I have made my own criticisms of President Obama and his administration's perspectives on the etiology of terrorism in the world. And the truth is that it is not yet clear in the president's head--or he is not yet being candid (which is my substitute for "frank" and "honest")--that you can't have a true view of routine mass murder in the contemporary world without having quite a harsh view of Islam today. It is unfair to the American people and to the peoples of the liberal world for the administration to pretend that the perpetrators of terror are not animated by some all-consuming ideology. It is not an abstraction that animates them. It is not a game of hide-and-seek with the CIA.
And, yes, of course, there are millions upon millions of Muslims--pious or more than a bit diffident--for whom Islam is a religious faith, a culture, and an anchor of personality. They are not part of the Islam which has been overwhelmed by the poisonous politics of the jihadists and those who routinely yield to them. It is time that the administration make this distinction. Unless it does, the responsibility for any confusion will rest with them. But that also means identifying the adversary in all its savagery.
Having said this, let me come to my basic point.
Looking at the bare escape from disaster in Detroit and the desolate facts behind it, there is no logic in blaming the current administration for the happening. In fact, if we want to blame and hold people responsible, I would pin much more responsibility on the previous government than on the present one simply because of the length of time it had at the helm. The all-crucial lists seem to have been in no better working shape on December 25, 2009 than on September 11, 2001. More or less the same mishaps, saved from a true calamity at the last second by the sheer incompetence of the terrorist himself and the alertness of a Dutch passenger behind him.
And, frankly, if we succeed in now "connecting the dots"--a dishonest formulation, in any case, given the seriousness of the matter--we can wonder what has been happening over the last eight-and-a-half years.
Rhetoric does not protect us. That requires administrative skill and departmental cooperation. These have apparently been elusive in the last presidency and in the current one. These require questions not only to Janet Napolitano, but to John O. Brennan. But questions also to Bush personnel and, to tell the truth, to Clinton personnel as well.
On other hand, one must grasp who our enemy is. And the fact is that Obama has not yet told us who he thinks it is.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
COMMENTS (18)
I bear Janet Napolitano no ill-will. She is no doubt a competent hard-working administrator with a superior political skills and understanding of border management issues. But we may need a someone who can bring more to this cabinet-level job, someone with more security-oriented skills and experience and a record of notable successes.
Marty is right. Obama needs to stop the obfuscation and clarify who is the enemy ("jihadism", anyone?). Otherwise, we will continue to have an expensive, ineffective, demoralizing scattershot approach where everyone's 80-year-old granny is forced to take off her shoes and belt at airport gates.
I bear Janet Napolitano no ill-will. She is no doubt a competent hard-working administrator with a superior political skills and understanding of border management issues. But we may need a someone who can bring more to this cabinet-level job, someone with more security-oriented skills and experience and a record of notable successes.
Marty is right. Obama needs to stop the obfuscation and clarify who is the enemy ("jihadism", anyone?). Otherwise, we will continue to have an expensive, ineffective, demoralizing scattershot approach where everyone's 80-year-old granny is forced to take off her shoes and belt at airport gates.
What are we supposed to make of the last two paragraphs, if we attempt to read them together as intended? The penultimate paragraph makes the obvious point that keeping America and its citizens safe from Islamic terrorists (as well as any other kind of terrorists) requires competent national security teamwork, planning and execution. But the next paragraph dwells on how important it is for Obama to "tell us who the enemy is". Why does one have to flow from the other? Where is the evidence that the national security bureaucracy and those of its members who set the rules for others to follow don't know who the enemies are? Where is the evidence that naming names with sufficient specificit ... view full comment
What are we supposed to make of the last two paragraphs, if we attempt to read them together as intended? The penultimate paragraph makes the obvious point that keeping America and its citizens safe from Islamic terrorists (as well as any other kind of terrorists) requires competent national security teamwork, planning and execution. But the next paragraph dwells on how important it is for Obama to "tell us who the enemy is". Why does one have to flow from the other? Where is the evidence that the national security bureaucracy and those of its members who set the rules for others to follow don't know who the enemies are? Where is the evidence that naming names with sufficient specificity would lead to the better national security outcomes that we all desire? If we are not to conclude from Marty's recent posts that Abdulmatallab would have been barred from boarding his plane if the President referred to him and his type as an "Islamofascist", a "Jihadi radical" or something similar, what the heck are we supposed to conclude that has any bearing on this case?
