The Loonies Keep On Running The Asylum--And One Exception

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.

Tyrants Of Supreme Arrogance (TSA) Versus We The People

The most recent symbol of the ongoing war between the rights of American citizens and the myrmidons of the great fetish, security, is a mild looking software geek named John Turner.  His confrontation, including the utterly asinine threat by a Tyrant to see Turner hit with a ten kilobuck fine, is covered here.  It is a hoot--and a glowing lesson in the disconnect between the TSA and its master, the Heimatsicherheitsamt on the one hand and the majority of the traveling public on the other.

The cause of the San Diego resistance as well as a growing surge of discontent is the increased use of imaging technology which purports to see all through one's clothing as well as its complement, the "enhanced pat down."  The virtual nakedness produced by the microwave or X-ray backscatter machines is objectionable to many people as an unjustifiable invasion of the most intimate of our personal regions.

The objectionable nature of the machines is no way lessened by the lies regarding the capacity of the system to store, retrieve, or transmit images which have been peddled by TSA for months now.  Depending on the mode selected, the system either can or cannot store, retrieve, and transmit images captured from the traveling folks.  The person in the booth being scanned has no way of knowing which mode is operative.  Nor can one be certain, beyond the assurances of TSA, that there is no way a specific identity can be linked to a particular image.

The option of bypassing the scan is available.  Exercise of this requires that the candidate passenger submit to "enhanced pat down."  This involves a rather firm set of very unpleasant encounters between a Tyrant's hand and the upper segment of the groin as well as a tap on the butt rather too robust to be considered anything other than distasteful.  People under arrest or enjoying the hospitality of the corrections industry are well acquainted with the procedure.  Most of the flying public is not.  Nor are most desirous of becoming familiar with the gloved and groping hand of Authority.

Confronted with the choice of being virtually stripped or materially groped, Mr Tyner declined, brusquely but politely.  The Tyrants present objected mightily to the objection raised by the peasant with the effect that reinforcements were called, the local police arrived, and the uppity peasant was ordered to depart, to go hence into the blackness from which he crawled.  Upon doing so, the unworthy mere civilian was threatened with a civil suit and a ten thousand dollar fine.  Fortunately for Mr Tyner and the rest of us, the entire exchange was caught in audio on his cell phone.

The wave of protest regarding the latest TSA outrage has the Tyrants and their sovereign, Janet Napoleon, in full double down mode.  According to the flacks, the intrusions are utterly essential for our collective safety and peace of mind.  And, we are assured, both the grope and the strip are conducted in a "professional" manner by well trained "professionals."  Well, golly gee, that sure makes me feel better; how about you?

First and foremost the claim that the "strip-or-be-groped" approach enhances safety is specious at best.  Even  if the backscatter or microwave virtual strip machines were up to the task of detecting a bomb such as that carried by last December's "Underwear Bomber," they would not have detected the "Anus Bomb" which came within an ace of dispatching the Saudi Arabian head of security several months earlier.

The grope the groin and slap the ass method is no more efficacious.  An anally deployed bomb would slide on by the Tyrants without the slightest risk of being found.  Does this mean the next step will be a drill in three parts: (1) Drop your pants and bend over, (2) Spread your cheeks, (3) Try not to scream as I ream you out.

As the "Anus Bomb" and the "Underwear Bomb" were the products of the same bomb maker, it may be presumed that the Mighty Warriors Of The One True Faith are aware of the deeper alternative as well as the ease with which a martyrdom seeker so equipped can pass on through the phalanx of Tyrants.  As the bomb-maker-in-chief of AQAP was willing to use his own brother as the delivery system for the world's first anus bomb, it can be presumed as well that the man is up to the task again.

It also deserves mention that the TSA strip-or-get-groped tactic and the very expensive machines employed for the first option will have no effect in stopping the shipment of bombs as air cargo.  It was only days ago that the same maker of infernal machines attempted that gambit only to be thwarted by Saudi intelligence and quick work by security personnel at two foreign airports.  It might be prudent for TSA to expend the money and manpower on the less glamorous but more exacting task of inspecting cargo of all sorts in lieu of herding and humiliating human passengers.

The Geek has had the opportunity to see the methods of American and foreign passenger screening methods from an up close and personal perspective.  While countries such as the Netherlands and Israel do possess genuinely well trained and quite professional security personnel on frontline duty, such is not the case here.  In airports large and small, crowded, and nearly deserted, the US version of frontline passenger security remains what it has been from the beginning--the preserve of poorly trained, excessively egoed folks some of whom have only the most nodding of acquaintance with standard English.  What they lack in intelligence, education, empathy, or the slightest vestige of any attribute meriting the appellation "professional" they more than compensate for with an inclination toward the temper of the bully.  Apparently unable to make the cut for the job of warder in a backwoods country jail, they have had no recourse for their personality and skills beyond joining the TSA.

In short, the human dimension of security for the domestic air transport system is as flawed as the technological.  The circle-the-wagons attitude exhibited recurrently by the senior management and executives of both TSA and the Department of Homeland Security is an indirect but quite unmistakable indication that the folks topside in both organs are aware that for all the money and all the new hires, they have failed miserably.

The first line of our defense is today what it has been for years--offshore intelligence.  The last line is today what it has been for years and what was exhibited by the desperate heroism high over Pennsylvania farmland or on the approach to Detroit's airport--the passengers.  The very passengers who are seen by TSA as a type of scum to be threatened and humiliated.

Cheers for John Tyner.  And, boos to TSA

Who Is Janet Napolitano's Dealer?

The Geek has no idea just what sort of mood and mind altering drug the Secretary of Homeland Security is taking. But, it sure must be a pronounced capacity to change perceptions of reality.

The Secretary reportedly averred that the "system worked" in the failed attempt by a Nigerian Muslim to down a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. Her strange version of actuality was duplicated by White House flack Gibbs. That the official mouthpiece of the administration took that line isn't surprising in this day of The-President-Can-Do-No-Wrong. Heck, lying like that is what Mr Gibbs is paid to do just like his predecessors.

But, the Secretary of Homeland Security is presumed to have a sounder grasp on the reality of threats presenting themselves to the US, its population, and internal interests. To conclude in the face of already compelling evidence of systemic failure that the "system worked" is both delusional and erosive of public trust and confidence.

The only part of the "system" which worked to prevent a horrific incident was the quick and effective reaction on the part of a Dutch film director and others among the passengers. Ms Napolitano alluded to this, "Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action."

Duh!

What about the rest of the "system?" What about all the watchlists, data bases, all the other features of post-9/11 life created by Congress and two administrations? Were they all totally out to lunch? Or, was this sort of attack virtually impossible to predict in detail even with some warnings of an al-Qaeda in Yemen orchestrated event and the finger pointing done a month back by the suspect's father? Was this sort of attack, like that of the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid eight years ago, impossible to interdict even with the high level of security awareness which has existed for years at Amsterdam's international airport?

The most important piece of context surrounding the Detroit affair is simply that the terrorists, the Islamist jihadists, always hold the initiative. The nature of the terror groups, their capacity to use lone actors, to be devilishly inventive in countering security techniques combine to confer a high order of initiative upon them. Without very detailed warning intelligence, it is very nearly impossible to detect and interdict a lone actor executed attack prior to its commencement.

Schiphol Airport the Geek knows from personal experience had excellent security measures in place long before 9/11--and these have in no way degraded subsequently. The reality is that the detection of eighty or so grams of PETN contained in a pouch not more than fifteen centimeters in length in or near the groin is very difficult to detect absent a strip search or a very, very careful pat down of the region in question.

Eight years ago the security measures were not delinquent when Richard Reid got on his target flight with PETN equipped shoe firmly in place. It is doubtful in the extreme that the Dutch were asleep as the bomb endowed Abdulmutallab boarded his target flight.

In both cases, Reid and Abdulmutallab, the failure of the "system" to detect and interdict was equaled by (1) the failure of the detonating devices in shoe and crotch alike and (2) passengers who were possessed of quick reflexes and a powerful desire to keep on living. Accident coupled with fast reactions, not governments and all their apparatus constituted the "system" which worked.

Basing policy on this happy concatenation of bad luck and good reflexes is a very poor notion, but that is all that can be expected much of the time given the advantages which automatically accrue to the terror specialists of the Islamist jihad. The American public if not members of the current administration have had a very cheap "teachable moment" with the event on Christmas Day. We have been reminded in a quite dramatic way that when push comes to shove, we have nothing and nobody to rely upon beyond ourselves--and each other.

In the real world, we and each other, our capacity for self-help and mutual assistance is the "system" which operates where the rubber hits the road of life. With respect to terrorism we are all that we have. Everything else including intelligence, watchlists, data bases, security, armed forces, everything the government disposes from the local cop to the State Department is back up. At best.

If Janet Napolitano would refrain from covering her boss's political hind end for a few minutes, not take her mind altering drug for a bit, perhaps she would realize that ground truth. More, she would both share and celebrate her new found understanding with us--the people (and system) which matters.

Which Side Is She On?

Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security. From her job title it is reasonable to assume that her primary interest is protecting Americans from threats such as terroristic acts or terrorism per se.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a Muslim. He was heard to shout, "Allahu Akbar" prior to opening fire. There are increasing indications that the major breathed deeply of the winds of Islamist jihadism. Taken together these factors give a reasonable grounds to assert that religion played a role--perhaps the greatest role--in his motivational matrix.

It is the very reasonableness of concluding Islam (particularly armed political Islam or, in shorthand form, Islamist jihadism) playing a role which is being employed by assorted Muslim groups and individual Muslims to assume they are now at greater risk for "backlash" from non-Muslims. The mainstream media, particularly the printed sort have raised a mighty alarm concerning this presumed "backlash."

As yet there are no reports of any "backlash." There have been no yarns of hordes of infidels besieging mosques. No stories anywhere of enraged non-Muslims tossing rocks or acid at women wearing traditional Islamic garb. Imams are not being assaulted by frothing-at-the-mouth zanies seeking revenge.

Despite the demonstrable absence of any outbursts of the dreaded "backlash," it is legitimate to wonder what Secretary Napolitano is so wrought up about. She is quoted as saying her department is working with (unnamed) groups around the US to "deflect" any backlash. It might be noted that she made her remarks in Abu Dhabi so her words might have been directed at the expectations of her foreign auditors.

If this surmise is correct, it is necessary to ask, "Why?" Why did the secretary think she needed to play to the prejudices and predilections of the Arab-Muslim world? Why did she conclude it was necessary to stoke the worst expectations of the Arabs, the Muslims generally, regarding the American people?

In the course of her jaunt to Abu Dhabi, Ms Napolitano had occasion to address a women's group at the local pretense of a university. During her talk she violated President Obama's stern strictures against rushing to judgement. Apparently using an informational base which has so far eluded most observers of the Fort Hood massacre, Secretary Napolitano opined, "This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."

What the hey?

Whatever else he may be, Major Hasan was an observant Muslim. Numerous reports litter the landscape of the media both new and old as to the major's observant nature. His efforts to proselytize and defend the faith have been well documented. The psychiatrist is seen on a convenience store security video wearing the traditional clothing of a Muslim. He handed out Korans shortly before heading off to make his place in history and (he most likely thought) martyrdom.

The Geek does not disparage Major Hasan as a Muslim. It was as a good, dedicated, observant Muslim well acquainted with the requirements laid upon Muslims by the Koran and other sacred writings that he pulled the triggers on his two pistols. The positions he took in his internet postings last summer as he was in the process of convincing himself as to the rightness of his already contemplated action show him to be a thoughtful, intelligent Muslim who was coming to see and understand fully his obligations under the faith.

Secretary Napolitano's comment on Major Hasan as being "obviously" not representative of Muslims is flatly wrong. It is contradicted completely by the Major's actions, by his stated beliefs, and by numerous verses in the Koran as well as many, many entries in the record of the words and deeds of the Prophet which ranks only slightly below the Koran as the guide to righteous conduct by a Muslim man.

Worse, the Secretary's comment is both condescending and patronizing. It rips from the Major his core of belief, his spine of self-identification, his worth as a Muslim man acting according to the requirements of his religion. Her stated stance may comport well with justifications offered by the Major's relatives, particularly those still living in the West Bank, and the majority of the American print media. It serves to reduce the Major to the status of a mentally ill person driven by inner demons or "snapping" under the alleged but not proven or even documented stresses of ethnic taunts and discrimination.

It is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of Muslims in the US, in the US armed forces, around the world are not inclined to take the requirements of Islam as seriously as did the Major. The Major is no more a member of the majority of observant Muslims than is Osama bin Laden, Sheik Omar, or other leading figures of the global Islamist jihadist movement. Major Hasan is no more representative of the vast majority of observant Muslims than are the suicide bombers, the suicide commandos, or the rocket firers of Gaza.

This reality does not mean that Major Hasan did not act in a way totally in accord with the most demanding strictures of the Prophet. Or the Companions. Or many, many adherents of Islam who died willingly, even joyously, for the sake of the faith.

By marginalizing, by trivializing Major Hasan's dedication to and roots in Islam, the Secretary of Homeland Security is also placing the nation at greater risk. By deprecating the role of Islam in Major Hasan's action, she is desensitizing the American public to the fundamental reality that Islamic beliefs can and do propel people to take actions which are terroristic in both nature and effect.

The probability that non-Muslims in the US will seek vengeance, retribution against Muslims, is diminishingly small. Much smaller than the probability that there are Muslims in the US who have or will travel the same mental road as the Major.

To deny the role of religion in the personal traversing of the route from Islam per se to political Islam or Islamism and thence to its armed expression, jihad, is to weaken the ability of Americans to protect themselves against future events resembling the gore ridden action of Major Hasan.

It is not paranoid, nor is it prejudiced to see the probability that Islamic beliefs can be taken by an individual believer to the extent of a "martyrdom" operation. It is not being culturally insensitive to understand the linkage between Islamic strictures and indiscriminate violence. The recent spate of arrests of "homegrown" Islamist jihadists as well as Major Hasan's one man mass murder campaign make that abundantly clear.

A clear minded approach requires that Secretary Napolitano as well as the Obama administration generally accept and acknowledge the relationship between aspects of Islam and terrorism or terroristic acts. It does the religion no disrespect to do so. And, it serves to help protect the nation better.

It does the religion no respect to denigrate its nature and character to an Arab audience--or the international press. It does the nation no service to genuflect before the prejudices and propensities of Arabs or Muslims generally.

Ms Napolitano had best remember that her job is to help protect the US and its people, people of all faiths, of no faith, against threats from both natural and human causes. The same advice pertains to the never-judgemental, ever willing to take more time weighing all the factors President of the United States.

It is time these worthies do their job--even at the cost of multi-culti political correctness.

No, Secretary Napolitano, It's Not Just Politics

The Department of Homeland Security (aka Heimatsicherheitsamt) wrong-footed it with the pathetic excuse for an intelligence assessment of the purported "rightwing" extremism threats facing the US. The blithering idiot who wrote the seven pages of tripe which would have merited a low "C" at best had it been offered as a mid-term exam by one of the Geek's students back in his academic days was not only superficial (to put it kindly) but also demonstrated an ignorance of American history which falls into the category labeled, "abysmal."

Most critics have focused on the reference to recruiting efforts supposedly directed to combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are experiencing difficulty finding employment or "readjusting" to civilian life. This piece of nonsense replicates the fear of the former combat soldier which has been exhibited after every one of America's Twentieth Century wars, particularly World War II and the Vietnam War. Those among us who have directly experienced only peace and whose knowledge of war has been gained from films and television are sure that any man who has killed or faced death has been changed for the worse for evermore.

Having been an object of fear and loathing after returning to the world, the Geek is both amused and disgusted by the nameless bureaucrat's expression of the latest incarnation of this particularly American phobia.

Other critics have been perturbed by the "assessment's" sputtering that advocates of a broadly interpreted Second Amendment or support of border security and immigration control are somehow more likely to be "extremists" than those Americans who favor labor's right to organise or the freedom to drive energy inefficient muscle cars or oppose capital punishment.

While the record is clear that individuals who oppose a woman's right to control her reproductive destiny are far more likely to employ violence or the threat of violence to gain their goal of ending abortion than are those who support a woman's right to choose, it remains unjustifiable on the face to assert that any and every opponent of choice is ready and willing to plant a bomb or put the cross hairs on a abortion providers head. Violence, actual or threatened, is not the prerogative of any particular ideology or movement to the exclusion of all others.

The Geek is far more perturbed by two factors which have either not been mentioned by critics or given only cursory attention by them. One of these is extrinsic to the contested "assessment."

The extrinsic consideration is Secretary Napolitano's defense of the the tripe which came out of her department. When challenged on the absence of named "extremist" groups she replied that these groups were too numerous to name. She did make a passing reference to the bombers of abortion providing clinics. The problem with this is simple. The bombings, illustrated by the Atlanta two-stage attack, were the work of individuals operating alone, not groups.

Worse, she has hauled the ghost of Timothy McVeigh, chains rattling out from our collective closet of anxieties as the justification for fearing disgruntled veterans. Yes, McVeigh and his partner, Nichols were veterans. Neither were combat heroes. McVeigh had failed the Special Forces Q course and was rather much of a foul ball as a troop. To select this individual out of the more than forty million living Americans who had served during wartime because he and Nichols (perhaps with foreign guidance) built and used a very lethal vehicle borne improvised explosive device is a travesty. It is a fact. But, a fact which is both irrelevant and misleading in the context of the "assessment."

The Geek's second tooth-gnashing objection to the DHS "assessment" is the author's definition of the "extremist" typologies. The writer sees one type as being motivated by racial, religious or ethnic prejudice. The Deep Thinker of DHS does not state how the conclusion that prejudice derived hatred is owned exclusively by the "rightwing."

The brilliant analyst of DHS avers that there is a second type of right wing extremist. This second type can be recognised by "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

Stop! Hold it right there, Deep Thinker! You too, Madam Secretary.

If the Guru of DHS Intelligence had even the slightest acquaintance with the founding of the United States, the worthy wallah would know that the Constitution was predicated upon a strong suspicion of centralised, concentrated power. The basic concept back there at the beginning of the American experiment was that of establishing a creative tension between the several states and the federal government as well as between the three departments of the federal government.

The majority of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well as the vast majority of Americans over the next century and a half were biased in favor of local and state governments. There was a healthy distrust of the remote authority of the central government. Not until the stresses of the Depression and World War II was there any leaning on the part of most Americans toward the federal government.

Indeed it was not until the twin challenges of the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement with the latter calling into effective question the hoary notion of "States' Rights" did the balance of political authority shift in favor of the federal government. To put it in baby words, while federal supremacy was established as regards preservation of the union by the War Between the States, the notion that federal authority should not be equalled, let alone surpassed by that of the states and localities emerged only over the past forty-five years.

That reality is the reason, Deep Thinking Intel Guru and Madam Secretary, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are in the Bill of Rights. While overlooked and all-too-often ignored, they have not yet been repealed. Just how in hell a person who sees a genuine merit in these two amendments becomes by that view a "rightwing" extremist defies logic and rationality.

The pervasive federal authority is not a creature of long standing. It, in the guise of the administrative state, came into being following the court packing effort of FDR and the Supreme Court's capitulation to political reality with the so-called judicial revolution of 1937. The one-size-fits-all approach of administrative law promulgated and enforced by bureaucrats in the warrens of DC have brought more than a little resentment in their wake over the past several decades. Opposition to the administrative dictates of unelected and (like the DHS analyst) nameless officials is to be expected, is justified and in no way constitutes a threat to the republic.

In a tag to the language quoted above, the DHS Fountainhead of Wisdom adds, "or rejecting government authority entirely." We've been through all of that before more than a century ago as the Great American People shivered in fear before the spectre of anarchism. The slouch hat wearing, bomb tossing anarchist of southern European ancestry became a staple of the fear mongers of the closing days of the Gilded Age. This semi-mythical beast usually equipped with an Italian, Jewish or Eastern European name was the bogeyman used to assure the passage of numerous "criminal syndicalist" acts intended to make the world (or at least the US) safe for capitalists and such behavior as exploiting workers, banning unions and threatening the uppity members of the hoi polloi generally.

Back then the golem of the anarchist was invoked by the Right to repress those on the Left. What's going on now? The Left is intending to bash the Right with the long gone threat of armed and dangerous anarchists, that is people who reject the "authority of government entirely?"

No. Of course not. Well, maybe. Gosh, you don't suppose.... Nah. Can't be. Can it?

Of course an outfit so out-to-lunch as to produce and then defend a document so gripless as this "assessment" might just be that assertively stupid.

Shootin' 'Em Up South of the Border

The Geek lives (in)conveniently close to the Mexican border. In the old days the Geek liked to go south, down to Palomas and Juarez.

(That is he liked to before the Heimatsicherheitsamt acting in accord with a typical piece of Congressional fear driven legislation built the Great American Security Fence backed by the arrogant paranoids of the border crossings made the experience unpalatable in the extreme.)

Now, even if the badge and gun toters of DHS were to morph into gladhanding members of the Welcome Squad, the Geek would hesitate before seeking either bargains or cross-cultural enjoyment in Mexico.

Not since the glory days of Pancho Villa and the possibility of a grandstand seat in El Paso for the Revolution across the Big River has life in the borderland become such a risky business.

Of the roughly 3500 people killed to date in the virtual war between drug gangs and between the Mexican security forces and the druggies, approximately 1,000 of the corpses have been hecho en Juarez. Not long ago the police chief of Palomas nipped across the border to Columbus (that's Columbus, New Mexico in case you were thinking of the one in Ohio) seeking sanctuary from the narco-shooters.

Los Zetas, the highly trained, very well equipped para-military force has undertaken very successful and quite lethal operations deep in the border states of Arizona and Texas. A hit list containing targets in the Land of Enchantment (as New Mexico quaintly but not inaccurately calls itself) has been found in the pocket of a Zeta-ista.

(The Geek's name was not among the chosen probably because he never called anyone when the dope smuggling aircraft disturbed his sleep by flying too low over the wrong canyon.)

There is nothing humorous in the current bloodshed in Mexico. Since Mexican president Caldereon declared war on the narco-traffickers, the violence has increased geometrically. Fifty died in one week in Tijuana. The Zetas heaved hand grenades at an independence day ceremony. The noise level of the drug wars both between gangs and between government and criminals in no way obscured the growing levels of "normal" crime such as kidnappings for ransom and standard issue murders.

While the Mexican population initially supported the Caldereon crackdown overwhelmingly, recent polls show that only forty percent now do and an alarmingly low figure of twenty-five percent feel themselves to be safer now than when the anti-drug gang campaign started. More than a few Mexicans in the middle and upper classes feel that the wheels are coming off.

(An interesting sign of the times is the hottest new fashion boutique in Mexico City features bullet resistant clothing with prices running to $7,500.)

On this side of the Great Fence some are beginning to fear full-fledged civil war breaking out with an attendant flood of refugees and overflow of violence. The Geek is not among this alarmist group.

The Mexicans have shown a great capacity to persevere during times of extreme instability and violence. Their society survived the decades of internal war which ensued upon the ending of the Diaz dictatorship a century back. While the wars didn't come to a final end until the early Twenties, they did end. Since then the country and its people have outlasted regional separatist movements, most recently in Chiapas a little more than ten years ago.

Mexico has survived the collapse of the peso. It survived the mass shootings of dissident students (perhaps as many as 300) at the universities in Mexico City forty years ago this month. It has survived earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes. It even survived the graft, corruption, inefficiency, and arrogance of the Permanent Revolutionary Party during that crew's long, long decades in power.

And, lest we Norteamericanos forget, Mexico even survived losing a war with us, losing a great swath of territory and the profound feelings of humiliation which accompanied that defeat over a century and a half ago.

The heavy weight of history indicates that Mexico will both survive the current exsanguination and prevail over the drug thugs. It will be a long, hard fight and will require both understanding and assistance from the United States.

There is little doubt that both the violence and the friction between the US and Mexico will worsen as the effects of the current global credit collapse make themselves felt in the land to our south. The issue of illegal immigration (from our perspective) or "migration" from the Mexican point of view will once again charge forward in the American consciousness. The role of Americans as the largest consumers of the drugs produced or moved through Mexico will become a larger and more contentious issue between the two countries. Beyond that the question of de-nationalising the off shore oil resources of Mexico so as to allow necessary foreign investment will provide another point of diplomatic and political disagreement between Washington and Mexico City.

Get a grip on the bottom line reality: Mexico is a critical country in our national interest on multiple levels. We ignore it at peril. In a real sense we need them more than they need us.

Shakin' And Quakin' And Headin' For The Valium

The Geek just returned from a regular trip to the land of the occupationally paranoid. Well, to err on the side of accuracy, he didn't actually visit the place, simply read an industry travelogue. You can check it out yourself, http://hstoday.us/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=26.

Even this sort of exposure to the weird land of the vocationally fruitcake is enough to cause the Geek's knees to go weak, his stomach to churn and his flight/fight response go into overload. Then, he slaps his face and shouts to the canyon outside, "Get a grip!"

The reality is simple. In Year Seven of the Age of the Terrorist, we are not neck deep in anthrax. We are not dodging buildings brought down by bombs. We are not wearing Geiger counters as the latest fashion statement (and protection against the aftermath of a "dirty bomb.")

As Year Seven of the Age of the Terrorist comes near its end, shopping malls are not disappearing in clouds of debris. School buses are not being hijacked by Hamas. Aircraft are threatened only by bankruptcy courts.

What gives???

Is all this quiet the result of the fearless and effective efforts of Secretary Chertoff and the dedicated "warriors on the home front" of the Department of Homeland Security?

Or is it something simpler (and far cheaper)?

Such as reality. A reality that will not be found in the plethora of writing by counter terrorist "experts." The reality that the vast majority of wannabe terrorist, both foreign origin and "home grown" are inept even flat out stupid.

Consider the case of Timothy McVeigh. Yes, with the minimal assistance of Terry Nichols, the failed applicant for the Army Special Forces who lacked any specific training in improvised munitions was able to construct a large ammonium nitrate and diesel oil truck bomb and detonate it with a stolen fuse. The explosion did kill a large number of people in the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

But what happened next? The bomber got caught. Easily. Quickly. Why? Because, the ever-so-clever dude had taken the license plate off his pre-stashed get away car and had forgotten to replace it. That was like hanging a sign on the car saying, "Arrest me!" And, he was.

Or take a quick look back at the first attack on the World Trade Center. Yes, the VBIED went off in the garage. It killed a few. Injured a lot. Put a bloody big crater in the parking deck.

And then?

The master terrorists went back to the Ryder truck rental agency to reclaim their deposit. That was all it took to hook names with the VIN recovered from the truck's axle and other parts by the forensic technicians. The rest, as they say. is history.

Not enough proof?

The plotters and executors of the 7/07 attacks on the London transit system made bombs that went off. Bombs that maimed and killed. Then, two weeks later another attack was attempted. It had been in the planning and development stage since long before the 7/07 strike.

The boys (and, in an appropriately supporting roll, girls) went after the same target constellation, the London transit system. This time results were different. The bombs didn't explode. The detonating compound was too weak according to British experts.

Everyone went to jail. Most for a very long time.

Let's face it: it's easy to dream of being a world class terrorist. It's easy to make plans, to have ideas. It's darn tough to turn the ideas, the plans into reality.

Even the big league heavies of al-Qaeda have their problems. Just recall the little accident in a Manila apartment that ended the grand design of ten or more American airliners exploding over the Pacific.

The Geek could go on. He could look at the Liberty City Seven and all the others like that motley assembly including the Fort Dix gang but his fingers are getting tired.

The point of the exercise is simply that there are very few individuals who can, like Mohammad Atta, work effectively at the tactical level of terrorism. There are very few people with the right mix of skills, tradecraft and personality who can assemble a team, keep the team members focused on the mission and lead the mission personally.

Without the rare Mohammad Atta, Osama bin Ladin and his lieutenants are operational nullities. Without a Mohammad Atta, wannabe terrorists are far more likely to be a danger to themselves than to the rest of us.

A danger to themselves? You ask.

Yes. The record shows clearly that absent effective leadership such as that provided by Atta, groups planning an act of terror talk too much, too indiscriminately so that any half awake security or intelligence organisation will get the word fast and accurate. Experience over the past half century at the least show that terror oriented cells whether foreign origin or domestic lack necessary tradecraft--or even the mindset of good career criminals. It shows a consistent pattern of almost wilful exposure of that which should never be exposed to the outsider.

They are a danger to themselves because they set themselves up to be busted. Pure stupidity plus an overabundance of ego kills them figuratively, if not literally.

Of course they kill themselves literally. Making bombs is dangerous. Ask the bloody body parts strewn across the front yards of several Washington officials back in 1919. Or the fragments of the bomb making Weathermen in Greenwich Village in '69.

The Geek agrees that terror directed against the US is a real threat. But it is a threat that can be and has been managed effectively by the old standards of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities from CIA and NSA through the FBI to exemplar police forces such as the NYPD.

If Chertoff and his monstrous legion would focus on securing the border, protecting the gaps in our ports and provide some real as opposed to simply annoying and expensive aircraft security, our actual security at home would increase geometrically at least.

Better yet, Congress should simply redefine the DHS as the Department of border, airline and port security. It would also be a good idea for Congress to take away the porkish grants and awards that DHS has strewn across the landscape without consideration of real threats and genuine risks--to say nothing of actual terrorist capabilities.

It would also be a very good idea if the more monstrous brigade of terrorism "experts" took a good large dose of their favorite trank and went to sleep for a few months. The world would be much better off without their constant nattering.

Words, Words and More Words--About Words

Question 1. A jihadist is not a jihadist if--
A.) he is dead
B.) the fatwa authorizing his jihad is cancelled by clerical authority
C.) the clicker on his vest/vehicle/roadside bomb fails
D.) the National Counterterrorism Center and Department of Homeland Security
pronounce that the word must never be used except in a peaceful way
E.) none of the above.

Question 2. An Islamist is--
A.) an adherent of Islam
B.) a student of the foundations and tenets of Islam
C.) a political radical seeking the imposition of Islamic law on a people
D.) a believer in the necessity, desirability and inevitability of the global caliphate
E.) a figment of the fevered minds of Islamophobes

Question 3. A moderate Muslim is--
A.) a member of the silent Islamic majority who may or may not support terror
B.) a Muslim who rises in indignant opposition to those who pilfer Islam in the
cause of killing women, children and other civilians
C.) the target audience for US public diplomacy
D.) a Muslim the US must not risk offending lest he join the black hats
E,) nonexistent given the radical political nature of Islam from a Western
perspective

Question 4. Which statements are true
A.) Muslim terrorist is an oxymoron
B.) Jihad refers to peaceful internal struggle
C.) Jihad refers to peaceful struggle against human enemies such as poverty and
racism
D.) Calling suicide bombers "jihadists" or "mujahideen" confers legitimacy on
them
E.) According to the US Government, all of the above.

