Brad Taylor's Blog, page 9

I'm in Israel. Go ahead and touch my junk.

Over the past three days, I've heard a plethora of talking heads say we should forego scanners and pat-downs in the United States in favor of the "Israeli Model" of airport security, including profiling.  They hold-up Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv as the shining example of success, and I agree 100%.  Let's do that, but we need to be honest about what that means and not pick and choose pieces of Israel's security, which is what's currently happening.  For the record, Israel's security is MORE invasive than the U.S., not less.

Before talking specifically about security, let's put the situation in perspective, because I don't think anyone throwing around Ben Gurion airport understands the disparity of air traffic between Israel and the U.S.  The air traffic of the entire country of Israel is less than that of each of the top-ten airports within the United States.  Atlanta-Hartsfield alone handles four times the air traffic as all of Israel.  In 2009, Israel carried approximately ten million passengers compared to 700 million passengers carried in the United States.  That's a whopping 6,900% difference in passenger load.  It's like someone saw a man sculpting a bonsai tree and said, "That's really pretty.  Let's do that to every tree in Yellowstone National Park." 

For argument's sake, let's say we DO have the ability to duplicate Israeli methods at all of our major airports.  Much has been made of how the Israeli security forces "profile" for terrorist threats, with the implication being that we should profile by race, targeting Arabs, because "Grandmothers didn't bring down the towers".

That's not how Israel implements its profiling.  They aren't targeting race, they're targeting suspicious behavior, triggered by a screening process.  In 1972 they learned the limits of racial profiling the hard way.  In America, we see a Japanese tourist getting a pat-down and think, "Gosh, TSA is stupid.  That man is clearly not a terrorist."  Israel used to think the same way, until three Japanese "tourists", coming off an Air France flight into the Lod airport (Now Ben Gurion) pulled out automatic weapons and hand grenades and killed 26 people.  Until then, Israel had been screening by race, targeting Palestinians because of Palestinian hijackings of El Al flights.  The Asians were part of the Japanese Red Army, and had been hired by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to carry out the attack precisely to avoid racial profiling.

"Okay, I see that.  They were men.  But what sense does it make to grope that attractive, blond haired, blue-eyed girl?  She's not a terrorist."  The Israelis will tell you differently, because in 1971 four European females were duped into carrying bombs packaged as presents onto El Al aircraft by Palestinian "boyfriends", once again to avoid the profiling.*

Anyone can be a terrorist, or an unwitting accomplice to terrorism.  The Taliban are recruiting young boys as we speak, so don't get mad when I agree that your adopted son from Bangladesh needs to go through the scanner.  When we speak of profiling in the US it usually means we're segregating out people for further screening based on some firm criteria, such as race or religion, in order to make life easier for the rest of the passengers.   In other words, only SOME people would have to go through the body scanners, which is a mistake.  The minute you allow all "grandmothers" to skip the screening, the terrorists will target grandmothers – a weakness they can exploit just as they did using the Japanese Red Army and the European "girlfriends".  Ridiculous, you say?  Just last month a twenty-something Chinese man escaped his police state disguised as a ninety-year-old Caucasian man.  They are a thinking enemy, and once again, Israel understands this.  In the example above, the girlfriends failed the profile test because a) they didn't match a suspect race and b) they didn't show suspicious activity – because they didn't know they were carrying the bombs.  As a result of these incidents, Israel beefed up their screening procedures to include ALL baggage, regardless of the profile testing – way back in 1972.*

Profiling is a great security tool, but it's not a panacea.  Many are discussing Israel as if it does profiling in lieu of screening, but that's simply not true.  They do profiling in ADDITION to screening.  At Ben Gurion, every single bag gets x-rayed twice and hand searched once.  Every person goes through a metal detector, which is tuned to trigger on just about anything.  Hand wands are all over the place, and additional searching is the norm, not the exception.  Complaints are legendary, and yes, even Israeli citizens bitch about security.  A former student of mine just returned from Israel – a white, American, Jewish man – where he was forced through three metal detectors, in addition to all of the baggage checks, after his profile interview.  In Israel, profiling is a layer in the process, not the total process.  Anyone who discusses Israel's profiling as a substitute for body scanners in the U.S. isn't accurately reflecting the Israeli method.

Far from using profiling to ease the pain of the security challenge for passengers, Israel uses it as a primary tool prior to technological screening such as x-rays and metal detectors, and they always err on the side of caution.  Make no mistake, Israel's profiling is not sifting out bad guys.  It's sifting out good guys.  If there is ANY indicator for further scrutiny, you're going to get it, like this hapless white boy who had the misfortune of visiting Egypt prior to Israel.  Or this journalist who had visited the Palestinian areas.  And the Israelis don't conduct our tepid pat-down.  It's a strip-search down to the underwear – sometimes more – done without apology or remorse. 

