jackers? Well-educated middle and upper middle class gents. Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Middle class, educated in the good ole US of A. And then there is the dynamic duo, Messers Bin Laden and Zawahiri--one, the scion of a Saudi construction conglomerate and the other, an Egyptian doctor. These aren't Palestinians living under the Israeli boot; they aren't downtrodden proles loving under the thumb of authoritarian strongmen. They are the elite of Islamic society, and they use the problems of the poor as cover for their stated desire to establish the New Caliphate--at the expense of the West.

Update: The great Mark Steyn agrees with me.

The War on Terror Did Not Create Nidal Hassan

Friend Tim invites my attention to the incomparable Christopher Hitchens' (incomparable, except on religion, where I find him tired and shrill) attempt to frame the recent Fort Hood terrorism in the proper perspective. There as you may remember, Nidal Hassan (I will resist the convention to grant famous murderers the custom of the use of all three of their names). Hitch is writing largely in response to Robert Wright who--in a recent NYT editorial basically engaged in a bit of intellectual open-field running. The intelligentsia had previously been avoiding the obvious fact that Mr. Hassan's act was one of wanton terrorism (so as not to feed the hysteria that would surely attend such knowledge in this country; always--in their view--one Bill O'Reilly show away from the lynch mob) . Wright's nifty new move is to recycle the worn and vapid meme that "the war on terror radicalizes--and creates more terrorists".

We've heard this one since the beginning of the war on terror, generally espoused by some very wise and seemingly very rational apologists for inaction. They tell us that the terminology of war is misplaced, they tell us that this is largely in international criminal network best dealt with as a law enforcement and diplomatic threat. But most of all, they tell us the War on Terror creates terrorists.

It occurs to me that FDR's speech on December 8th created tens of millions of radicalized Japanese in one fell-swoop. LBJ's step up of Mr. Kennedy's war in Southeast Asia had a similar impact. This is what war does--it creates enemies. In the process of the conduct of war, sometimes more enemies will be created as the enemy gains allies and or successfully propagandizes at home.

This element of recruitment and radicalization among an enemy is not peculiar to Islamic terrorists, nor is it particularly something to be feared. It is part of the sturm und drang of war, something that war planners take account of, and something that a war ultimately aims to target (in many instances). Ever heard of "breaking the will" of the enemy? This is what is broken--the support among the populace, the farm system for the fighting forces, the desire to keep fighting (or to keep surrendering one's sons to the siege guns of the enemy).

Mr. Wright's position--and that of those who would have us assume a different posture in the War on Terror--is a "turtling" strategy, one where they hope that hiding in our shells will provide us with the protection we need. Don't anger the radicals, or they'll become terrorists. Nonsense. Show the radicals that becoming a terrorist is a poor career choice.

KSM et al To Be Tried In Civilian Courts in NYC

I guess you could see this one coming, given statements the President has made and the waffling, unimpressive performance of his Attorney General thus far. Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his gang of merry men are going to be tried in the civilian criminal justice system in New York. Word is that all five of these miscreants will be tried together, and that prosecutors are likely to seek the death sentence.

We've talked here about "alternative futures"; that is, the strategic planning technique of looking at a number of "realities" that may develop, and then thinking about how one would react to those futures. I think some "alternative futures" thinking is in order here.

Firstly, I think the most likely outcome of this trial is that it will be 1) long 2) a circus 3) a proxy for Democrat/Obama retributive behavior toward the Bush Administration and 4) fatal to KSM and probably at least one or two others (as in, they will be convicted and they will earn the death penalty.

But let's think about another alternative future, shall we? Let's think about a future in which KSM gets off--not fully, of course, but winds up guilty of some crime other than one that earns him a one-way ticket to his 76 virgins. Can you imagine the political blow-back that will accrue to the Obama Administration if that is the case? Is this likely? N0t nearly as likely as the scenario described above, but MY GOD, how ruinous it would be if it were to come to pass.

Let's get one thing straight--military commissions, held in Guantanamo, could have worked. The Congress--working closely with the Justice Department and the DoD--could have created a military commissions framework in which these fellows could easily have been tried--one that would have passed Supreme Court muster and one in which the circus that will surely come would have been minimized. But no-- now the trial will become at least partially a trial of the Bush Administration--and a casualty of that process could be justice. Once this trial becomes focused on "waterboarding", all bets will be off and Katy bar the door.

Finally--these men are not criminals. They were unlawful combatants who perpetrated an act of war upon the United States of America. Trying them in our criminal justice system is a miscarriage of justice, and extends unto each one of them any and all liberties enjoyed by every American citizen when he or she steps into a courtroom. This is not the way it should be.

UPDATE: A nicely done editorial from NRO

No Terrorism Here, Move Along

The world's first vicitim of Pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome ('cause that's really the only rational explanation for Nidal Hassan's act) is reported to have tried to make contact with Al Qaeda. Not that he's a terrorist or anything.