Tanya Weiz, "A Terrorist’s Teenage Target": A Few Words About the Hamas Suicide Bomber

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Terrorist’s Teenage Target" published after the heinous terrorist bombing in Manchester, Tanya Weiz writes of the 2001 Dolphinarium discoteque attack in Tel Aviv:

"Tanya [a friend with the same name] and I got into the line on the left-hand side of the door; Oksana and Liana went to the right so we could all get in faster. Then, at 11:44 p.m., a Hamas suicide bomber blew himself up at the entrance to the club.

Everything went mute. To this day, I don’t know if I lost consciousness. All I know is that I had flown some distance in the air, and everywhere I looked there were dead bodies. It seemed that every single person in that line had been murdered except for me. Liana died on the spot. A total of 21 people were killed, 16 of them were teenagers."

I believe a few words about the Hamas suicide bomber, Saeed Hotari, are in order. Jamal Halaby wrote in a June 4, 2001 Guardian article entitled "Bomber went to West Bank for a better life":

"The suicide bomber was an observant Muslim who moved to the West Bank two years ago in search for a better job, his father said yesterday.

Saeed Hotari, 22, one of nine children from a poor Palestinian family living in Jordan, is believed to be the man who killed himself and 19 Israeli teenagers in a Tel Aviv disco on Friday. This has not yet been confirmed officially.

'I am very happy and proud of what my son did and I hope all the men of Palestine and Jordan would do the same,' Hassan Hotari said yesterday, with tears in his eyes.

At the entrance of a narrow street leading to hi[s] home in Zarqa, a predominantly Palestinian city 17 miles north-east of the capital, Amman, signs directed people to the home of 'martyr Saeed Hotari'."

Saeed Hotari a "martyr"? His father proud of this killer of teenagers? Why am I not surprised?

David Brooks, "Religion’s Wicked Neighbor": Insulting Our Intelligence

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Religion’s Wicked Neighbor," David Brooks takes President Obama to task for "refus[ing] to use the word 'Islam' in reference to Islamist terrorism." Brooks writes:

"Obama is using language to engineer a reaction rather than to tell the truth, which is the definition of propaganda. Most world leaders talk about Islamist terror, but Obama apparently thinks that if he uses the phrase 'Islamic radicalism' the rest of us will be too dim to be able to distinguish between the terrorists and the millions of good-hearted Muslims who want only to live in fellowship and peace.

Worst of all, his decision to dance around an unpleasant reality is part of the enveloping cloud of political correctness that drives people to Donald Trump."

Brooks goes on to say that religious terrorists act on their own behalf, not on account of God:

"For the terrorist, a sense of humiliation is the primary reality. Terrorism emerges from a psychic state, not a spiritual one. This turns into a grievance, the belief that some external enemy is the cause of this injury, rather than some internal weakness.

. . . .

For the religious person it’s about God. For the terrorist, it’s about himself. When Omar Mateen was in the midst of his rampage, he was posting on Facebook and calling a TV station. His audience was us, not the Divine.

Omar Mateen wanted us to think he was martyring himself in the name of holiness. He was actually a sad loser obliterating himself for the sake of revenge."

Islamic terrorists are "sad losers" acting from a "psychic state, not a spiritual one"? It's about themselves? It's about revenge? Sorry, but this is a grotesque oversimplification.

Brooks would do well to read "The Age of Sacred Terror," a 2002 New York Times "Notable Book," by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon. Benjamin and Simon write in relevant part:

"Religious violence is typically different from any other kind of warfare - for the simple reason that for a true believer, there is no compromise about the sacred. Or, to put it in a more monotheistic key: One God, one truth. Tolerance is not an intrinsic part of any of the monotheistic religions. For some believers, the outcome of a conflict cannot be ambiguous.

When the issues are sacred demands, there can be no bargaining. The believer cannot compromise on the will of God. Killing becomes an end in itself, rather than one instrument arrayed among nonlethal instruments in a bargaining process. Such believers want a lot of people dead and may not care whether a lot of people are watching, as long as God sees what has been done in His name."

My advice, David: Take a flight from genteel Manhattan to the wilds of Guantanamo, arrange interviews with a cross-section of the Islamic terrorists being held there, and decide for yourself whether these monsters were acting for "themselves." You're apt to experience an epiphany.

David Brooks, "The Age of Small Terror": Anti-Liberalism Most Noticeable on the Right?

Tweet

Writing of the terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Boston, Fort Hood and Israel in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Age of Small Terror," David Brooks describes a resultant anxiety that challenges the "liberal order":

"In country after country this anxiety is challenging the liberal order. I mean philosophic Enlightenment liberalism, not partisan liberalism. It’s the basic belief in open society, free speech, egalitarianism and meliorism (gradual progress). It’s a belief that through reasoned conversation values cohere and fanaticism recedes. It’s the belief that people of all creeds merit tolerance and respect.

These liberal assumptions have been challenged from the top for years — by dictators. But now they are challenged from the bottom, by populist anti-liberals who support the National Front in France, UKIP in Britain, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia and, in some guises, Donald Trump in the U.S.

. . . .

Anti-liberalism has been most noticeable on the right."

"Anti-liberalism has been most noticeable on the right"? Horsefeathers! You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to acknowledge the war being waged by the left on free speech at American universities. Have a look at an Atlantic article entitled "Campus Activists Weaponize ‘Safe Space’" by Conor Friedersdorf, a U.S. News & World Report article entitled "From Megaphones to Muzzles" by Susan Milligan, a New York Times article entitled "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas" by Judith Shulevitz, and a National Review article entitled "Leftist Universities Will Never Stop Trying to Stifle Free Speech" by David French.

Today's left appears unwilling to be confronted with alien or antagonistic ideas. On the other hand, if someone like President Obama believes she/he is the "smartest person in the room," why should she/he need to be confronted with contrary views, which are only apt to disturb her/him?

New York Times Editorial, "Horror in Israel": Material for a New Opera by John Adams?

Writing of yesterday's murder of four men praying in a West Jerusalem synagogue (three held dual American/Israeli citizenship, while the fourth held dual British/Israeli citizenship) and of an Israeli policeman who came to defend them, The New York Times declares in an editorial entitled "Horror in Israel":

"There is no comprehending the murder of four men, including three rabbis, at a synagogue complex in a neighborhood of West Jerusalem on Tuesday."

Indeed, there is no comprehending this horror.

Yet The New York Times wrote in a September 19th editorial entitled "The Met Opera Stands Firm" and subtitled "‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ Must Go On":

"Protesting groups are demanding that the production be scrapped, contending the opera is anti-Semitic in depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists who seized a Mediterranean cruise ship and threw Mr. Klinghoffer and his wheelchair overboard after shooting him.

Music critics and opera lovers have found the opera, by John Adams, moving and nuanced in imagining a tragedy that gives voice to all sides, from the ruthless and aggrieved terrorists to Mr. Klinghoffer, an innocent Jewish-American who makes some of the opera’s most powerful points in denouncing violence as a political tool.

The Met should not have yielded to its critics, including Mr. Klinghoffer’s daughters, earlier this year when Mr. Gelb canceled live broadcasts of the opera in movie theaters around the world because of what he saw as 'rising anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe.'"

How can The New York Times describe "The Death of Klinghoffer" as "moving and nuanced in imagining a tragedy that gives voice to all sides," yet denounce yesterday's murder of Jews engaged in prayer as incomprehensible?

Perhaps Adams should write a new opera about this abomination, again giving voice to all sides.

A double standard? You bet. Shame on the editorial board of the Times!