I'm all about using Israeli security methods, because I enjoy landing in a plane as well as taking off, but let's be honest about the true costs to privacy and the inconvenience involved.  It takes between two and three hours to get through Israeli security at Ben Gurion, starting in the parking lot.  For every single passenger.  It makes a great sound-bite, but the American people wouldn't tolerate the procedures.  Luckily for Israelis, the Ben Gurion airport doesn't care about hurt feelings – only preventing terrorism.  Unluckily for us, we're paralyzed by it.  You think people are upset about body scanners?  What'll we do when we're told to take our clothes off? The current crying over the TSA  would be nothing compared to the screaming that would occur if all of our airports went the route of Ben Gurion.  People's heads would explode over the indignity.  

*   I couldn't find an internet link to the "boyfriend bombs", and had to use an old fashioned book:  Israel versus Jibril: The Thirty Year War Against a Master Terrorist, Samuel M. Katz, pp 41-45.

Don't Touch My Junk

When it comes to security, Americans have the shortest memory span of anyone on earth.  We're the first to start screaming about individual rights whenever we have to suffer any interruption in our daily routines, and also the first to scream for someone's head when a terrorist attack is "allowed" to occur.

Last weekend, a man refused to enter a full body scanner at a San Diego airport, then refused to allow a pat-down in lieu of the scan, claiming both bordered on sexual molestation, and uttering his now famous line, "If you touch my junk, I'm having you arrested."   Oh, and he conveniently activated his cell-phone camera to record the entire affair, which has now become a You Tube sensation. 

Full body scans have become a hot topic, with everyone decrying the invasion of our individual liberties while conveniently forgetting why they were implemented in the first place.   Honestly, I can't see what all the fuss is about.  I think it's because people have heard hysterical news accounts and wild internet stories without digging into the reality.  The truth is that the full body scanner shows a picture that is more akin to a morgue shot than anything in playboy, with facial images intentionally blurred.  On top of that, the person viewing the image is in a separate room from the screening area.  There is no way on earth he or she can equate the image seen with the passenger going through the scanner.  What's the big deal?  Am I the only one who could really care less if someone sees my "junk" attached to an inverted negative that looks like a CSI:Miami evidence photo? 

Apparently so, because the clamoring has become long and loud, with groups declaring an "opt-out" day, Muslim groups issuing Fatwas against the scans, and pilot's unions denouncing the procedure.  The head of the US Airways Pilot's Association stated that one pilot found it so intrusive that he vomited in his driveway recovering from the trauma.  I'm not kidding.  A pilot actually balked at going to work because he had to go through security.  In my mind, this brings up an added benefit of the scanners and pat-downs, because there's no way I want that candy-ass behind the wheel of any aircraft flying with me on board.  (I will say I agree with the pilot's unions on this.  It makes no sense to make them go through this level of security, then say, "You're cleared to take the lives of 300 people in your hands."  If a pilot wanted to do something evil, he wouldn't need to smuggle in explosives or a gun.)

Everyone is going bananas over an issue that's simply designed to prevent a tragedy.  Less than a year ago, a man shoved explosives in his underwear in an attempt to bring down a planeload of people.  THAT'S why the scanners are being implemented.  Yes, it's a pain – and I've gone through both the scanners and the pat-downs – but it's nowhere near as painful as getting a call that your loved one was ripped apart because some female terrorist had explosives crammed in her bra. 

The television show "The View" has weighed in supporting the San Diego man saying "Security and our safety are important, but they should not come at the expense of our rights and freedoms."  That's a great utopian ideal, but it completely ignores reality.  In order to find out if someone has harmful intentions, some individual liberty will go.  It's a tradeoff, and there's no way around it.  I put on a seat belt for safety, but give up freedom in the process.  As the terrorists get more sophisticated, so do the means to defeat them.  In a convoluted bit of logic, the San Diego man stated that every terrorist act on an airplane has been halted by passengers. "It's time to stop treating passengers like criminals and start treating them as assets," he said.

Huh?  I see…the solution is not to search the passengers, only the terrorists.  Oh, wait, the terrorists are passengers too.  The fact remains that the passengers had to react to terrorist events precisely because the screening methods weren't sophisticated enough for the threat.  Passengers stop the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, and we start having our shoes go through X ray.  Passengers stop the "underwear bomber", and we get full body scanners.  Now, you might be willing to put your faith in the drunk two rows over, but I'll go ahead and support a screening of all passengers prior to boarding.

I understand individual liberty, having deployed quite a bit to preserve it, but your right to privacy does not supersede my right to exist.  If you don't like it, don't get on a plane.

Where's Waldo?

The big story in the news yesterday was that NATO officials had necked down the location of Osama bin Laden, along with his brethren, to a stretch of the lawless lands of Pakistan.  The news was immediately followed by rejoinders of American officials about the accuracy of the reports.  After recent admissions by our own CIA that we haven't had any intelligence on bin Laden for years, it was another ghost story that left a majority of Americans scratching their heads.  I mean, really, with all of our power, and all of our technology, why can't we find that son-of-a-bitch?

I'll tell you why:  simply put, finding any human being anywhere in the world is a challenge, made much more difficult if the man doesn't want to be found.  Add in a search area with which we have little ability to operate within, and it's fairly easy to see how bin Ladin stays outside the wrath of American justice.  I suppose someone could read this as, "you were a part of that search, and we've failed up to this point, so here's your excuse", but it's not an excuse, its reality.

"But we're the United States of America!  I've seen Will Smith in 'Enemy of the State'.  I know we could get him if we wanted!"  And then come the conspiracy theories:  We don't want to find him, because it will prove we did 9/11, or whatever other ridiculous theory is out there.

Here are some facts:  The tribal area of northwest Pakistan is some of the most rugged terrain on the earth.  You couldn't find a crashed airplane in that region if you were given free rein to look, which we most decidedly are denied. 

"That's just an excuse".

Really?  On September 3, 2007, famed adventurist Steve Fosset took off from an airfield in Nevada and disappeared.  The largest rescue effort in the history of America was mounted to find him.  They failed.  This, when they weren't looking for a man, but an airplane crash.  His remains were found a year later by some hikers who stumbled upon the wreckage.  Fosset was in an airplane with all safety beacons on, flying a recorded flight plan, on terrain that we owned, and yet we couldn't find him.  If Steve Fossett was alive when he crashed, make no mistake, he wanted to be found.  Wanted to live.   Now translate that to finding a man who knows he's the world's most wanted, and in terrain that's worse.  It took a year to find Fossett's stationary aircraft in a country that we owned.

The answer usually given is, "Yeah, well, it wasn't like the CIA or FBI were on the case.  If we had used our true capability to find Fossett, we would have."  Like we have some magic bullet.  Here's another dose of reality.  In 1998, a man named Eric Rudolph, was indicted for the Olympic square bombings and a host of abortion clinic attacks.  He became the FBI's Most Wanted with a one million dollar bounty on his head, and yet he evaded capture for five years.  Despite a concerted search in our own country.  A land where we spoke the language, knew the political landscape, and understood the realities on the ground.  For a brief moment in time, Eric Rudolph was a folk hero.  A man defying authority in our own backyard.   A "regular guy" to the people who were helping him.  Make no mistake; the United States government used every resource at its disposal to find him.  Everything.  Think about that for a minute.  We couldn't capture the most wanted man in America in our own country because he had a rudimentary support system.  And people wonder why we can't find bin Laden? 

Try penetrating a tribal area where the language itself is a giveaway, where the dialect alone will get your head cut off.  FBI agents went to North Carolina and asked questions – in English – of the people there.  And were rebuffed.  Try being an FBI agent in Waziristan.  Doesn't work.  Along those same lines, Rudolph had a million dollar bounty on his head, yet nobody took it.  He ended up getting captured in a random police encounter.  Why?  Because the people there had protected him.  Someone knew where he was located, but didn't turn him in.  And we expect someone in the tribal regions of Pakistan to turn in bin Laden?  A man revered for bringing about the Caliphate?  In a land where honor is worth much more than any amount of money we offer?

Locating bin Laden is not as simple as Hollywood has inculcated in our population, but he will be found.  It will take time and perseverance, but unlike Eric Rudolph, in order for his organization to survive he must do more than simply hide, and that will be his undoing.  Every time he reaches out to the world, either through recorded messages or through terrorist attacks, he provides multiple clues to his location, and as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi found out, all it takes is one.

American Islamophobia

The phrase Islamophobia is all the rage right now, even gracing a recent cover of Time magazine, with erudite scholars disdaining the uneducated, irrational fear of Islam which is apparently permeating American society.  They bemoan the undercurrent of the ordinary American's suspicion of Islam, yet the Muslim community itself does nothing at all to combat those suspicions.

The dictionary defines "phobia" as "a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it."  Thus, if I saw a single picture of John Wayne Gacy dressed in his "Pogo" get-up and then went out of my way to keep my children clear of anyone wearing face paint, I'd have a phobia of clowns.  But what if ol' Pogo was the tenth or fifteenth serial killer who went to children's parties as a clown?  What if every time someone discovered dozens of dismembered boys in a basement, next to it was a clown suit and an advertisement for birthday party fun? Would I be irrational to avoid clowns at my son's next birthday?  Or prudent?

Yesterday the "Time's Square bomber" was sentenced to life in prison, and given a free podium to spout his hatred:  In part, 31 year old Faisal Shahzad told a federal judge, "Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun.  Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow.  We are only Muslims trying to defend our religion, people, homes and land, but if you call us terrorists, then we are proud terrorists and we will keep on terrorizing you until you leave our lands and people at peace."

And with that, the American public received a one-sided dose of what the "average" Muslim believes.  Is it any wonder that the ordinary American is suspicious of Islam?  After all, we've pretty much reached the fifteenth clown stage. 

There's a ridiculous axiom that says, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim."  This, on its face, is about as ignorant a statement of the phenomena of terrorism as could be made, but with a slight twist, it holds a kernel of truth: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists who attack American interests are Muslim.  Apart from Timothy McVeigh fifteen years ago, every major attack against the USA has been perpetrated by a Muslim, and fueled by Islam.  And people are confused as to why the guy drinking Busch light and watching NASCAR is suspicious of Islam?  Really?  You don't get it?  The only time average Joe even registers that there is, in fact, an Islamic faith is when he's watching the repercussions of an attack.  There shouldn't be any mystery in his suspicion.  The mystery is why the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims allow these twisted lunatics to steal the pulpit of their religion.

Why don't we ever hear from clerics denouncing these actions?  Why isn't there a constant drumbeat of moderate Muslims countering the propaganda of the few radicals?  In their silence, they breed a notion of complicity, which further fuels American suspicion.

Strangely, Islam could learn a thing or two from the Catholic Church.  After sticking its collective head in the sand as the sex abuse scandals exploded around it, the church is finally admitting the travesty and attempting to restore its tattered reputation.  In essence, they're saying, "It happened, but that's not US."

Which is where we stand with Islam.  Currently, the American Muslim community has its head in the sand, hoping the problem will just go away.  But it's not going away.  Much like the Catholic Church, the longer they wait, the worse it will get.  Every time an attack occurs, America's one-sided view of Islam is solidified a little bit more.  To counter that, the moderate Muslims need to stand up and fight.  Every time a bin Laden tape comes on TV, there should be a Muslim discussing its flaws in the eyes of Islam.  Every time a bomber spouts off at trial, there should be a cleric on TV right next to the legal analyst, giving his opinion on what true Muslims believe.  Even the Vatican gets this now, as organizations such as FOX News have a Priest on tap that routinely comes on to discuss religious issues. 

Instead of spending his time defending the importance of the Ground Zero mosque for religious harmony, why doesn't Imam Abdul Rauf denounce the actions of radicals who are creating the very fear he purportedly wants to defuse?  Why don't we ever hear anyone in the Muslim community say anything against the terrorists who have hi-jacked their faith?  Rauf had all the time in the world to blather on about why the Ground Zero mosque was critical to prevent the radicalization of the Muslim youth of the world, but he doesn't have a single second to spend condemning the statements of Faisal, a member of those same radical youths.  This, even given that Faisal, by his own words, took his actions in the name of the very religion of which Rauf supposedly wants to engender a greater understanding.  Why is that?  When will moderate Muslims come out with one voice and say, "It happened, but that's not US"?  While they remain silent, the majority of Americans wonder if, in fact, it is them.

Make no mistake, it's an information fight, and one that al Qaida knows very well.  I have no misperceptions about the intentions of the vast majority of Muslims, but I'm in a distinct minority, because I've had the experience of working and living with Muslims from Bosnia to Iraq.  The average American does not, and relies on what he sees.  With the sentencing of Faisal for the aborted Time's Square attack, Joe Six Pack's seeing another clown suit in the basement, and it isn't phobia he's feeling.  It's prudence.  If the Muslim world truly wants to co-exist, they need to get off their ass and start countering the radical propaganda spewed by the Muslim lunatics who permeate the news.  By not doing so they not only concede the information fight to the very enemies of Islam they purport to despise, but their silence, much like happened with the Catholic church, implies a tacit consent.

When free speech gets ridiculous

What on earth is the Dove Outreach Church in Florida gaining by burning the Qu'ran? It literally boggles my mind.  At first, I thought it was a joke.  I mean, really, who goes around burning the religious tomes of other faiths?  Well, communists, I suppose.  And Nazis.  Come to think of it, in a supreme bit of irony, the Taliban we're fighting in Afghanistan does this very thing.  Actually, the similarities between this church and radical elements of Islam are pretty striking.  For instance, the Dove Church claims burning the Qu'ran is no different than Christians burning scrolls in Acts 19, pulling out a single bible verse to justify their actions – in much the same way that bin Laden uses the Qu'ran to justify his hate.  The pastor claims he's simply destroying something demonic, which sounds remarkably similar to what the Taliban said when they destroyed the oldest Buddhist statues in the world months prior to 9/11.

Most of America is befuddled by the event, and while they denounce it, they stumble over the constitution, afraid to step on a citizen's right to free speech.  Even the Mayor of New York supports the church's constitutional right to burn, although that's probably more because he's already dug his own hole by supporting the building of the ground zero mosque for the same reasons, and now can't look like a hypocrite. 

I think that argument is invalid. The truth is that freedom of speech doesn't extend to inflammatory actions such as falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, because it will lead to harm.  And that is exactly what this action will do.  In fact, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Windell Holmes wrote the majority opinion from the case which the "fire" quote was taken, and further stated:  The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.  As is the case here, in more ways than one.  The supreme court decision involved seditious activity during World War I, and as such, the court ruled that such activity provided a clear and present danger to the United States.  Holmes went further, saying, "When a nation is at war…things that might be said in time of peace that are such a hindrance to its effort … will not be endured so long as men fight and … no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."  I couldn't agree more.  In my mind, the issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of religion.  It boils down to one thing:  The action will cost someone his or her life at a time when we are at war.  I know General Petraeus and the White house have said something similar about "unrest" and "trouble", but let me be clearer:  Someone will die as a direct result of burning the Qu'ran.  Probably quite a few people. 

Now, if it's one of the Qu'ran burners themselves, I would chuckle at the little bit of biblical irony – reap what you sow and all that – but it won't be.  Instead, some eighteen-year-old from Idaho will be ripped apart by an IED.  Or maybe it'll be a diplomat in Sudan.  Or an entire embassy in Kenya.  Make no mistake though, Americans will be harmed.  Ponder that before you make a decision on where you stand on the church's constitutional right to destroy a religious symbol.  This isn't an intellectual debate outside of the United States.  Surprisingly, a group the church pastor described as an "armed Christian militia" that had "pledged protection" for the event has withdrawn its support.  Why?  Because even they understand the detrimental effects the ceremony will cause.

A couple of blogs ago I talked about how wiki-leaks would cause death because Al Qaida would manipulate the documents to "prove" nefarious deeds in the name of the United States.  I can almost hear AQ right now.

"How far into the documents are you?"

"About halfway.  I've found a few things we can use to twist the minds of young Jihadis."

"Well, quit looking.  The Americans are going to burn Qu'rans all day on the glorious anniversary of our victory.  That strike just keeps on giving."

Before I'm accused of being an apologist or cowering before Islamic agitation, let me say that I'm all about confronting radical Islam by any and all means at our disposal.  I completely supported the right of the Danish newspaper to publish their political cartoons of Muhammed in 2005.  They were making a satirical point that was well worth exploring and certainly worth defending.  While it caused angst and violence in the short-term, it also caused the Muslim world to make a healthy self-examination of what all the fuss was about, to the point that some papers in Muslim lands actually reprinted the cartoons.  And that's the whole point here:  The burning of the Qu'ran isn't anything other than hatred, pure and simple.  There are no overarching goals, other than professing that "Islam is the devil".  It will do absolutely nothing at all in our fight against terrorism.  Nothing positive, that is, but it will be a boon to the very enemy we fight.

The bottom line is that, rightly or wrongly, the action will be viewed harshly in the Islamic world.  Millions of people now on the fence, who really have no idea what America is like and have more than likely never even met an American citizen, will now believe the Al Qaida propaganda that we're out to destroy Islam.  They don't understand free speech.  They don't understand 24-hour news.  They'd be lucky to find the United States on a map.  They have no idea that this church is a fringe group and not representative of America as a whole.  They do, however, understand that burning a book they consider the word of God is an affront.  And because of it, some young punk will now get his Jihad on, killing the soldiers of the "Great Satan".

In the news

Two blogs in one week.  A record for me, driven by two news articles I recently read that really struck my funny bone, despite their serious nature. 

The first story was about Iran celebrating the creation of an unmanned bomber in which Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, proudly proclaimed it his "ambassador of death".  Really, I'm not making that up.  It's like he watched a bunch of cheesy 1960s James Bond knock-off movies and decided to emulate the evil-doers on screen.  All that was missing was him saying, "And unless Israel pays me one millliiiooon dollars, I will unleash it's wrath on the earth."

Could you imagine if the President of the United States, or any sane national leader for that matter, had said something similar about a new piece of military armament?  President Obama: "The Air Force today just launched its new fighter, the F -34, but I'd like everyone to know it as the 'rip out your eyeballs and skull f**k you to death' aircraft."

The story doesn't do much to enhance Ahmadinejad's credibility when he says his new nuclear reactor is for peaceful purposes.

The other news story was Afghanistan's President Karzai standing by his stance that all private security contractors must leave Afghanistan by year-end.  But wait, the protective security detail that keeps him – and all of the top-tier leaders in Afghanistan – alive is comprised of private security contractors hired by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service.  Is Karzai really putting his money where his mouth is?  Letting everyone know he's damn well serious? 

Uhhh…no.  As reported by Rueters, "However, Karzai said security contractors who protect diplomats and aid workers would be allowed to operate."

I'm making fun of him here, but in truth he has a valid point.  He's not hammering contractors who are US citizens per se, which is what comes to mind when anyone in the US hears "military contractor".  He's hammering the security firms that have hired scores of Afghani local nationals, bleeding talent from the police force and army because the Afghanistan economy can't compete with overseas money.  In this case, he might be on to something.

Why does Ground Zero have anything to do with Islam?

I've heard the debate raging around the so-called "ground zero mosque" the last couple of weeks, and I see a lot of confusion as to why Islam is in the argument at all.  Pundits say invoking Islam as a reason to stop the development of the center is simply "Islamophobia", and that a center founded by Muslims built in downtown Manhattan is fully in accordance with the freedom of religion inherently built into our constitution.  Or, conversely, they attempt to disassociate Islam completely from ground zero with statements such as, "Why are these attacks always described as Muslim Terrorism?  We don't call Timothy McVeigh a Christian Terrorist"– the theory being that the 9/11 terrorists just happened to be Muslim, in much the same way that McVeigh just happened to be Christian. 

In the first statement they are exactly correct.  Indeed, freedom of religion is one of the key pillars that led the original colonists to make the hazardous journey to the new world in the first place. Most Americans understand this fact; building a mosque anywhere is inherently their right.  In fact, there were already mosques established before 9/11 near ground zero that have caused no controversy, and Muslims regularly pray in a non-denominational chapel inside the pentagon, built on the very spot the aircraft struck on 9/11, without any outrage.

In the second statement, they are completely ignorant of the facts.  Islam is not attached to 9/11 because of Islamophobic western reactionaries, but because that's what al Qaida professes as their reason for attacking.  In Osama bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa against the United States, titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places",  the central theme was his belief that United States military bases in Saudi Arabia were desecrating Islam.  Not Saudi Arabia.  Islam.  Bin Laden needs no help from Islamophobes to paint himself as a radical Islamic fundamentalist.  He proudly cloaks himself in it. 

I have heard, "We wouldn't have a problem building a Catholic Church near the Murrow Federal Building, so the 'ground zero mosque' protest is just a hatred of Muslims", when in fact that misses the point.  McVeigh, while having been raised a Catholic, didn't attack America because of his religion.  Bin Laden did.  There were no devout Catholics in Mexico pouring into the streets cheering the fall of the federal building.  There were, however, plenty of Palestinian Muslims who cheered the fall of the towers.  The link between the Palestinians and the 9/11 high-jackers wasn't nationalism.  It was religion.

In the words of the Arabic scholar Bernard Lewis, "Muslims complain when the media speak of terrorist movements and actions as 'Islamic' and ask why the media do not similarly identify Irish and Basque terrorists and terrorism as 'Christian'.  The answer is simple and obvious – they do not describe themselves as such."

 And that is precisely the point:  9/11 was driven by a grotesque, twisted perversion of the Islamic faith, but the Islamic faith nonetheless.  Thus, the Park 51 project invokes powerful reactions, no matter the good intentions.  Surprisingly even our current – and first Muslim – Miss USA can see the issue.  Or maybe it's because she's Muslim, she can wade through the rhetoric better than most.       

I was in Texas this summer and saw a great analogy to the debate, albeit writ small.  Near a recreational lake a small child had wandered away from her mother, fallen in, and drowned.  Two days later, at the entrance to her neighborhood, a public service billboard was erected warning of the danger of the lake and infants, complete with a jarring picture.  There was no linkage between the billboard and the tragedy.  The contract had been purchased months before.  Even so, the billboard was crushing to the parents, reminding them of their failings every time they came home.  The neighborhood protested, asking the billboard to be moved.  Nobody said the billboard was evil.  Most agreed that it was, in fact, in the public's interest.  They didn't ask for it to be destroyed.  Just moved, because of the sensitivities of the family.   