Clarify who the enemy is? What are you people talking about? You honestly think that this administration -- or the last one -- is unaware of "who the enemy is" and that this ignorance is somehow complicating our security arrangements? That is literally the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
First off, Marty presents no evidence that "the all-crucial lists seem to have been in no better working shape on December 25, 2009 than on September 11, 2001." The "lists" are unquestionably better, especially considering that many of them simply did not exist prior to September 11th. Does that mean they're perfect? No. That they can't be improved? Certainly not. But Marty is demonstrating his pr ... view full comment
Clarify who the enemy is? What are you people talking about? You honestly think that this administration -- or the last one -- is unaware of "who the enemy is" and that this ignorance is somehow complicating our security arrangements? That is literally the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
First off, Marty presents no evidence that "the all-crucial lists seem to have been in no better working shape on December 25, 2009 than on September 11, 2001." The "lists" are unquestionably better, especially considering that many of them simply did not exist prior to September 11th. Does that mean they're perfect? No. That they can't be improved? Certainly not. But Marty is demonstrating his profound ignorance of this arena by stating that they have remained the same.
In 2009, my home city of DC has the lowest number of homicides in 30 years. Yes, of course, there are still too many murders. But by Peretz's insane standard, the existence of one killing implies that absolutely no progress has been made.
There was clearly a failure on Christmas day. We should investigate what happened and attempt to learn from it. But you simply can't order people to "connect the dots" or whatever. And no matter how much we improve, no system is perfect, and the terrorists will evolve along with us. Expecting an error rate of zero is unrealistic. We will have another terrorist attack. Most likely, it won't be anyone's fault. It certainly won't be because Obama refuses to indulge Peretz's racism.
Now amidut wants us to stop screening grandmothers. Presumably this is because he has never worked in security or thought very hard about it. You think terrorists don't have grandmothers, or that no grandmothers are terrorists, or that no terrorist could coerce a grandmother into carrying a bomb? The first rule of designing a good security system is don't open any obvious and unnecessary holes.
Everyone here should read this: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/airport_securit_12.html
It's absolutely the best thing written about the Christmas day bombing attempt, by a wide margin.
Everyone here should read this: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/airport_securit_12.html
It's absolutely the best thing written about the Christmas day bombing attempt, by a wide margin.
I agree with almost everything you say, Ratner, but do have one question: Israel, which has more enemies than anyone, profiles and has thus far evaded any hijackings or explosions. I suppose you could say that in order for Israeli profiling to work you'd have to have every other layer of security that they have.
I agree with almost everything you say, Ratner, but do have one question: Israel, which has more enemies than anyone, profiles and has thus far evaded any hijackings or explosions. I suppose you could say that in order for Israeli profiling to work you'd have to have every other layer of security that they have.
And, yes, of course, there are millions upon millions of Muslims--pious or more than a bit diffident--for whom Islam is a religious faith, a culture, and an anchor of personality. They are not part of the Islam which has been overwhelmed by the poisonous politics of the jihadists and those who routinely yield to them. It is time that the administration make this distinction. Unless it does, the responsibility for any confusion will rest with them.
I find this a breathtaking (and I can't think of a stronger adjective at the moment) paragraph from Marty. I mean . . . I mean, what the fuck has the Obama or indeed the Bush administration being trying to do for almost a decade? Explain ... view full comment
And, yes, of course, there are millions upon millions of Muslims--pious or more than a bit diffident--for whom Islam is a religious faith, a culture, and an anchor of personality. They are not part of the Islam which has been overwhelmed by the poisonous politics of the jihadists and those who routinely yield to them. It is time that the administration make this distinction. Unless it does, the responsibility for any confusion will rest with them.
I find this a breathtaking (and I can't think of a stronger adjective at the moment) paragraph from Marty. I mean . . . I mean, what the fuck has the Obama or indeed the Bush administration being trying to do for almost a decade? Explain that we are not at war with Islam but with a small specific extremist camp within world Islam that claims the right to wage a savage war against the nations, people, and ways of life it detests.
