By nature and education the Geek is a historian. Specifically he is a historian of military, diplomatic, and national security affairs and affrays. This means he has a broad vicarious experience with the idiocies, asininities, and flat out lunacies which have characterized the policies and actions of the US and other governments over the past few centuries. In the direct experience department the Geek has witnessed up close and personal the witlessness of the same over a period of more than thirty years.
The Geek mentions these salient parts of his life neither to brag nor to buff his credibility in writing on the contemporary morass of US foreign, military, intelligence, and related policies. Rather, it is to underscore his high tolerance for emotional and intellectual suffering. Of late even this capacity has been sorely tested, tested beyond its Young's Modulus even.
The Obama administration is responsible for this unpleasant and unprecedented moment in the Geek's long and peripatetic life. The Nice Young Man From Chicago and his numerous ideological soulmates as well as various and sundry mid-level minions have been involved in a farrago of ineptitude which not only boggle the mind but demand an impossible degree of willing suspension of disbelief if to be taken as the product of mature and considered judgement.
One illustration of the dynamics in play is the Don't-Touch-My-Junk explosion. More accurately, it is the response of the TSA to the stand by one man in San Diego's airport.
The necessary starting point in any assessment of the TSA, or its parent outfit, Der Heimatsicherheitsamt to the unexpected Peasants' Revolt epitomized by the the Hero of "Don't touch my junk!" is simply acknowledging the foundation truth that the humiliation of passengers in the name of security adds not one whit of genuine safety to airline travel. The "Strip or Grope" mentality is as functional in providing security as would be mammary glands on a bull.
While it is unfashionable in the social and political circles in which Mr Obama and his fellow travelers are welcome, the circles established by the self-appointed elites of academia, journalism, and the law, the down and dirty truth is airline security is threatened by a discrete and definable segment of the human race. The nature of this segment is made clear in a recent report by one of those "executive security" consultancies. The report (the Geek knows he should have a link here, but he made a series of wrong clicks and lost it--a misdemeanor augmented by his extreme laziness which precludes going back to find it) showed that in nine of the top ten terrorist infested countries, the terrorists were adherents of violent political Islam. (The lone exception was Columbia.)
Anyway the cookie is crumbled, the vast majority of terrorist actions over the years since 9/11 (and most of the preceding twenty as well) were perpetrated by Muslims, practitioners of violent political Islam, AKA jihadis, jihadists, Islamists, Islamic separatists, radical extremists, and a host of other more or less euphemistic monikers. This rather excludes most customers of American airlines.
To put it terms even one of the high school dropouts recruited by TSA: Potential terrorists are not randomly distributed among the population of the US. Even when considering the problem of homegrown wannabe martyrs, the potential threat is limited to a very small and quite discrete group: Muslims.
This implies strongly that focusing efforts on the small population will not only save the majority of travelers from the studied humiliation and degradation of the "strip or grope" policy but have a far greater chance of actually stopping or deterring potential martyrdom seekers. To put it in a politically incorrect way: Profiling is the answer.
Anyone with any experience in security, intelligence, or street policing--and many who lack that sort of hands-on experience--can attest that profiling is used everywhere and everyday by everyone responsible for law enforcement, security, and intelligence. Heck, it is used everyday by all of us when deciding if we should cross the street to avoid an oncoming stranger--or answer a knock on the door in the hours of darkness.
Profiling is not racist. It is not xenophobic. It is an experience based means of rapidly and effectively organizing data, putting perceptions into a useful pattern, making quick and accurate appraisals of unexpected encounters. It is part of the quotidian human experience.
The methods of identifying potential high risk travelers have been well established and are capable of continuous refinement. The use of augmented profiling techniques by well trained and field experienced individuals has been use for years in Europe. (The Geek has always been impressed by the virtually invisible middle aged men standing in a concourse observing while not seeming to do so, scanning the crowd for the one in a million or so people who is in genuine need of enhanced screening.)
Were it not for the ideology of hyper-sensitivity in American politics today, we would be doing the same, openly and proudly. Were it not for the unintended but predictable consequences of the "politics of victimization" produced by the civil rights movement of the Sixties, we would be free to profile away and by doing so both enhance internal security and public trust in the organs of state.
Absent profiling and with a massive contempt for the public it is supposed to "protect," the TSA has fallen back on a defense in depth approach to guarding its sovereign authority to act the part of the bully. As part of its defense the Tyrants have proudly trumpeted the "fact" that their screening has prevented 130 "dangerous or illegal" items from being brought on board aircraft. The Tyrants would not identify the items, citing "security concerns" but did mention a ceramic knife and--hang on for this one, its a hoot--a hypodermic needle and syringe containing heroin.