In my mind, everyone supporting the Park 51 project on constitutional grounds could learn a little bit from the story.

Internet Democracy

I wonder if the jerk that turned over more than 90,000 classified documents to Wikileaks looks in the mirror each morning with a smile, thinking, "I'm a super-patriot".  Does he wonder if he's caused the death of anyone?  Does he even have that level of sophistication?  Or does he myopically chant the mantra of the greater good, understanding he's the root cause of some innocent's violent end, but believes that person is a patriot as well for his/her sacrifice.  I know the head of Wikileaks believes that way.  Well, maybe not as an American patriot, but a "global" one, since he's Australian, and his primary intent is to sabotage all efforts in Afghanistan.

In his mind, and apparently in the minds of the NY Times and others, the release of top secret documents spanning five years of the Afghanistan conflict – most of which are after-action reviews of individual missions written by junior officers and non-commissioned officers – unequivocally show that both President Bush and President Obama have reported Afghanistan optimistically.

Gasp.  Earth shattering and well worth the breach to national security. 

Do you think the average soldier who made it off the beach at Normandy would have described his actions as a "great crusade"?  Or as a meat grinder where very few survived?

Does that make General Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, a liar as well because he did use that phrase?  Is he simply another "American Deceiver" because he downplayed the danger and played up the success we were striving for?  Should he have said, "Men, let's face some facts.  Most of you are going to be slaughtered tomorrow.  Those that actually make it off the beach are most likely going to be maimed or die in the hedgerows.  Aw, hell, what's the use?  We're all going to die and lose this war."

The soldier on the ground will always experience actions in combat that are obscene, wearying, terrifying, and, taken in isolation, utterly frustrating.  The sad truth is that there are no revelations in the documents that are worth the damage the release will ultimately cause.  And I don't mean renewed diplomatic tensions with our partners, such as Pakistan.  I mean very real damage, as in dead people.

News organizations will say I'm being hysterical, and that the documents describe past actions, and couldn't possibly jeopardize any future operations.  Some Americans, not having seen what I have seen, may agree, but leaving aside the very real leaks of trusted sources who are aiding the allied effort and who most likely are now having their beheading videotaped, I'll give you three simple ways this leak will cause deaths. 

1.)    The documents are ground-truth descriptions of more than five years of combat actions.  A treasure trove of tactics, techniques and procedures from almost every fighting force in theater.  It's like having the coach of the opposing football team sit and review game tapes with you, describing his every weakness or strength.  Hell, it's like handing over your play book just before the coin toss.  It will take very little effort for the Taliban – or China, North Korea, or anyone else – to break down the documents and isolate our weaknesses at the tactical and operational level.  If you don't think that will cause deaths, you haven't studied history.  Unlike our enemies.

2.)    In my opinion, one of the greatest strategic defeats in United States history was the Abu Ghraib prison debacle.  Fanatics all over the world took the Newsweek story and subsequent ones, all complete with the requisite voyeuristic photos, and turned it into a call for Jihad.  Yes, I consider that release to be treasonous as well, because the Army was already pursuing an investigation and the same courts-martial would have occurred without journalistic intervention.   I saw first hand the death and destruction it wrought.   Naïve suicide bombers twisted by propaganda fed to them by fanatic imams, all using Abu Ghraib as a kernel of truth to build a fountain of lies.  It will take little effort to twist the current documents into something completely unrecognizable.  A veritable propaganda bonanza, whereby Al Qaeda and the Taliban can "prove" that we are out to solely "destroy Islam".  Given the unsophisticated audience, the reworked documents will have all the trappings of truth, and all the impact that Al Qaeda desires, complete with another generation of jihadists going to war over a lie.  Which, in case you didn't follow Iraq, will result in death.  Given Iraq's history, they won't primarily be American ones.  But they won't be Australian either, so Wikileaks can sleep easy.

3.)    One of the prime reasons that 9/11 happened in the first place was because our own intelligence agencies were not talking to each other.  They were, in the lexicon, "stove-piped".  Outside of very real inter-agency rivalries, one of the reasons for the stove-piping was that each agency didn't trust the other with the information.  Sources and methods had to be protected, and thus the information wasn't passed.  There is no doubt that this release will set us back, possibly pre-9/11.  Suppose Israel has information related to an attack on America in the near future.  Rest assured, they're going to think long and hard before they pass that information.  Their national security will come first, and our inability to protect information will come into play.  Even our own agencies will reconsider.  Say the CIA has information related to an infiltration of Al Qaeda operatives across the illegal immigrant pipeline on our southern border.  The correct answer would be to pass that information to the plethora of National Guard troops now deployed, but I can hear a case officer right now:  "Don't do it.  You can't trust the military.  It'll end up on Wikileaks.  Better for us to handle it internally."  Maybe the CIA will handle it internally, and maybe they won't.  It's your life on the line, so what's the big deal?  If you were in World Trade Center One or Two on September 11, 2001, it would be a big deal indeed.

Wikileaks is unlike any other "journalist" enterprise, in that they don't evaluate any of the information, but post it as-is.  While I decry news organizations for releasing information, the truth of the matter is that they usually take a hard look at the repercussions.  The Washington Post just released a huge story on "Top Secret America", but in the reporting they went out of their way to limit any damage, going so far as to misrepresent the actual location of companies working in the intelligence world on their interactive website.  Such reporting is necessary in a democracy, but only when it's headed up by people who truly have the nation's best interests at heart.  Without it we would never have had Watergate, or the Pentagon Papers.  Wikileaks is unlike any of that.  They post with a purely political agenda from a foreign entity with absolutely no journalistic purpose other than the fact that the information is classified and can harm American interests.

Luckily, Wikileaks will only survive at the willingness of traitors within our own government.  Yes, I said traitor with all that implies.  I've read the comments on a large number of web-pages describing the "whistle-blower" as a patriot, but find the notion naïve.  Would those same people call him a patriot if, instead of Wikileaks, he had passed that information directly to the Taliban, with the sole purpose of killing Americans?  What if he'd stolen the classified information and given it to Al Qaeda, saying, "Here's a ton of documents you can use for propaganda in your fight against the Far Enemy"?  Would he be a patriot?  How about if he'd skipped them all together and sold over 90,000 Top Secret documents to the Chinese, or North Korea?  Would the average American call him a traitor? 

Guess what:  That traitorous bastard just gave it to all four.

Things that make you go hmmm…

Is it just me, or has British Petroleum made a conscious decision to become the most hated company on the planet?  Is there a Mike Myer's guy in the boardroom, bald headed with his pinky in the air, saying, "Yessss….Let's get the Lockerbie bomber out of jail.  So we can make some money.  Then we'll have the CEO race a yacht while the entire Gulf of Mexico is destroyed."

Don't get me wrong.  I think the gulf oil spill is horrible, but the revelation that BP may have lobbied the UK Government to free a mass-murderer solely to gain oil concessions in Libya really takes the cake.  Ordinarily, knowing the potential for the media to be off-base, I'd take that story with a huge grain of salt, but given BP's unique history, I'm beginning to wonder. 

In 1979 the world witnessed an Islamic revolution in Iran, and the capture of fifty-two US hostages.  The United States attempted a rescue, which ended in disaster.  On the surface, it appears that America took one in the eye attempting to free our own people from our first encounter with Islamic fascism, but in a tangled way, we caused the entire action at the bequest of an oil company.  A company  that would later be known as British Petroleum.

In 1953 Iran elected a prime minister named Mossadegh in a fundamentally fair campaign.  One plank in the Mossadegh platform was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry.  After all, why should the British get all the profits from the oil being pumped from Iranian lands in a deal made close to fifty years before, when everyone was living in goat tents?  Despite fervent attempts to stop his election, Mossadegh won, which is when the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – the predecessor of BP – seized on the the one thing that would capture American interest:  Communism.  Mosedegh was a damn commie, and needed to be stopped to prevent the Persian state from falling into the Soviet sphere of influence.

One thing led to another, and at the request of the United Kingdom, the US engineered a coup, bringing Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, otherwise known as the Shah of Iran, to power.  He led the country with a decidedly iron hand, stomping out any attempts that might cause him to lose power in ways that make the US torture debate look like school-room lectures.  That was fine by BP, since it got to keep its oil concessions.  Unfortunately, the Shah's heavy-handed governance eventually caused his overthrow in 1979 – and the ensuing hostage crisis. 

Now, I'm not making any judgments on those actions.  Mosedegh did have decidedly communist leanings, and it was a different time.  Communism then wasn't the joke it is now.  The Soviet Union had detonated its first atomic bomb merely four years before, and was the sole power that could obliterate the United States.  School kids were doing "duck and cover" drills instead of mathematics, and we were wondering about the end of our way of life. 

On the other hand, you would be hard pressed to find a single covert action that has had a greater impact on United States foreign policy, and it's instructive to remember how such actions in our greater defense can have unintended consequences that echo far beyond the initial purpose. 

And that an oil company, in the name of profits, chose to push for a solution solely to benefit its bottom line.  Which apparently continues to this day.