I Accuse: Obama Selling Arms to Qatar, a Terrorist State

Yesterday, Obama declared "Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group." But is Obama truly "appalled" by the beheading of Foley, a freelance journalist, by the Islamic State, alternately known as ISIL or ISIS? If so, why is he selling billion of dollars of arms to Qatar, a tiny country which is the primary benefactor of Hamas, and whose citizens are believed to have funded the Islamic State and the radical al-Nusra Front? What precautions has Obama taken to prevent the advanced arms now being sold to Qatar from being transferred to these terrorist organizations? Why did Obama demand that Israel agree to Qatari mediation of Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza?

I submitted a guest opinion piece to a senior editor of The Washington Post, but yesterday he turned it down, explaining only "we're not able to use your piece." Below is the op-ed that I prepared for WaPo. Read it and decide for yourselves why WaPo could not "use" it:

Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco

Do you like a good mystery? If so, perhaps you might care to conjecture why President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently demanded that Qatar and Turkey, instead of Egypt,  mediate Israel’s war with Hamas, against Israel’s best interests.

Turkey? Everyone knows where Turkey, straddling Europe and Asia, is located. There’s a good chance that you’ve visited Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar or at least watched James Bond ride a motorcycle over its rooftops in “Skyfall.” Then, too, you’ve probably read several of its prime minister’s bizarre anti-Semitic pronouncements.

But I’m not here to talk Turkey. Rather, let’s focus our attention on Qatar. Can you correctly pronounce Qatar? Most Americans cannot manage the guttural Arabic pronunciation. More important, if I were to hand you a map of the world, could you place your pinkie on this country, which has a population of 2 million and is the size of Connecticut? Chances are you couldn’t.

Of course, you’ve probably read that Qatar will be hosting the 2022 World Cup. You might also know that Qatar, which has the world's third largest natural gas reserves, is the world's richest country per capita.

Additionally of interest, on July 14 Qatar inked an agreement to purchase $11 billion of arms from the United States, including 10 Patriot anti-missile batteries, 24 Apache attack helicopters and several hundred Javelin anti-tank missiles. Why is this Lilliputian-sized country so hungry for armaments? More to the point, why did Obama agree to this sale of advanced weaponry to a country believed to be the primary benefactor of Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the United States? Worse still, Qataris have been accused of financing the radical al-Nusra rebel faction in Syria as well as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which is busy burying Yazidi women and children alive. None other than Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres has labelled Qatar “the world’s largest funder of terror.”

Moreover, why was Obama so adamant about making Qatar and Turkey the mediators, and not allowing Egypt, which had initiated the mediation process, to continue its work? In order to reach any semblance of a conclusion as to why Obama insisted upon Qatar and Turkey, it is necessary to wind the clock back a few years.

Foreign policy in the Arab world cannot be conducted without going through Egypt with its population of 82 million. Obama certainly knew this in the past, and in his highly heralded June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, less than six months into his first term as president, Obama declared:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

A new beginning? Over the course of the next five years, things did not go as planned for the Obama administration, particularly as regards Egypt. In December 2010, the Arab Spring swept the Middle East, and when the demonstrations reached Cairo, Obama effectively demanded that Egypt's long-time president, Hosni Mubarak, a friend of the West, step down. Subsequently, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was planning to attend the 67^th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2012, was invited to the White House. However, the invitation was rescinded when the US embassy in Cairo came under attack by an angry mob on September 11, the same day on which the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi were assaulted, leading to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Obama didn’t want Morsi’s visit to imperil his reelection campaign.

America’s relations with Egypt grew steadily worse. With the Egyptian economy tanking and the Muslim Brotherhood attempting to consolidate power, Morsi was removed from office in a July 2013 coup by the Egyptian military, which controls much of Egyptian industry. Irked by this affront to what was hoped to be nascent Egyptian democracy, the Obama administration responded by freezing “large-scale military systems and cash assistance to the government pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government through free and fair elections.” As a consequence, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is now shopping for arms in Russia.