Now heroin may be illegal, but is it a security threat? A danger to the traveling public? Does someone over at TSA or DHS envision the passenger rushing the cockpit, kicking in the reinforced door and then, while shouting, "Smackheads Rule!" running up both pilots with an OD? Wowie! Zowie! Bet old Osama wishes he had thought of that one.
It is to be hoped that the Peasants' Revolt, the Don't-Touch-My-Junk movement will call a time out in the lunacy of TSA. One can hope that it will occasion a rethinking of domestic air security so that manpower and money will be focused, focused on the real threats--the contents of the cargo bins and the intentions of individuals who meet the criteria of experienced based profiling.
Loony strike number two. Think Pakistan. As we all know from the uncountable assurances from usually credible people such as Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton, Pakistan is not only our good ally in a common struggle against violent political Islam, but any "bad" things once done by the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have been ended. If those warranties were not enough then we must all be quieted in our apprehensions by the repeated statements from Pakistani officials to the effect that even if ISI had backed Taliban and the Haqqani network in the past, the boys in spookland were no longer doing so.
Right, dude, fer sure.
Comes now an article in The Nation which is hardly a bastion of right wing nut rantings. The article details the direct involvement of ISI in the daily affairs of the Haqqani network and Taliban in Afghanistan. Specifically, the article recounts the role played by ISI as a peacmaker between rival factions following the escape of NYT reporter David Rohde from his Afghan captors. As the account deals with actions taken in recent months, the announcements of ISI's change of heart are, shall we say, called into doubt.
The reality is far divorced from the soothing mood music played without letup by the current administration and its assorted factotums or apologists. Pakistan is not, repeat, not an ally in a common cause with the US and other civilized states. It is a country the government of which is pursuing a narrowly defined national interest in Afghanistan which runs counter to the goals of both the Afghans and the US. Pakistan's government and military cooperate with the US only to the minimal extent necessary to facilitate the flow of cash from Washington to Islamabad.
Unless and until the administration rectifies its totally erroneous stance regarding Pakistan, the effort in Afghanistan will be prolonged unnecessarily. It is past time for President Obama to engage in some of that "hand to hand combat" which he seemed to relish with respect to Republicans only a few weeks ago but this time with Pakistan. It is past time for the US to "tilt" even more in the direction of India. It is past time for the US to let the Pakistanis know without any doubt that the days of the money flood are over. It is past time for the administration to tell the Pakistanis clearly that unless they play we will no longer pay.
Lunacy, it has been argued, consists of doing the same thing over and over again even though the action brings no positive result. That has been the case with our policy to Pakistan. Just because the George W. Bush administration got it dead wrong in Pakistan is no excuse for the current bunch to keep on making the same disastrous mistakes. Obama maintained that he was different from George W. It is time he make it so regarding Pakistan.
Now for the one exception. The US Marines are bringing fourteen M1 tanks to their area of operations. This move was first desired more than a year ago when the jarheads first entered Afghanistan in force. At the time it was denied for fear it might alienate the locals with their memories of the armor heavy Soviet forces back in the Eighties. The Marines renewed their request in recent months. This time it was approved by General Petraeus.
He made the right call.
Generally armor is not too useful in counterinsurgency operations but in the present case it represents an important addition to the Marine's combat capacities. The 120mm main gun on the M1 provides a long range, instant response direct fire capability quite useful in the open terrain areas currently under Marine tactical responsibility. The direct fire is more accurate than indirect fire from artillery. The tanks can move with the troops and be available faster than air delivered fire. Finally, the accuracy of the 120 will limit the probability of collateral civilian casualties.
Fourteen tanks is not a massive number. Most Afghans, even those in the Marine TAOR will be unaware of their presence. Certainly the introduction of a company of MBTs is not a sign of desperation or impending defeat. Rather, it is a belated and easily justified move which will tilt the advantage further in the favor of the Americans and their in-country ally.
The exception here underscores the sheer lunacy extant at the policy levels of the US government. If only the folks topside had as firm a grip on the realities of the world as do the Marines and General Petraeus, we would all be better off. Perhaps the difference between the realistic views down the food chain and the what-planet-are-they-living-on? perspectives demonstrated at the top arises from the fact that the guys way down deal with real matters, matters of winning or losing, living or dieing while Mr Obama and his associates have been breathing overly rarefied air, the air of the elite so long their brains have suffered as a result.
Life behind well polished desks or around glittering conference tables leads to a fatal lack of appreciating the exigencies of life in the real world. The Marines and those responsible for their lives have lived long in the most grueling of environments. As a result they lack the luxury so available to those at the highest level of government--the luxury of ignoring reality and embracing lunacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment