Those Darn Pesky Civilians

No matter where you look, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza all you see are those doggone civilians getting in the way of a good, honest war. It's getting so a commander can't order up an air strike or an artillery stonk without some bunch of civvies getting blown up. Heck, darn near any snuffy who wants to bust caps after taking fire is going to find some local yokel standing there, picking his nose and blocking a clear field of fire.

Then there are the other civilians. This bunch wouldn't get caught dead in a combat zone. They value their butts too much for that to happen. No. With exceptional bravery this crew stays far, far away from wherever the bullets fly and bombs blow. This civilian assembly is comprised of the High Minded who worry overtime about the effects of war on civilians.

Not to oversimplfy matters, the Save The Innocent Civilians Coalition is at root the anti-war component of the Society of the Perpetually Indignant and Concerned whose wrinkled foreheads and lips ever pursed in disapproval use the plight of civilians caught in the battle zone as the tool of choice to end all wars now. They make no distinction among wars. From their perspective there is no such thing as a justifiable war, not even one undertaken in national self-defense.

The purported "humanitarian crises" which are an automatic part of all wars, and an important aspect of guerrilla, insurgent and similar conflicts provide a mediagenic cover story for the genuine goal of ending war as a feature of human experience. Ironically, one of the major consequences of the STICC campaign is to prolong war so that more civilians suffer more death, fear and misery.

Going to the videotape we quickly discover that with the possible exception of the 150 years separating the end of the Thirty Years War and the start of the Wars of the French Revolution, civilians in the form of impediments, refugees and corpses in the wake of armies have always been a feature of conflict. Civilians have often been the direct targets of military operations.

Whether Sherman's campaign against civilian morale and political will embodied in both the March to the Sea and the subsequent March Up Country, or the Prussian counter-partisan efforts in the Franco-Prussian War a few years later, the intentional targeting of civilians has been a feature of modern war. The refugee generation effects of the German advance across the Low Countries and France in 1940 and the later British firebomb raids against German civilian residential districts brought the intentional targeting of civilians to a new high (low?) in military strategy.

During World War II the High Minded were conspicuously silent in denouncing the "humanitarian crises" which characterised the war. They were equally speechless in the years immediately following V-E Day. Literal hordes of Displaced Persons (DP's they were termed by lips curled in disdain) thronged through the wreckage of Europe. The diseased and famished in the millions crowded DP camps (many of which were former Nazi KZ Lagers) with nary a whisper of concern.

The lowering of the Iron Curtain announcing the onset of the Cold War changed that. Reasons of state, the need for political stability as seen from Washington brought the plight of the Displaced Persons to the center of the stage. Humanitarian relief efforts culminating in the more or less altruistic capstone of the Marshall Plan sought to bring order, health and eventually even prosperity to the displaced, the war ravaged, the hopeless of Europe.

In a delightful exercise in cynical and self-serving politics, the Soviet Union sponsored front groups which sought to offset not only the effects of the Marshall Plan but also the American nuclear superiority with a "peace offensive" which focused on the effects of war, particularly one in which the US would use its atomic weapons on the civilians of Europe and, by implication, the rest of the world. With remarkable rapidity the High Minded signed on to the Stockholm Peace Appeal and its successors.

The rights and immunities of civilians caught in war became a new and growing focus of those who opposed war, all war under all conditions, against any enemy, even a country given to aggression. Horror stories (some of which were true) abounded as wars proliferated on the margins of the Cold War.

Credence was immediately, seemingly automatically and without question, granted to the claims by North Korea and China that the US was engaging in biological weapons in the Korean War. The patent absurdity of the North Korean and Chinese accusations met no pushback from the High Minded.

New stories of atrocities committed by the Israeli forces during the War of Independence were circulated and believed without investigation. While some of the atrocity tales were absolutely true, no mention was made of the role played by the Arab states in the movement of Arabs from the new state of Israel. Apparently the High Minded of the STICC persuasion never met a negative view of the Americans, or the Israelis which was disbelieved.

Neither did they meet a narrative of atrocious behaviour by Soviet or Soviet leaning states which they found credible. The same might be said of accounts of cruelty or human rights abuses suffered by civilians at the hands of authoritarian regimes in the Arab or Asian or African states.

During the years of American involvement in the Wars in Vietnam the US was recurrently damned for "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" for its forces' employment of napalm or tear gas. Despite the exceptional care the US exhibited in its conduct of air operations against North Vietnam, the American fliers and those who commanded them were repeatedly accused of causing unnecessary civilian casualties and misery. The STICC camp frothed and spewed over each and every civilian casualty which might have occurred at the hands of American forces.

At the same time silence reigned over the recurrent violations of the laws and customs of land combat committed by the North Vietnamese forces or the Viet Cong guerrillas. Not a single word was made of the civilian slaughters which were repeatedly committed by the anti-Saigon forces.

The Mai Lai massacre was rightly and resoundingly condemned, not only by the High Minded it might be noted, but also by members of the American military. However, the literally dozens of Mai Lai level killings conducted by the Viet Cong or the Peoples Army of North Vietnam went by unnoticed and uncommented upon by the fine folks of STICC.

(Can we say, "Double standard?")

The double standard was at work during the long and bloody years of the Iraq-Iran War. Both the European and American members of STICC seemed to be out to a very long lunch during this exsanguinary and ultimately inconclusive effusion. Long range and highly inaccurate missiles fell on Iranian cities. The mullahs of Tehran rounded up brigades of child-soldiers and sent them into the electrified swamps as human minefield clearing units. The Iraqis used chemical munitions against unprepared Iranian troops--and their own dissident citizens.

The High Minded yawned and looked elsewhere. Only when an American warship caught in a fit of buck fever shot down a civilian Iranian airliner did the Protectors of Human Rights Everywhere sit up, take notice and shout, "War criminal!"

The US inspired coalition which waged the 1991 war to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait was relatively immune to the usual accusations of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." There were several reasons for this (temporary) immunity. The first and most basic was that the war was fought in deserted country. The pesky civilians were conspicuous by their absence. Also important was the obnoxious nature of the Iraqi regime. Saddam was such a totally unpleasant person that it was hard to work up sympathy for the Iraqi civilians. Finally, the war was over with quickly.

(Another, perhaps far from unimportant contributory factor was the recently concluded collapse of the Soviet Union and the confusion this engendered in the minds of many High Minded people.)

In the wars of recent years from the First Intifada through to the current affrays in Afghanistan and Pakistan, civilians, civilian corpses and the clamor of "humanitarian crisis," "crimes against humanity" and shrill denunciations of the US or Israel have become the common themes. The TV images of Israeli soldiers shooting at insult, rock and Molotov cocktail throwing Arab teenagers sensitized the eyes and minds of the world's public--particularly the opinion molding elite--to the fundamental asymmetry of the Mideast conflict.

From that beginning the double standard demanded by the High Minded of STICC has grown to monster proportions. The adversaries of the West, particularly those who oppose the US and Israel have become increasingly sophisticated in the use of civilians, their misery, fear and death, as weapons of war. Taliban, al-Qaeda and the rest of the Islamist jihadist horde have discovered and are effectively exploiting the key vulnerability of Western military doctrine--the use of firepower and technology to limit friendly casualties to a politically acceptable level.

In pursuing the exploitation of this vulnerability, the assorted adversaries which includes the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the pioneer of many of the use-civilians-as-weapons tactics, have been powerfully assisted by the High Minded, by the members of STICC. To put the matter simply but not oversimplified, without the force multiplier provided by the anti-war advocates working under the cover of concern for civilians and avoidance of humanitarian crises, the efforts to exploit the critical vulnerability of the Americans (and others) would have gone in vain.

It is of more than passing interest that the High Minded never, but never, demand the trigger pullers and suicide bombers and fighters who hide behind women and children to conform their tactics to the customs and laws of land warfare. There are never any calls that the fighters of LTTE or Taliban or al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah show even the most rudimentary respect for the presumed immunity of civilians from military operations.

Hamas, which acts under the color of being the de facto government in the Gaza Strip, is never denounced by the High Minded for having taken no effort to separate their fighters from the civilian population. Not even the United Nations has noticed that Hamas both allowed and encouraged the "defense forces" of the Gaza Strip to place their bunkers, fighting positions, munitions dumps, rocket launching facilities in the midst of densely populated residential areas.

Of course, Hamas wanted their trigger pullers intermingled with civilians. Naturally Hamas wanted their rocket launching teams to set off their deadly missiles from the courtyards of mosques, schools or housing complexes.

To do any thing else would be to expose their brave and fearless fighters for Palestine to the overwhelming capacities of the Israeli Defense Forces. By sticking offensive capacities in civilian centers Hamas sought to both neutralise Israeli capabilities and place a (false) onus on the IDF for any and all civilian deaths and injuries.

The High Minded played along with Hamas. This is not to the credit of the anti-war and humanitarian crisis dreading crowd. Regardless of the lofty minded nature of the goals when they climbed into bed with a criminal terrorist group, the High Minded, the STICC members, besmirched themselves and their cause.

By being in large measure responsible for the Israeli government calling off Operation Cast Lead before the military capacities of Hamas had been degraded fatally, the High Minded have assured that more civilians will die, more will live in fear, more will be miserable. They have assured the war will last all the longer. Great job, people!

Taliban and its kindred groups are doing the same in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While decrying the US air strikes in Afghanistan, no one either in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the world has demanded that Taliban stop using civilian residential compounds as bases of fire. Nor has there been any demand that Taliban call for a truce when the American or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops return their fire.

By the customs of land warfare, Taliban should call for a brief truce during which the civilian occupants of the compound can be evacuated to a place of safety. If Taliban had any ethic transcending survival and victory or even the slightest shred of genuine concern for the well-being of their fellow countrymen, they would remove the civilians before the shooting started.

It is Taliban, not the United States and its allies, which violates the doctrine of proportionality in the hills, deserts and villages of Afghanistan. It is Taliban, not the US and its allies, which seeks civilian deaths as a necessary adjunct to combat.

It is Taliban which, like LTTE and Hamas, seeks to blunt the military advantage enjoyed by its enemy though using civilian as shields. Taliban, again like LTTE and Hamas or Hezbollah, seeks victory through the exploitation of civilian corpses and the sympathy of the High Minded, the efforts of the anti-war people hiding behind the tenets of STICC.

Contrary to the innuendo of the High Minded or apologists for the Islamist jihdist groups, American military doctrine and the operations or tactical expressions of doctrine well recognise the immunity of civilians as well as the doctrine of proportionality. It is Taliban, al-Qaeda, LTTE, Hamas and the rest of that monstrous regiment that do not.

The United States must push back against the innuendo and accusations of the adversaries as well as the High Minded tergiversators of STICC in both public and private diplomacy. We must forswear apologies and explanations. Rather the necessary message the US (and others) must deliver repeatedly is this: We take all possible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, misery and fear, but we will neither place our troops at inordinate risk nor unnecessarily prolong the war in order to give our enemies an advantage.

We Americans will not play the game according to the other side's rules. We will not allow their lack of ethics, their intentional use of civilians as weapons of war give them any advantage.

To do so is to surrender to evil.

Ethics, Air Srikes And The Real World

The US is back in the doo-doo in Afghanistan. This time the cascade of caca is the result of an air strike conducted by Americans against a Taliban unit positioned in a residential compound which resulted an an unknown but large number of civilian deaths. SecState Clinton has done the obligatory sound bite of a sincere-regrets-and-a-joint-investigation-is-underway sort. Karzai has vowed to take up the matter during his face time with Obama.

It is all a rather customary sort of performance. Well polished by repetition over the past few years.

Pakistan's President Zardiri will join in the chorus by once more deploring the American UAV launched missile attacks on Taliban, al-Qaeda and their ilk. He will sing (no doubt in perfect harmony with President Karzai) that these attacks kill "innocent" civilians and turn public opinion ever more in favor of the "extremists" of Taliban and other Islamist jihadist entities.

Arms around each other's shoulders (metaphorically only) the two presidents will sing a sad song of how the American way of fighting a war makes their job of defeating the (take your pick) "extremists," "militants," or "miscreants" harder, perhaps impossible. It is so handy to be able to offload the responsibilities of the Afghan and Pakistani governments for defeating the Islamist jihadist threats which are poised to overwhelm the two countries onto the United States.

There is no need for Karzai to admit that his own corrupt, inefficient and virtually impotent government is in any way a contributor to the reemergence of Taliban. There is no requirement for Zardari to admit that his own military is not too excited, or even really willing to fight Taliban up close and personal or that his country's intelligence service is neck deep in Islamism and has been for years the prime sponsor and facilitator of Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As long as the US kills some people who are arguably civilian in status there is no necessity for either government to acknowledge any sort of fault, flaw or lack. There is no need for either to get a grip on the realities confronting their countries. They might even be able to assure themselves and each other that if only the Americans would stop killing people peace would break out and the status quo would continue forever more.

Both Mr Karzai and Mr Zardari must find comfortable reinforcement for their delusions of adequacy and hallucinations of sole American responsibility for the situational degradation in both countries from the hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing position of the High Minded and Lofty Thinking folks of the US and European elites. Both of these loose assemblages of the tender-hearted are of the outspoken view that the American way of war is at the least unethical and perhaps criminal in its use of air and indirect fire delivered munitions.

Certainly the "just-war theorists" of recent vintage are convinced that any use of air delivered munitions or employment of indirect fire weapons is disproportionate in their effect upon civilian bystanders as compared with their military utility. Indeed, the most radical of these specialists in military ethics contend that soldiers must run the risk of (significantly) higher losses to assure no civilians caught in the battlefields of asymmetrical conflict are harmed.

The out-to-lunch bunch of "just war theorists" appear to be unaware of a major, even defining, feature of guerrilla war. The guerrillas seek cover and concealment among the civilian population. They will take positions within a village. They will place weapons in schools, religious structures, homes. If hard pressed, the guerrilla will drop his weapon and blend seamlessly in the civilian population.

All guerrillas at all times in wars large and small have done these things. Even on the guerrilla margins of our own War of Independence, the American patriots hid among the unarmed citizenry, concealed weapons and munitions in civilian homes, businesses, farms. (This sort of unsporting behaviour annoyed the British royally. They complained that our rebellious rabble just didn't fight fair.)

Over the past century or so with the growth of the mass media there has been an increasingly evident strategy developed and employed with ever greater sophistication by guerrilla insurgents. It surpasses the mere use of civilians as camouflage, cover and concealment. The newer strategy is the use of civilian bodies as a means of discrediting the counter-guerrilla forces, mobilizing public support for the guerrillas and giving the status quo forces including external supporters a negative image in the eyes of the world's public.

In short, the guerrilla insurgents seek to use civilian deaths to offset, even render counter-productive, the status quo force's advantages in weapons, combat support equipment, organisation and training. Civilian corpses become the weapon of choice, even the war-winning weapon.

This approach, the callous exploitation of civilian deaths for political-military purposes plays directly against the strengths of a firepower heavy, aviation heavy force such as that deployed by the US in (to use the new term) "overseas contingency operations." It also turns the strengths of the Israeli Defense Forces including the IAF into liabilities as illustrated by recent events in and around the Gaza Strip.

To the extent that either or both Mr Karzai and Mr Zardari whine, bitch, moan and complain about the American use of air power they are reading from their enemy's playbook. To the extent that Americans and Europeans of a High Minded sensitive mold echo the plaints of the many spokesmen for Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and related groups, they are advancing the bloody agendas of these Islamist jihadist groups whether intentionally or not.

The US military or, for that matter the ground force component of the IDF, could win against their guerrilla and terrorist adversaries without the use of either air strikes or indirect fire weapons. But they could only do so at a high, perhaps very high, cost in friendly lives. To the "just war theory"crowd and others who are simply against war, any war against any enemy at any time, this is an acceptable alternative.

It is acceptable because it would make war, even a just war of self-defense against an enemy who does not shrink from causing civilian deaths in wholesale lots, impossible. The American public, the Israeli public, the populations of the several Western European states all balk at the prospect of a high butcher's bill. For all of these publics a high body count war is simply unacceptable. No government would survive a war which costs too much blood.

The reasons for this rejection of war which costs too many lives is deeply rooted in the historical experience of each country.

To consider only the United States, it is necessary to look back at the War Between the States. This internecine conflict cost North and South an aggregate of more than 500,000 lives, almost all combatants. To put this in perspective, the combined military age male populations, defined as men of good health between fifteen and fifty years old of the Federal Union and the Confederate States was less than twenty million. Combined with the estimated number of seriously wounded, the casualties amounted to nearly ten percent of the eligible population.

The US tacitly swore, "Never again!"

The force of this "never again" was demonstrated seventy-five years after the Civil War ended in how we went about fighting World War II. The US would use any amount of firepower, destroy any number of civilian facilities in order to save a single American life. Where the Germans or British would send out a combat patrol to probe enemy strength and positions we would reconnoiter by fire. Other armies would use a patrol to counter a small enemy concentration. We sent an artillery barrage down range. Or called in tactical air support.

In a highly controversial move at the time, the US ordered the bombing of the Monte Casino monastery. We couldn't believe the Germans were not using the ancient cultural monument as a defensive position (they were not) and decided to bomb first and ask questions later. (The result was the Germans put defensive positions in the rubble and turned the place into a killing field without equal.)

While Monte Casino was an extreme example, the principle it illustrated was followed throughout the war. The US military with the full support of the government and We the People was willing to destroy villages, city districts, cultural monuments if doing such would save the lives of our troops. We knew perfectly well that civilians were repeatedly caught in our bombardments and just as repeatedly died. Not just German or Italian civilians but French and others as well.

As Sherman was reported to have said, "War is hell."

We followed the same heavy firepower means light losses approach in Korea to the extent that villages simply disappeared (along with the defenders and hapless residents) under the weight of American artillery and bombs. Other members of the UN forces complained. Journalists from foreign media viewed our actions with disgust. But, as far as We the People were concerned, it was all just jake as long as American lives were saved.

Generations of American commanders down to the present day have been schooled in the tradition of expend-munitions-save-lives. Our doctrine and tactics are biased in favor of using fire not men to accomplish military objectives.

And, get a firm grip on this one, bucko: The highest priority for any American commander in the wars of the United States, including the present one in Afghanistan is the saving of American lives. Period. The reason for this is simple: We the People will not accept the deaths of our troops in far away wars which are being waged in support of policy.

As was shown in graphically in Somalia when a very small number of Army Rangers were killed in a poorly planned and executed raid on a local warlord's headquarters, even a minuscule number of corpses in cammies causes such public revulsion that immediate withdrawal is demanded. The debacle in Mogadishu particularly coming so quickly after the bloodless "victory" of Desert Storm constituted a lesson learned too well by American commanders and political decision makers.

In a very real, if not articulated sense, US doctrine and tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan are still being held hostage by the dead Rangers of Somalia. And, please note this, folks, the other side, the Islamist jihadists, have been well aware of this reality all the subsequent years.

On the other side of the fence, the side occupied by civilians living in an area of American military operations, the situation is quite different. As we learned, or, more properly, should have learned from the World War II experience in Germany, civilians are infuriated by aerial bombardment. Their fury is not turned against their government or the soldiers who are the (indirect) target of the bombing.

No. The civilian anger is directed against those who drop the bombs. And, those who fire the artillery. Those who inflict death and fear from positions of safety.

The lesson of World War II, and Korea, and Vietnam is the same. Bomb civilians, rocket civilians, take civilians under artillery fire, and they turn against those who drop the bombs, fire the rockets, pull the lanyards on the artillery pieces. Unless and until the death toll and accompanying misery reaches such a level as to cause pervasive war weariness, the civilians will turn more and more against those who kill with the bravery of being out of range.

These two realities capture the US, and, for that matter, the Israelis and any European country whose forces are engaged in a distant and ambiguously purposed war, in a very real bind. A dilemma without easy solution.

Under the politically rooted imperative to spare friendly lives, the Americans must resort to air strikes, artillery bombardments. Winkling out shooters from positions in civilian compounds means politically unacceptable casualty levels.

At the same time even with the best will, the best planning, the best technology available there will be civilian casualties. No bomb, no rocket, no artillery shell stops and asks a person's identity and status before exploding. Even if not intended, even if totally unwanted, there will be civilian death, civilian fear, civilian misery. And, civilian anger directed against us.

Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and all the others know this perfectly well. They use tactics which are designed to assure that we take unacceptable casualties with the result they win. Or, we inflict civilian casualties--again with the result they win.

It is a damn tough circle to square.

The only way out is for the Obama administration to undertake two unpleasant and very demanding actions.

The first, the easier, is to set the Karzai and Zardiri governments down and explain some facts of life to them.

Mr Zardiri and his collegues must understand that unless and until the armed forces of Pakistan can demonstrate a credible capacity in the field to go to the FATA and abate the nuisance there, we will continue to take all necessary measures to kill Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders and trigger pullers alike. We will do this with UAVs or other air platforms unless we are allowed to use Special Operations forces to do the job on the ground.

Mr Karzai must be brought to realise that we have no option except the use of air strikes under some conditions. He has to accept the reality that the more he wails and moans, threatens or complains, the more he is helping Taliban. If he continues to be Taliban's Man in Kabul, then there is little reason for us to continue propping up his government. We can shift to a purely punitive expedition approach and he can pick up the wreckage after we have killed enough Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders and minions.

The second, harder job is that of explaining to the American public--particularly the High Minded and Lofty Thinking--that the only alternative to the use of air strikes is the acceptance of higher levels of death and injury to American personnel. This would, almost by necessity, be followed by a decrease in American military morale to include retention rates. American troops have become quite used to protecting themselves by using our firepower advantages.

There is no realistic probability that the Obama administration can or will make the attempt. There is no high probability that the attempt, even if made, would work. The adversaries of the US have found the vulnerability in the American way of war. They are exploiting it effectively just as Hamas did during and after Operation Cast Lead. It is to their credit that they are doing such--and doing it so well.

It is to the discredit of Mr Karzai and Mr Zardiri that they are cooperating so eagerly and so completely with the plans of their enemies.

How Many Guarantees Would Be Enough?

Of all the reasons to develop a good case of the knee-knocks over Pakistan, the nuclear stockpile and associated production facilities have to be at the top of the list. It is small wonder that the US government continues to seek additional "guarantees" from the Pakistani military and government as to the security of the nukes.

There is equally little surprise to the Pakistani response. Everything is secure, they croon over and over. Everything is secure; don't worry. Everything is secure; there is no cause for alarm.

What else could they say? Is it credible that Zardiri or any Pak general would up and announce, "Well, for the moment it looks as if our toys are all accounted for, but who knows about tomorrow? That's up to Allah."

Of course the weapons are only a small part of the problem. Even if the stockpile is under the full, firm and resolute control of the government, that doesn't remove all grounds for anxiety.

The Pakistani nuclear materials production system is large--and getting larger. For example, there is one plutonium production reactor operating with two more under construction on the edge of the FATA. In addition to plutonium, the operating reactor makes a great deal of high level radioactive waste. After the desired plutonium is extracted chemically, the rest of the radwaste is still around.

In and of itself the radwaste is an attractive target for theft. This brew from hell would be sought as the prime component of a radiological weapon--the much feared "dirty bomb." All that is needed in addition to the radwaste is an explosive charge to distribute it at the target location.

Oh, yeah, and someone willing to deliver the dirty bomb. This, obviously, would not be a job for the faint at heart.

As the seeking after martyrdom is a job requirement for the jihadist, it is to be presumed that Taliban and akin groups are full of suitable candidates. The same sort of candidate would be appropriate for the task of knocking over a radwaste storage site.

While JCS Chairman, Admiral Mullens, is "comfortable" regarding the current state of security for the Pakistani nuclear weapons, can he say the same about the glow-in-the-dark trash heap adjacent to the plutonium separation plant and its production reactor? The Admiral would probably agree that the task of providing leak proof security to the radwaste dump or the processing facilities generally is a far more difficult task than keeping the weapons out of hostile hands.

A kilo or so of assorted long lived radionuclides would be sufficient to ruin a sizable part of a city. It would be more than sufficient to generate a level of public anxiety far surpassing that generated by the recent A,H1N1 non-pandemic.

It wouldn't matter what city was attacked. It need not be in the US or Europe. Whacking Mumbai, for example, would have a suitably dramatic effect upon the world--to say nothing of Indo-Pakistani relations.

As the attack on Mumbai a little while back showed, the problem of getting from Pakistan to the target does not present any particular problem. Nor does it take that much time.

If an entity were willing to accept a few fatalities from exposure to radioactivity, the lag between a theft of glowing trash in Northwest Pakistan and the detonation of a dirty bomb in Mumbai would not exceed four or five days. In short, the payoff could take place before the Islamabad government had acknowledged the breech of security.

A close examination of the satellite imagery posted over the past few years by the Institute for Science and International Security gives no indication of rigorous security systems in place at the Khushab facility (or any others for that matter.) The Khusab complex southwest of Islamabad is conveniently close to territory in which Taliban operates openly and freely. There is no reason to believe that a strike across the few dozen kilometers separating the plant from Taliban country is beyond the capacities of the jihadists.

The "miscreants" (to use the latest fashionable term in the Islamabad vocabulary) have the capacity to launch a breaking and entering raid on the plutonium production reactor at any time. The capability of the Pakistani army to prevent this is debatable at best. Which brings us back to the question: How many guarantees will be enough?

General Jim Jones, the National Security Advisor, has been quoted recently as again saying more guarantees of nuke security are necessary. As has been the case previously General Jones did not specify the nature of the "pledge" required to assuage American anxieties.

That isn't surprising. No amount of "guarantee" will be sufficient. None can be sufficient. Anything less than the direct involvement of US troops in the guarding of the weapons dumps, production reactors, processing facilities and trash heaps will be insufficient.

And, that will not happen. Not now. Not ever.

Even in the worst case situation of a Taliban takeover, the most the US can hope to accomplish is the armed seizure of some, but, realistically, not all of the actual weapons and stockpile(s) of fissile materials. Beyond that the US would be able to impair the production facilities.

We would not be able to destroy the reactors, separation facilities or radwaste depositories. Any attempt to do this would, perforce, release quantities, perhaps enormous in size, of radioactivity to the environment. Such a giga-curie release would wreak great harm on the Pakistani population, and, depending on several variables, the populations of other countries as well. This would not be an acceptable option.

Sure looks bleak, doesn't it?

That's the problem with nuclear proliferation. Like so much else in international affairs, it involves the Law of Unintended Consequences. Way back when, when the Pakistanis started their quest for an Islamic bomb, the US did not oppose the effort. Well, the opposition wasn't all that serious.

Pakistan was important to us. It was a Cold War thing. We needed Islamabad's cooperation in countering the Soviet gambit in Afghanistan. We needed Pakistan as a counter to India's pronounced and protracted leftward tilt in foreign affairs.

Anyway, the Pakistani military regime looked stable, pro-West and capable of behaving in a responsible, adult fashion. And, the bloody Indians were going full-tilt after their own bomb. So, all things considered, it was nothing to lose sleep over. Thus our opposition, such as it was, ran more along the lines of the pro forma than the serious.

The shaky logic of the decision(s) back then was apparent even at the time. Also apparent was the Islamist tendencies within the military and intelligence services of Pakistan. But, in the finest don't-think-long-term fashion of governments generally, we ignored the danger signs and acquiesced.

Now the Law of Unintended Consequences has caught up with us. Now high anxiety reigns. Now, no level of guarantee will or can be enough.

Ain't foreign policy fun?

Countries Without A Reason For Existing

The question for the day is this: What do Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and large sections of Pakistan have in common--other than a surfeit of turban-topped thugs with an AK in one hand, a Koran in the other and a ready-to-wear suicide bomb rig close at hand?

To make it simpler, the Geek stipulates that each and every of these places is noted for poverty, low educational levels, short-life expectancy, and a generally reactionary view of life. However it may pain the High Minded and Lofty Thinking, these don't have genuine significance.

There are factors at work in all these areas which prime them particularly for the role of seedbeds of Islamism and its armed twin, jihadism. Unless these factors are recognised, their power correctly estimated, and their impact properly measured with the results taken into account, no effective policy to counter Islamism/jihadism can be formulated.

The basic reality for all of these places is simply that none has an organic, authentic reason to exist as more than a geographic expression. Despite the appearances, appurtenances, and niceties of international convention, none of these so-called "countries" is a nation-state as such is generally understood. Nor does any of them have a real probability of becoming even a simulacrum of a nation-state in the foreseeable future.

All are creations of international politics, of both colonialism and the post-colonial rush to nationhood which characterised the decades following World War II. None arose naturally from shared history, common language, the centripetal effects of culture, social structure and universal defining mythology.

Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and, yes, even Pakistan are fundamentally pre-national. Their social structure is tribal. Primary loyalties are to the family, and beyond that to the assemblage of families, the tribe.

None have an economic reason to exist as national entities. All have, at most, an economic context which allows for subsistence level existence by a limited population. None have the actual or potential capacity for effective, full participation in a regional, let alone the global economy. (It should be noted that without the oil deposits below the sand, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf sheikdoms would be in the same category.)

Historically the several listed places have never had more than episodes of coherent, centralised government. Typically these periods have been marked by the emergence of a temporary strongman at the center in response to a transient external threat. Rarely has the duration of the central regime lasted more than a few years, a generation at most. There has been, in short, no evolutionary trajectory of an all-inclusive central government in a dynamic relationship with subsidiary governments and the people as a whole.

We who live in nation-states which represent the end product of centuries of often bloody evolution of political theories and institutions tend to forget just how long and difficult the road to the present has been. And, how littered with dead bodies the route has been. We also forget that we are still in the process of trying to perfect the nation-states in which we live.

(One of the more ironic features of intellectual life today is that while we demand that non-states such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and a host of others leap from the pre-national to the national, Western elites are pushing for the abandonment of the nation-state as the root of most, if not all, evil so as to embrace the post-national future.)

The only apparent unifying factor within the peoples of the listed "countries" is Islam. However, even this unity is far more apparent than real. Even in principle there is no one, uniform brand of Islam. Not only are there the Four Schools of the Sunni, there is the Shi'a form. And, there are variants such as that represented by the Sufi. Additionally, there are forms of interpretation within the Four Schools such as Wahhibism.

In practice there are even more divisions, more factions, more invitations to disunity within the Community of the Faithful. The non-hierarchical nature of Islam along with the relative absence of synods with the capacity to assure doctrinal compliance gives every cleric the opportunity and impetus to form his own understanding and promulgate it with the view of gaining adherents.

Beyond these inherent divisions there is another. Just as Christianity has "Sunday only" Christians and Judaism its "High Holy Days only" Jews, so also does Islam have its own In-The-Mosque only" Muslims.

The follower of Islam can exist anywhere along a continuum from a point of nominal membership to one of pro forma devotion to one of extreme commitment. Most Muslims are observant, follow the Five Pillars, join the community in prayers without embracing the demands of political Islam, the war whoops of Islamism and jihadism.

From all indications the Muslims of the non-states fall somewhere on the continuum. Some are Islamists. Most are observant. Some are nominalists. There is no unity in the religion any more than there is in other features of the polity and society.

The rub comes from the often demonstrated reality that the True Believers, the Islamists, the jihadists, are most willing to use force to assure their ascendancy. The others, the majority, the observant Muslims, are not nearly so eager to kill and die. Unless and until there is a species of Thermidor, the Islamist jihadists will be able to kill their way to power. On the up side, events in Iraq have shown that the Thermidor eventually comes even if incompletely.

The first challenge for US policy is that of acknowledging the limits of pretense.

In some cases, such as Pakistan, it may be utterly crucial to pretend that Pakistan is a genuine nation-state and not simply the creation of a handful of scared and ambitious Muslims sixty plus years ago which has been kept in existence by the repeated and timely interjection of military rule. In the case of Pakistan the pretense of nation-state status has been continued with such vigor for so long and with results such that the fraud must be continued in the hopes it will become a reality before the country slips into the hands of the Islamists.

Afghanistan has become our little Frankenstein's monster. We have so over committed to the (spurious) notion that the place is a nation-state that we cannot simply kill as many Taliban as possible in the next few months, declare victory and get out. As the recent controversy over Article 132 of the draft law demonstrated, the US and its allies are all for democracy as long as it gives results which meet our approval. There is every probability that the national elections in August will see an Islamist tilting government come to power via the ballot box.

This probability becomes almost a certainty if Taliban were to follow the recent advice of the UN's Man in Kabul. He called for the gunslinging martyrdom seekers to come in from the cold and join in the election process. Should Taliban under whatsoever cover do so, there is a better than excellent chance it would gain a plurality if not an outright majority of the votes.

This would present a pretty problem for the Obama administration. It is highly unlikely that the vox populi would be acceptable if it turns out to be the vox dei of the Islamist persuasion. Karzai will go whatever theological route is marked, "This Way To Power." Taliban, like the Nazis more than seventy-five years ago, will have come to power through democratic means. In essence the US and its partners will be voted out by the very methods we demanded be put in place.

Should this scenario come to pass it will be irony of the most delicious sort.

With respect to Somalia, the US and other Western countries had best accept reality. There is no way in which outside powers can transmute the dross which is Somalia today into some sort of democratic solid gold. The best which can be accomplished is to restrain the bloody chaos from spreading to Kenya or other coterminous states. It is time to recognise that Somalia is not so much a failed state as a state that never was.

Yemen seems condemned to go the same direction as Somalia. Yemen, like its counterpart across the narrow Gulf of Aden, is a state that never really was. Through most of the past forty plus years Yemen was officially two countries constantly at war with each other. The two were also the pawns of regional powers and very minor proxies in the Cold War contest at the margins. Subsequent to the consolidation of the two into one, there has been sporadic insurgency in the north. Al-Qaeda has been active in the south. Tribalism is rife. The central government is virtually powerless--even in the capital itself.

If Yemen slips down the tubes of Islamism the strategic problem for the US is far from insignificant.

As the impact of the pirates of Puntland has demonstrated, it does not take much in the way of resolutely applied armed force to pose a grave challenge to the global economy and the governments that desire to assure freedom of navigation. While the collective naval force available could, if properly employed, immunise the shipping against pirate attack, there is not yet any consensually accepted course of action available to deal with captured pirates. Nor is there any consensus on the necessity of pirates being killed. Unless and until these two lacks are addressed, the joining of Yemen based raiders to those of Somalia will be a very significant threat to global trade.

Yemen is a perfect base for the training, equipping and mounting of attacks on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Islamist jihadists would undoubtedly greatly increase their use of the venue with results which could be very embarrassing to the West generally. It is debatable whether or not the Saudi armed forces would be able to interdict the movement of jihadists to and from bases in Yemen. It is even more debatable whether or not a foreign interventionary force would be able to "pacify" the territory of Yemen.

The current government of Yemen, like its counterpart in Somalia, wants money. The pretense from Saana is that with oodles and gobs of money, the present regime can purchase sufficient support to stay in power and extend stability throughout the country. The same lyrics are sung by the Somali Transitional Federal Authority.

While there is a measure of truth in the claims of both let's-pretend governments, it is small. Money in these geographic expressions is like payments to a blackmailer. They both buy peace. But the peace is short and the demands never ending.

No amount of outside money can create a nation-state from a geographic expression. No amount of outside money can maintain a state which lacks any reason to exist. No amount of outside money, aid, advice, or good intentions can can transform a state that never was into one which has an existence both now and into the future.

We have to get a grip on that.

Going Out To Lunch With The Republicans

The other day a bunch of Republican congressional wallahs and governors launched a new outfit with the pretentious name of The National Council For A New America. The Geek will ignore his first response which was a question: Just what is wrong with the Old America?" The Geek will even set to one side his doubts concerning the capacity of a motley collection of Representatives and governors, both past and present, to discover the nature of this mythical "New America."

Instead the Geek will restrain himself to considering one of the five agenda items listed by the group as being a suitable topic for discussing in the search for the Land of Newness. The item is captioned, National Security. It comes in dead last after the economy, health care reform, education, and energy policy. Here is the NCNA understanding of national security--

The threats posed to our nation are more varied and evolving more than perhaps at any other time in our history. Modern communications, technology and the proliferation of weapons of all types have empowered our enemies and those who support them. Our national security policy must reflect these realities while allowing us to maintain technological superiority, support the most well-trained and well-equipped military in the world and have the intelligence capabilities to uncover and prevent attacks before they occur.

Sounds like it was recycled from a few hundred pieces of campaign pap left over from past lost elections to the Geek. How about you?

Now history does not lead the Geek or any other half-way aware individual to place a great amount of faith in the perceptiveness of congress wallahs or governors in the matter of defining either American national and security interests or determining the best ways to advance, protect and defend them.

It is sufficient to note that four of the five presidents preceding the present incumbent were governors before planting their rumps in the Oval. Of these only one, the much maligned (and overpraised) Reagan had some real measure of success in the foreign affairs arena. The others, from Carter to W. Bush presided over disasters ranging from the minor to the unbelievably major.

If the records of the non-governors are added to the mix the picture becomes no less bleak. JFK and his overly muscular "pragmatists" brought us the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the start of the Great Vietnam Misadventure. LBJ continued the pattern with his escalation of the Vietnam War thus giving the US the first of its two unnecessary, unsuccessful and arguably counterproductive military adventures. (The other, of course, was the invasion of Iraq.)

The assorted Republicans show no more ability than either the war drum thumpers of late 2002 or their long ago Congressional precursors in 1964-5. The dire threats are either undefined or overdrawn. The military response is given pride of place. No understanding of the military as an instrument of national power is exhibited. A faint odor of blood pervades the entire issue of national security. Worst of all, national security is seen as some sort of stand-alone without links to any or all other features of policy.

It is commonplace that the expenses of each of the two unnecessary wars had profound, negative impact on the overall health of the American economy.

The infamous "stagflation" of the Seventies was a direct product of the Johnson Administration's decision to fight a war without curtailing other categories of expenditure. In this decision the administration was joined at the hip and shoulder by the Democrats of congress.

More recently, the Great Adventure in Regime Change was undertaken in the context of a tax cut and continued, escalating appropriations for all categories of governmental expense. It is not realistic, no matter how politically attractive, to divorce the current economic debacle from the deficits driven by the war in Iraq.

Money blown on unnecessary wars is not available for other purposes such as development of alternative energy sources and technologies. It, and the money spent to fund the deficit, is not there for use in education or health care reforms. Both, self-evidently, will take thwacking amounts of money both public and private. If the money isn't there because it went to war or the associated costs of war which echo for decades after the guns go silent, the plans, no matter how High Minded or worthy, go for nought. Or the economy and the pockets of each of us suffer damage that otherwise might have been avoided.

Now that some of the crucial preliminaries have been (partially) addressed, the Geek wants to get down to it.

Listen up, Republican fonctionnaires and aspirants to Deep Thinking status and get a grip on a couple of basic realities of national security life.

Remember the ancient recipe for rabbit stew which starts, "First, catch your rabbit." Before you run off at the mouth blabbing about the "best trained" and "best equipped" military in the world or prattle about "proliferating" threats, define the threat. Also define how the presumed or perceived threat directly, substantially and materially affects national and security interests.

Is the threat some slippery critter called "terrorism?" Or, is it a political ideology rooted in carefully selected and interpreted features of religious doctrine, such as Islamist jihadism? Does the threat come from all failed or failing states or just some? If the latter, what are the necessities for determining the existence of an actual or potential threat? Do China or Russia present a threat? If so, to what degree and in what manner? Is all nuclear proliferation equally threatening? If not, what are the criteria for determining the degree and immediacy of the threat?

Sure, there are other rabbits to catch, but this list gives a helpful start.

Next, Lads, (the male term is correct judging from both the pictures and names on the NCNA webpage) stop and think about another basic question. What is the nature and character of the military?