Worse still, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry poured oil on the fire by seeking to replace Egypt, which has a common border with Gaza, with Qatar and Turkey as mediators of Israel’s conflict with Hamas. The Egyptian military despises Hamas, owing to its close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and it came as no surprise that Kerry was subjected to a demeaning metal detector test before being allowed to meet with Sisi in Cairo last month, while trying to force his way into the negotiation process.

Frustrated by his frigid reception in Cairo, Kerry hastily flew to Paris, where he convened a meeting with diplomats from France, Britain, Italy and Germany, and also the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey. Representatives from Egypt and the Palestinian Authority were not invited to the secretary of state’s soirée, which resulted in nothing, but added insult to America’s traditional Arab allies.

Having infuriated Egypt, Saudi Arabia (whose relations with Qatar are strained), and the Palestinian Authority in one fell swoop, and with Israeli journalists from both the right and the left lambasting the incompetence of America’s secretary of state, Kerry conveniently disappeared on a seven-day voyage to Afghanistan, Burma, Australia, the Solomon Islands and Hawaii.

Back now to the original question: Why did Barack Obama seek to impose Qatar as a mediator upon Israel? Was it really because the U.S. was seeking a country with financial leverage over Hamas? This hardly makes sense, given Egypt’s control over the flow of goods across its mutual border with Gaza, which trumps any amount of Qatari funding.

Alternatively, was this an expression of petulance on the part of Obama, given General Sisi’s arrest of Mohammed Morsi, thus putting the kibosh on Egypt’s fleeting experiment with democracy and the president’s “new beginning”?

Or was this just the effect of jetlag on John Kerry?

Whatever the reason, it has proven another painful diplomatic setback for the United States.

[According to Fatah, Qatar forced Hamas to break the most recent truce arranged by Egypt and threatened to expel Khaled Mashal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, from Qatar, where he maintains his offices, if he did not reopen rocket fire on Israel (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184225#.U_WXq5scTct and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4561522,00.html). On Monday, US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf admitted: "Today, [Kerry] has spoken with the Israeli prime minister, the Israeli foreign minister, the Turkish foreign minister, and the Qatari foreign minister. We need countries that have leverage over leaders of Hamas who can help put a cease-fire in place."]

PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS! THE SALE OF ARMS TO QATAR MUST BE STOPPED!

Eugene Robinson, "The End of the ‘War on Terror’": It's No Longer "Terror," it's "Mental Health"

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The end of the ‘war on terror’" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-end-of-the-war-on-terror/2013/05/27/5ef7a4a2-c4b4-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html?hpid=z2), Eugene Robinson posits:

"President Obama wisely avoided the phrase 'mission accomplished' in his major speech last week about the 'war on terror,' but columnists aren’t obliged to be so circumspect: It is time to declare victory and get on with our lives.

. . . .

Was there really any meaningful connection between the bloody Boston rampage and international jihadism? It seems likely that an al-Qaeda Web site taught the Boston bombers how to build their pressure-cooker bombs, but what about the alienation they obviously felt? What about their mental health? Was jihad anything more than a label, an affinity-group logo like the Red Sox insignia on a baseball cap?"

Yup, we can attribute all those daily "honor killings" involving mothers, daughters and sisters around the Muslim Middle East to "mental health."

The attack on the Benghazi consulate? Problems involving "mental health."

The beheading of the soldier in London? A problem involving "mental health."

The murder of homosexuals? You guessed it . . . problems involving "mental health."

Savage attacks against Christian Copts, Kurds and Baha'is? "Mental health."

Terror operations around the globe conducted by Iran and its Lebanese surrogate, Hezbollah? All a matter of "mental health."

It's "time to declare victory and get on with our lives." After all, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx):

"Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam."

Only 1% of US Muslims "say violence against civilians is often justified" and only 7% say that such violence "is sometimes justified"? What a relief . . .

So let's eliminate Homeland Security and the CIA and instead enlist the aid of psychiatrists, because all of these ghastly killings involve no more than an "affinity-group logo" like the "insignia on a baseball cap."