As many people have commented in different ways, if we are at war with a billion Muslims, we've lost.
molly- As I've said before, Israel does airport security exceedingly well. I'm not against profiling, if done right, but it has to be combined with other factors. And as soon as you start making exemptions for certain classes of people -- oh, it's absurd to think this old woman/young child/disabled person/middle class American/whatever would be carrying a bomb -- you provide a method for gaming the system.
It's the same problem with the so-called "warning signs" we hear so much about. There are lots of legitimate reasons why a person might buy their ticket with cash, or travel without luggage, or fly without a return ticket. If we push resources into extra screening for people who buy ... view full comment
molly- As I've said before, Israel does airport security exceedingly well. I'm not against profiling, if done right, but it has to be combined with other factors. And as soon as you start making exemptions for certain classes of people -- oh, it's absurd to think this old woman/young child/disabled person/middle class American/whatever would be carrying a bomb -- you provide a method for gaming the system.
It's the same problem with the so-called "warning signs" we hear so much about. There are lots of legitimate reasons why a person might buy their ticket with cash, or travel without luggage, or fly without a return ticket. If we push resources into extra screening for people who buy tickets with cash, all we will do is needless inconvenience people with low credit scores. Terrorists, on the other hand, will quickly realize they can evade scrutiny by using credit cards.
So, yes, Israel does a lot of things right and we should learn from then, but the answer isn't "profiling" or "millimeter wave scanners" or "warning signs" but rather a layered approach that includes all of the above.
On the other hand, I have serious doubts about whether the invasive, time consuming, and resource intensive Israeli method would scale to US air travel. And by "serious doubts," I mean I'm 99.8% sure that if we implemented the same system, then air travel as we know it would come to an end and our modes of transportation would be radically different. The next time you hear a conservative cite Israel, ask him if he supports nationalization of US airlines.
I don't know why ratnerstar feels the need to defend the clear failure of our kazillion-dollar Homeland Security aparat, which as Marty points out is primarily the creation of the previous administration and earlier Congresses. The two most recent terrorist perps had enough red flags flying to spell out Allahu Akbar at midfield in the Rosebowl. Google handles this, nevermind the fact that American Express can get an alert out on a suspicious purchase by my account from the kazillions of transactions they handle. This is no longer rocket science. Profiling is a perfectly acceptable, and in my view a necessary tool.
And it is not racist of Marty to point out that one of the prime parameters in ... view full comment
I don't know why ratnerstar feels the need to defend the clear failure of our kazillion-dollar Homeland Security aparat, which as Marty points out is primarily the creation of the previous administration and earlier Congresses. The two most recent terrorist perps had enough red flags flying to spell out Allahu Akbar at midfield in the Rosebowl. Google handles this, nevermind the fact that American Express can get an alert out on a suspicious purchase by my account from the kazillions of transactions they handle. This is no longer rocket science. Profiling is a perfectly acceptable, and in my view a necessary tool.
And it is not racist of Marty to point out that one of the prime parameters in the most fundamental kind of profiling would collate what known terrorists have in common, with special emphasis on the kind of things known to have been associated with Hasan and the Nigerian depressive.
When i went to board a plane at Ben Gurion airport recently there was a long line at security, so the guard just waived a bunch of us along through.
Even with profiling the rich young Nigerian with English education would not have fit the bill of a target subject. Which means that even if there was profiling there is bound sometime to be a blond, female, deluded and depressed American who could carry such an act.
When i went to board a plane at Ben Gurion airport recently there was a long line at security, so the guard just waived a bunch of us along through.
Even with profiling the rich young Nigerian with English education would not have fit the bill of a target subject. Which means that even if there was profiling there is bound sometime to be a blond, female, deluded and depressed American who could carry such an act.
When i went to board a plane at Ben Gurion airport recently there was a long line at security, so the guard just waived a bunch of us along through.
Even with profiling the rich young Nigerian with English education would not have fit the bill of a target subject. Which means that even if there was profiling there is bound sometime to be a blond, female, deluded and depressed American who could carry such an act.