That's right, boys, it is an instrument of national power. The instrument of last resort. The ultimate argument of politics in the international arena. It is a tool. As a tool it must be used only for the right job in the right way.

A military, no matter how well trained and equipped is limited in its usage by the nature of both its equipment and doctrine. In the Great Vietnam Misadventure we attempted to use a military which was trained and equipped to fight a high intensity war on a putatively nuclear battlefield against an enemy similarly trained and equipped. Then, in an attempt akin to using a hammer to tighten a bolt, we sent it off to fight a semi-unconventional war where constraint of lethal force and similar concern for the well-being and perceptions of the uncommitted civilian majority was paramount.

We lost.

Our well trained and equipped armed forces were sent to Afghanistan. They accomplished in part the original mission. But, then, in a manner not unlike using a quarter inch ratchet to drive a one inch bolt, the military was told to "build a nation" from the feudal fragments of a rarely cohesive society.

The same tale was told in the wastelands of Iraq. The Americans had no trouble quickly dispatching the conventional forces of Saddam. Then, the day after victory was declared, the real war started. Yes, the Americans learned, or more properly, relearned the lessons of counterinsurgency and ultimately we achieved the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not losing."

Have you political types learned the most important lesson of the wars of America over the past fifty or so years? Have you learned that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all military force, no matter how "well trained" and "well equipped?"

A military must fight with the doctrine to which it has trained and for which it has been equipped if it is to succeed quickly and at a cost in lives which is acceptable to the American public. This means that the military must have guidance as to the nature of the threats it is expected to counter. It must know what sort of wars it will be expected to fight in the near- to mid-term.

In our system that sort of decision is not up to the uniformed people in the Pentagon alone. It is a political view to which the senior civilian leadership must give informed input. Similarly, political decisions determine the relation of the military to all other instruments of national power. That's right, all other instruments.

The military does not operate in a vacuum. It supports the conduct of foreign policy. It supports diplomacy. Its actions, whether warlike or limited to non-violent actions such as humanitarian relief or in-country training, are dictated by the overarching political policy of an administration--and a congress.

The same dynamics are at work with the intelligence and clandestine services of the United States. It is all well and good to aver that the nation needs an intelligence capacity to detect threats before they manifest themselves in dramatic and bloody fashion.

That sort of sentiment is not enough. Not by a Texas mile or two. Intelligence services need guidance as to what the powers-that-be think is a threat. Is it the policy du jour to see drug traffickers as a national security threat? Or, perhaps, purported environmental degradation in Brazil? Do we keep an eye on one country or region or ideology in preference to another?

Money, personnel, computer processing time, must all be prioritised. There is no such thing in the real world of spooks as the all-seeing eye. It is the politicians, the president in particular, who sets the agenda for observation and analysis. It is the politicians who determine the limits of acceptable intelligence and clandestine service methods.

Remember, it was politicians who precluded the use of unsavory foreign nationals as sources. Then it was politicians who damned the intelligence services for not having properly detected and warned against threats. It was the political leadership who demanded robust methods be employed to develop actionable intelligence. And, then damned those who carried out the dictates of the decision makers.

If you stalwarts of the fading Grand Old Party are going to re-invent and re-launch the party (let alone discover this chimera, a "New America") you must first catch a number of rabbits.

To do that you must as a prerequisite drop the addiction to glittering, meaningless generalities. This is hard for politicians whose stock in trade is saying things which sound good but mean nothing. Without considering national interest and national security in cold, concrete and historically valid terms, you are just one more puff of smoke in the strong, cold gales of the real world.

President Obama Is Jerry Ford

OK, gang, the Geek admits this post is a bit off subject, but it does have its roots in national security concerns, and, anyway, the Geek writes on whatever piques him. This time it is the utter absurdity of the response by the US government (and, what the heck, the rest of the world's allegedly responsible, adult governments as well) to the horrid menace of Type A, H1Ni flu, aka Swine Flu.

Does anyone out there remember Jerry Ford? You know, the only man to occupy the Oval without having been elected, the guy who came stumbling along to replace Spiro Agnew and then found himself making his own english muffins in the galley off the Oval when Richard the Profane packed up and left for California one small step ahead of the posse.

Yeah, that one. The guy who gave Chevy Chase lots of raw material for sight gags on the One, the Only, the Original Saturday Nigh Live. The Geek knew you would remember (assuming you had reached the age of awareness long about 1974.

Jerry the Hapless faced an economic crisis. We called it "stagflation" and responded with buttons reading "Whip Inflation Now" or, in short form, "WIN." We didn't and the economy stagflated on until the severe fiscal medicine of the Reagan Recession seven years and one failed presidency later.

Mr Ford, the Great Strategic Thinker from Grand Rapids, MI, sent the Marines to rescue an American ship pirated by the Khmer Rouge government after it had been released. In what was one of the least glorious passages of arms in the history of the Corps, the Marines not only lost one KIA for every crew member of the liberated ship, the troops reportedly left behind wounded comrades.

Then Mr Ford faced the outbreak of a dreaded epidemic, a wannabe pandemic of--you guessed it--Swine Flu. A handful of cases were reported in the US, actually more than have so far been confirmed in the US in the presently unfolding Health Care Crisis.

In less time than it takes to recount the American media were swamping us with headlines foretelling massive, catastrophic disaster. The talking heads of TV news assured us with solemn faces and portentous tones that soon, very soon, we would all be dead. Or worse.

President Ford went on TV and, just like President Obama, spoke to us in the concerned and paternalistic manner of a school nurse. He advised that we wash our hands, cover our mouths when we coughed and get plenty of sleep. Like Joe Biden, President Ford cautioned against travelling in confined spaces. Then, again presaging the Obama team, Ford and his people let us know that the government was working overtime and sparing no expense to protect us from the looming doom.

President Ford, again giving precedent for President Obama, put the money where his mouth was. At Presidential urging Congress wrote a large check to underwrite the development, manufacture, procurement and distribution of a jilly-poo amount of swine flu vaccine. If Big Pharma had developed a anti-viral agent at that time, Congress and President would have bought that as well--in multi-ton quantities.

As it turned out the Great Swine Flu Pandemic of the Ford years was much ballyhoo and very, very little disease. It had evaporated before most of the vaccine had left the factory. Not that the vaccine would have mattered, it was not notably effective.

Other than more material for the SNL crew, the swine flu scare left nothing in its wake. Not even a bunch of buttons to join the WIN collection in the national attic.

The Geek does not hold President Obama personally responsible for not recalling the Ford paradigm as the Nice Young Man From Chicago was but a wee tyke at the time, barely past his years of memorising passages from the Quran at school in Indonesia. The same forgiveness cannot be extended to the grown-ups surrounding Mr Obama. Presumably some of them can recall the Ford years. At least they were old enough to have watched and read the tales of fear and soothing Washington words.