Have I lost my mind? Does Robinson really believe this?

New York Times, "‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror": A "Terrorist Incident"? Aren't You Being a Bit Rash, Mr. Cameron?

Read today's New York Times article entitled "‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/europe/london-attacks.html). We are told:

"In an attack that raised new fears of terrorism in Britain, a man walking near a military barracks in south London on Wednesday was rammed by a car and then hacked to death by two knife-wielding assailants, according to witness accounts carried by British news media."

"Rammed by a car and then hacked to death"? Seems fairly mundane to me. Why should that "raise" fears of terrorism?

The article continues:

"One of the men shouted 'Allahu akbar,' or 'God is great,' as the attack proceeded, government officials said."

Of course, no need to go to the trouble of saying in what language "Allahu akbar" means "God is great," given that everyone who reads The New York Times speaks Arabic.

A bit further down, the article tells us:

"'There are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident,' Mr. Cameron said. He interrupted his European tour to return to London on Wednesday night."

"Strong indications" of a "terrorist incident"? Isn't that going out a bit on a limb, Mr. Cameron? So what if one of the attackers said: "You people will never be safe. Remove your governments!" So what if "Witnesses said two men had gotten out and attacked the prone victim with large bladed weapons"? So what if "Some said the men had beheaded him"? Don't you think you've lost your head, David, and are being a bit rash?

Don't you know that it's all because of Israel's unfair treatment of Palestinians? Stephen Hawking, who recently support of a boycott of Israel, can explain it to you. Maintain relations with Israel, and more heads will roll!

A soldier was beheaded? So? As Hawkins knows, It's only a trifling matter relative to the cosmos as a whole . . .

Nicholas Kristof: Reduce Textile Tariffs to Eliminate Pakistani Terrorism

Having recently informing us that "chemicals threaten our bodies" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/05/kristof-cancer-chemicals-clueless.html), New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof today would have us believe that swamping the U.S. with Pakistani garment exports would free the U.S. of radical Islamic terror. Kristof opines in an op-ed entitled "Pakistan and Times Sq.":

"If we want Times Square to be safer from terrorists, we need to start by helping make Pakistan safer as well.

. . . .

Pro-American Pakistanis fighting against extremism have been pleading for years for the United States to cut tariffs on Pakistani garment exports, to nurture the textile industry and stabilize the country."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/opinion/13kristof.html?hp

Kristof, however, ignores the fact that the majority of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. He also forgets that Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia.

According to Kristof's logic, instead of bowing to King Abdullah, Obama should be asking Saudi Arabia to create schools where boys and girls are integrated and where the focus of their education is secular. Interesting in theory, but will it happen? Not in our lifetimes. Might this prevent terrorism? More likely it would cause a wave of terror attacks by Saudis angered by U.S. meddling.

Further to Kristof's line of reasoning, economic aid from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia would "stabilize" this country and prevent terrorism emanating therefrom. This is patently absurd.

But now let's return to Pakistan: Many of the inexpensive goods manufactured in Pakistan and exported to the U.S. are the product of child slave labor. By expanding the market for such goods, wouldn't the demand for child slave labor in Pakistan also increase? And what positive effect, if any, would this have on the export of terrorism from Pakistan as these abused children grow older?

I am almost tempted to suggest that Kristof go back to writing about "chemicals that threaten our bodies".

An Act of Terror in the Theater District (Pun Intended)

In retrospect, the car bomb driven into Times Square by Faisal Shahzad earlier this month probably would not have caused many casualties had it ignited, although even one death would have been one too many. The primitive bomb, consisting of propane, gasoline and fireworks, would have caused a fireball, but it was not designed to shower shrapnel on those gathered in this crowded New York tourist mecca or to bring down a building. Why then was Times Square chosen as the locus for this attack?