(If you answered 1-E, 2-E, 3-C and 4-E you are a US Government approved Sensitive Person. You have also had your visa to the Republic of Reality cancelled.)

The United States is not engaged in a Great Global War on Terror. We are haphazardly skirmishing with a specific and easily defined transnational group including both non-governmental actors and States which espouse the supremacy of Islam and pursue a political agenda which is hoped will lead to the establishment of a global caliphate and the universal application of Islamic law and principles.

What's hard to understand in that?

Islamism and jihadism have been around a long while. Since the purported receipt of the Word From On High by the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing hard to grasp there.

Nothing inherently wrong with the idea either. Islamists are welcome to have their beliefs. They are welcome to hope, pray and even argue that their desired end goal will come to fruition.

Islamists and their more action oriented kin, the jihadist, must not be permitted to use force, the threat of force or subversion to impose their vision upon individuals and nations that do not wish to live in an Islamic Paradise. (Or go there post-mortem.)

Drawing and defending that line is or should be the focus of the United States and kindred spirit countries. It is no more and certainly no less than what we did with respect to expansionist oriented, Soviet Union powered Communism during the Cold War.

Yes, the Geek readily acknowledges that the US government engaged in infuriating excesses of thought policing during the Cold War. As a historian he can cite chapter, verse and line about those excesses both foreign and domestic.

The Geek is quite well aware that the US often committed the fatal blunder of confusing short-term order under a repressive dictator with long term stability within a foreign nation. He knows the US often, all-too-often tried to put the brakes on change within another society and culture with long-term disastrous results for both them and us.

Recognising all of this it is still necessary to state unequivocally that during the Cold War the US understood the nature and character of the threat--the enemy, if you'll permit the Geek to use a harsh, blunt word.

More, the US understood the nature, character and appeal of its values, beliefs and institutions--warts, scars and all. We knew ourselves as we were and showed it to the world even if many were unwilling or unable to accept us as we presented ourselves.

The knowledge of ourselves and our adversaries served us well. It was a (perhaps the) key to understanding the final outcome of the Cold War.

Now it appears that we have thrown all that aside. Our government is unwilling or unable to define who the enemy is and where the threat originates.

Worse, our government--at least the current administration--seems to be gripless regarding just who or what we are and how best to present that to the world. Particularly that portion of the world covered by the word, Muslim.

The effort by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security joined by the State Department to become the Word Police has been given wide currency over the Internet. There is no need for the Geek to summarize the NCTC-DHS dictat.

Wrong headed attempts to assuage the ever-so-sensitive feelings of some American resident Muslims might be warm and fuzzy, but they are ultimately counterproductive in a world filled with cold sharpies.

The last time the US government tried such an exercise in the softening of terms was in 1948 and 1949 when members of the Truman Administration referred to the Chinese Communists of Mao as being "agrarian reformers."

Islamists and jihadists wear the label with pride. They know what they want. They know who they are. There is no reason for the government not to use the same terms.

If some non-Islamist, non-jihadist Muslims take unwarranted offense, that is their problem and the government need take no responsibility for it. There are more than enough multi-cultural oriented academics to wring their hands and view with dismay. The government and the rest of us don't have to join in the circle of tears.

More importantly, the US would be best served not by tender ministration to easily bruised sensitivity but by a robust declaration of what we stand for and why we stand for it.

Unlike the death worshiping Islamists/jihadists, the people of the United States are life oriented, life-affirming. We see both the risks and, more, the opportunities of life. We pursue life and all it has to offer with very few of us casting glances at some presumed pit of hell waiting to swallow our souls.

Unlike fear ridden, eager-to-submit to Higher Authority Islamists and jihadists, We the People are willing, even eager, to stand tall and proud, meeting authority on our terms--not its. We can admit our collective mistakes, the "sins" of our ancestors, rectify the wrongs and seek a better collective future.

Yes, we may take our individualism too far. Yes, we may be a messy people given to too much consumption (at least in the eyes of some). But, in our boisterous and often too exploitative way, we have been living up to that long ago vision of John Winthrop of establishing a "shining city."

Instead of playing the role of the politically correct English Department, the US government should speak of our adversaries bluntly and directly, calling them what they are. More, We the People best demand of the next administration that it get on with the task of letting all those "moderate" Muslims of the Islamic Silent Majority know just what we are and why we are that way.

Perhaps, just maybe, then the Silent Muslim Majority will find its collective voice and drown the demands of the Islamist for more martyrdom in a chorus of "No!"