From the coverage given the current A, H1N1 hysteria, one is hard pressed to read the small print showing that the number of laboratory confirmed cases in the Mexican epicenter constitutes far less than half of those originally suspected or that only sixteen deaths have been attributed to the virus. Even as the World Health Organisation cranks up its Fear Generator to higher levels, the hard numbers show the virus is neither as virulent or as lethal as the shrill cries of the Doom-Is-Here crowd would indicate.

Admittedly evolution has skewed the human brain in favor of giving counsel to fear. The same implacable force has biased the human brain into emphasizing and remembering the bad events of life at the expense of the good. Evolution has given priority to fear because fear is a powerful tool to assure survival in an inherently dangerous ecological niche.

But, as Pandora's Box gave hope to counter the myriad of fears it released, so also has evolution given us the capacity for rational thought. This means that we have the ability (if rarely the will) to use the lessons of history to counter the fears of the moment.

It is deeply regrettable that President Obama and the grown-ups to whom he has regular access failed to take even a cursory look at recent American history. It is even more lamentable that the panjandrums of the MSM are similarly eager to both respond to and pander to fear.

We have a surfeit of genuine reasons for anxiety today. There is no need to gin up another, rather baseless one. Yes, the acts and effects of the microscopic semi-alive critters which can lay us low, even six feet under, in a micro-chemical war within our cells and selves are the stuff of great fears, but that is no reason to sell out rationality in the process.

On the up side of all this overreaction and rhetorical overkill, the responses of governments and private interests alike have given a great boost to those in the Islamist jihadist movements who favor biological terrorism. We have announced just how easily and completely we can panic to the point of self-injury in the face of a threat far more apparent than real.

Al Shabab Gets Ready To Move Out

No. It's not as if "The Youth" are fixing to leave Somalia in peace. That would be a clear case of "Non-Islamist Activity." Rather, the ambitious Trigger Pullers For Allah are threatening Kenya.

Kenyan sources aver that al-Shabab has stated its intention to invade Kenya's Northeast Province and annex it to Somalia. While the Kenyan Assistant ForMin, Richard Onyonka, has pooh-poohed the warning and alleged in reply that Kenya has "the capacity and ability to stave off incursions by anybody," others in the Government of Kenya are not so sanguine.

Kimeu Maingai, the Provincial Commissioner, is among the worried. He is all too well aware of a pair of realities which may be eluding the Deep Thinkers of Nairobi.

The first of these factors is demographic. The majority of the population of the Northeast Province is Somali. While some of these ethnic Somalis have lived in the NEP for years, even generations, most are recent arrivals, detritus from the twenty years of war.

The second disconcerting reality is the flow of weapons from Somalia into the NEP. For all practical purposes the border is no more than a polite fiction on pieces of irrelevant paper. Since the density of automatic weapons per person in Somalia is so high as to make the US population look disarmed in comparison, it is not at all outre to see a flow of AK's from Somalia into Kenya.

The large and growing refugee stream still pouring into Kenya provides more than ample cover for the introduction of al-Shabab agents provocateurs and weapons by the ton. The Kenyan refugee camps, including the largest in the world with an estimated Somali population in excess of 23,000, provide an excellent recruiting source.

To expect the Kenyan government to adequately secure either the border or the 173,000 or so Somalian refugees is to expect the impossible. The GOK is fully aware of the menace in the country's midst. Mere realization is not sufficient. It is essential to take action.

Taking action is well neigh onto impossible. The ongoing stasis in the Kenyan government in the aftermath of the December 2007 election violence assures that nothing is or can be done. Public disenchantment with the government's total inability (or unwillingness) to come to grips with the numerous problems confronting the country have reached such a pass that a coalition of women's activist groups has called for a one week sex boycott to force the guys off their duffs and on to the job of fixing Kenya.

Corruption pervades Kenya. Even temporary suspension of IMF and World Bank programs failed to inveigle the government into effectively addressing the problem. The miasma of government for sale not only drastically lowers the faith of the Kenyans generally in their government, it enhances the appeal of al-Shabab in the NEP where Muslims are routinely mulcted by the money grubbing governmental officials.

Al-Shabab, in common with Islamist groups everywhere, makes much of its stern anti-corruption stance. "The Youth" promise justice which is impartial and totally uninfluenced by a person's deep (or shallow) pockets. This "Death to Grafters" message has an appeal to folks on the bottom of the heap which should never be underestimated.

The takeaway is simple. Al-Shabab has a message. The NEP is filled with eager to hear Islamist tilted ears. Weapons in hands both actually and potentially hostile to the Kenyan central government are proliferating faster than post-rain mosquitoes. The GOK is flaccidly paralysed. The Kenyan population generally has no particular faith in the capacity or honesty of the Nairobi regime.

That leaves the Kenyan armed forces.

Afflicted with May Day charity, the Geek can only say that based on its past performance in African Union "peace keeping" missions as well as internal security missions, the Kenyan military is a mighty slim pole on which to lean. Not only has the Kenyan army shown a lack of leadership at all command levels, it is not well equipped or trained.

More fatal to any optimistic conclusion concerning the Kenyan army's capacity to suppress al-Shabab or any indigenous Islamist jihadist movement are the observations by foreigners that the army personnel moved into the NEP recently with the mission of collecting weapons have become arms merchants themselves. These observations comport perfectly with the overall atmosphere of corruption.

The Kenyan government has not yet released the text of the latest warning from al-Shabab. It prefers to point to past such threats in 2008 which amounted to nothing beyond a war of words. The necessary implication is the Nairobi authorities believe (or hope) this case will be the same.

However, the realities on the ground have changed over the past few months. Not only have the number of refugees and other border crossers grown geometrically since last fall. Not only has the weapons flow done likewise. The fighting in the NEP between pro- and anti-al-Shabab Somali clans has done the same.

More worrisome is the apparent success of the pro-al-Shabab faction in the fighting. Their success has grown in tandem with al-Shabab's victories in Somalia. This should not have surprised the Kenyan government or its intelligence service. Nothing attracts support more than victory on the battlefield.

As usual the High Minded have invoked the need for security and economic development in Somalia as the sovereign remedy for the ails of the region. Another influx of doomed-to-fail cash for these ends has been promised by the participants of the recently concluded conference of donor nations. The quarter of a billion dollars promised will not end piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Neither will it prevent the subversion of or armed incursion into Kenya's NEP.

The continued impotence of the Kenyan government, the lack of competence resident in the Kenyan armed forces and the probable total success of al-Shabab in Somali do not combine to make one optimistic about the future of the Kenyan border region. Short of a miracle al-Shabab seems destined to carry the Banner of the Prophet out of Somalia--and into Kenya.