When i went to board a plane at Ben Gurion airport recently there was a long line at security, so the guard just waived a bunch of us along through.
Even with profiling the rich young Nigerian with English education would not have fit the bill of a target subject. Which means that even if there was profiling there is bound sometime to be a blond, female, deluded and depressed American who could carry such an act.
Believe me, rp, I'm not going to defend our homeland security apparatus, which is largely idiotic. What I object to is the notion that the solution is to pile on even more idiocy.
Also, I wouldn't cite AmEx (or Visa, or Mastercard) in this situation. Yes, they catch thousands of fraudulent transactions. But they don't catch anywhere near all of them, which seems to be the Peretz standard of success, and they have massive, massive amounts of false positives.
Look, 30-40 thousand people a year die in auto accidents. Reducing that number would be easy: step number one, implement and vigorously enforce highway speed limits significantly lower than what we have now. Doing just that would p ... view full comment
Believe me, rp, I'm not going to defend our homeland security apparatus, which is largely idiotic. What I object to is the notion that the solution is to pile on even more idiocy.
Also, I wouldn't cite AmEx (or Visa, or Mastercard) in this situation. Yes, they catch thousands of fraudulent transactions. But they don't catch anywhere near all of them, which seems to be the Peretz standard of success, and they have massive, massive amounts of false positives.
Look, 30-40 thousand people a year die in auto accidents. Reducing that number would be easy: step number one, implement and vigorously enforce highway speed limits significantly lower than what we have now. Doing just that would probably save one 9/11 attack's worth of lives yearly. But we as a people have decided that it's just not worth it. Seriously, put any spin on it you want, but Americans don't believe that saving thousands of lives is worth the inconvenience of driving slow. Why don't we have the same sense regarding terrorism?
Also...
Nobody is against this. In fact, it is being done, as we speak, throughout the intelligence community, as it has been for the last nine years. What Marty seems to want is for it to be done in public by the President, which is just dumb on so many levels that it's difficult to even comprehend.
Also...
Nobody is against this. In fact, it is being done, as we speak, throughout the intelligence community, as it has been for the last nine years. What Marty seems to want is for it to be done in public by the President, which is just dumb on so many levels that it's difficult to even comprehend.
Thank you ratner for your comments and pointing me to Bruce Schneier site http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html and the uselessness of profiling. I appreciate your speed driving (or cell phones while driving) analogies. Or, how could Nadal Hasan stationed at a large army base be allowed to just go to the local gun shop and purchase weapons of mass destruction. DId he really need to protect himself on Fort Hood?? Shouldn't those on terrorrist watch lists be denied right to purchase arms??
Thank you ratner for your comments and pointing me to Bruce Schneier site http://www.schneier.com/essay-299.html and the uselessness of profiling. I appreciate your speed driving (or cell phones while driving) analogies. Or, how could Nadal Hasan stationed at a large army base be allowed to just go to the local gun shop and purchase weapons of mass destruction. DId he really need to protect himself on Fort Hood?? Shouldn't those on terrorrist watch lists be denied right to purchase arms??
The reason Germans build markedly superior automobiles and sell them around the world is at least in part because they have a significant amount of the autobann network running without any speed limit at all. High speeds generally mean drivers pay more attention, while having them queue up with stupid, one-size-fits-none regulation, leads to congestion, inattention, and more accidents. You can establish a link between drunk driving, cellphone use while driving, sex while driving etc. and fatalities, but speed? Not so much.
Anyway, your basic point is a good one--auto fatalities, and the literally hundreds of thousands of domestic fatalities attributable to preventable medical errors, would b ... view full comment
The reason Germans build markedly superior automobiles and sell them around the world is at least in part because they have a significant amount of the autobann network running without any speed limit at all. High speeds generally mean drivers pay more attention, while having them queue up with stupid, one-size-fits-none regulation, leads to congestion, inattention, and more accidents. You can establish a link between drunk driving, cellphone use while driving, sex while driving etc. and fatalities, but speed? Not so much.
Anyway, your basic point is a good one--auto fatalities, and the literally hundreds of thousands of domestic fatalities attributable to preventable medical errors, would be much more productive areas of attention than the miniscule threat of "terrorism" if the goal was simply saving lives. Of course, it's not.
My point on Amex etc is not that they are infallible, but that they are proof that we can do a better job of identifying potential threats if we are willing to use science and profile. I agree that Presidential statements are largely irrelevant, at least compared to actual police work using available data.
The Vice should know better than to continue his tirads when he is out of office. Now, for a moment with the grown-ups.Protecting this nation from foreign intruders like "Butt Bomber" is a job that starts with the President and ends with beat cops in cities across American. Between them are two specific problems-one is the Presidents and the other is vestigial Cold War rules on the Intelligence Community-they no longer have a place in the present world.
To the first problem, President Obama must tell the agencies involved in the watch list that there will be a SINGLE LIST and choose a timeline. It is outrageous that Mr. Bush decided to lay a hefty dose of Homeland rhetoric on America, ... view full comment
The Vice should know better than to continue his tirads when he is out of office. Now, for a moment with the grown-ups.Protecting this nation from foreign intruders like "Butt Bomber" is a job that starts with the President and ends with beat cops in cities across American. Between them are two specific problems-one is the Presidents and the other is vestigial Cold War rules on the Intelligence Community-they no longer have a place in the present world.
To the first problem, President Obama must tell the agencies involved in the watch list that there will be a SINGLE LIST and choose a timeline. It is outrageous that Mr. Bush decided to lay a hefty dose of Homeland rhetoric on America, but that is where it ended. DHS as conceived in his first speech on the matter-the greatest change in government since WWII-never had White House backing or interest. The Republicans on the Hill made sure it died and let all Americans gain a very false sense of security. That security ended the day Butt Bomber tried unsuccessfully to destroy a plane about to land in Detroit. Religious Freedom-1, Jihad-0 on that day, but only because the bomb failed. As if President Obama doesn’t have enough problems keeping him busy, this is another part of his Bush inheritance.
The second part of the problem is a glitch within the Intelligence Community and in part a legacy of the Cold War.. There is a profound unwillingness to trust other agencies with critical information such as this. DHS constantly looses because they are in the position of informing governors, port authorities and others in potentially in the direct line of fire. However,. In releasing this kind of information, we may well burn an intelligence asset in the Middle East or SW Asia-two of the hot spots on the terrorism map. Until this problem is resolved and DHS is not cut out of the loop on information such as this, terrorism will likely happen. Sadly, there will always be vulnerabilities within our borders that terrorists will exploit. While mitigating the risk of terrorism by shoring up as many vulnerabilities as we can afford is a less expensive way of handling this problem and the best offense. However, we also have to manage the consequences of a terrorist attack when they happen-and it is a matter of not if but when…...
Terrorism gets headlines for one reason-horror! They known it and their cause gets press every time any attack succeeds. Simple bottom line, but sickening truth. Like place crashes-lots of people die at the same time and for some reason, it gets the full attention of MSM. If the press ignored terrorism, they would cease being so effective.
Terrorism gets headlines for one reason-horror! They known it and their cause gets press every time any attack succeeds. Simple bottom line, but sickening truth. Like place crashes-lots of people die at the same time and for some reason, it gets the full attention of MSM. If the press ignored terrorism, they would cease being so effective.
Their cause gets press even when they don't succeed. Of course, the people need to be informed, but there is a good argument for not over-reacting. That gives the terrorists what they want, almost as much as if the attack succeeded.
Their cause gets press even when they don't succeed. Of course, the people need to be informed, but there is a good argument for not over-reacting. That gives the terrorists what they want, almost as much as if the attack succeeded.
Bingo, dhurtado.
They have a saying here in the ex-Evil Empire: "Under the old system you weren't allowed to have any information, but everybody knew what was going on. Now you can get constant information, and no one has any idea what's going on."
Job One for our media caste is "spread panic".
Bingo, dhurtado.
They have a saying here in the ex-Evil Empire: "Under the old system you weren't allowed to have any information, but everybody knew what was going on. Now you can get constant information, and no one has any idea what's going on."
Job One for our media caste is "spread panic".