As observed by Brian M. Jenkins in a 1974 Rand Corporation Paper entitled "International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare":

"Terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press. . . . Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims. Terrorism is theater."

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/2008/P5261.pdf

But even as "theater", this attempt at an explosion in New York's theater district bombed. As correctly observed today by theater critic Frank Rich in a New York Times op-ed entitled "They Don’t Report. You Don’t Have to Decide." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/opinion/09rich.html), the occurrence went largely ignored by the U.S. news media, which was busy reporting/enjoying the festive White House Correspondents Dinner. The correspondents at the Washington dinner were apparently unwilling to have their event upstaged by some trite Manhattan event.

On the one hand this lack of media attention surely must have frustrated those who produced the New York event (you can be certain that this was not a one-man show given the evidence surrounding the would-be spectacular). On the other hand, the ease with which this car was positioned should give the Obama administration - battling economic ills, oil spills and generally poor reviews - cause for reflection: the war on terror is not over, and the Osama Ensemble will regrettably be back soon enough with a "better rehearsed" revival aimed at a much larger audience.

Gail Collins on Terrorism: Clueless

New York Times op-ed writer, Gail Collins, displays her ignorance today in "Another Inconvenient Truth", in which she claims:

"The Bloomberg rebellion against holding a terror trial in Lower Manhattan fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country.

. . . .

Safety is always a concern, but Al Qaeda doesn’t operate like a season of '24.' Terrorists don’t generally strike when it’s most symbolic or best serves a story line."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30collins.html

Collins obviously has never taken the time to study terrorism. As observed by Albert Bandura in "Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in Terrorism", which appears in Walter Reich's "Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind":

"Terrorists try to exercise influence over targeted officials or nations through intimidation of the public and arousal of sympathy for the social and political causes they espouse. Without widespread publicity, terrorist acts can achieve neither of these effects."

As further noted by Brian M. Jenkins in "International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare":

"Terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press. Holding hostages increases the drama. If certain demands are not satisfied, the hostages may be killed. The hostages themselves often mean nothing to terrorists. Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims. Terrorism is theater."

What Collins terms the "Bloomberg Rebellion" has nothing whatsoever to do with a "sour, us-first" mood. It has everything to do with moving the trial away from an exposed population center, protecting New Yorkers and exercising common sense.

Bloomberg for president?

Afghanistan: What is Winning?

We await President Obama's speech on Tuesday, which will delineate future plans for expanded American involvement in Afghanistan. In this regard, I recently read Mr. Max Boot's article, "How We Can Win in Afghanistan", in the November 2009 issue of Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/how-we-can-win-in-afghanistan-15257), and came out on the other side of the COIN (short for "counterinsurgency" - excuse the dreadful pun).

As noted by Mr. Boot:

"In recent polling, only 4 percent of Afghans express a desire to see the Taliban return to power. Sixty-two percent have a positive impression of the United States, and 82 percent have a favorable view of our chief on-the-ground ally—the Afghan National Army."

If so, given the goal of expanding the Afghan "army from 92,000 to 240,000, and the national police from 84,000 to 160,000", why have American commanders "said it could be years before Afghan units can take the lead in the fighting in the most hotly-contested areas like Helmand"? Motivation is obviously lacking among America's Afghan allies.

Mr. Boot writes:

"NATO’s war effort [in Afghanistan] has in fact been under-resourced for years, 'operating in a culture of poverty,' as McChrystal puts it. That has made it impossible to carry out classic counterinsurgency operations, because those typically require a ratio of roughly 1 counterinsurgent per 50 civilians. Given Afghanistan’s population of 30 million, 600,000 counterinsurgents would be necessary. At the moment, the total is roughly 270,000 (170,000 Afghans, 64,000 Americans, 35,000 from other nations). Actual force planning, however, is too intricate to be reduced to such back-of-the-envelope calculations. Unique local characteristics have to be taken into account, such as the fact that the insurgency is largely confined to the Pashtun, an ethnic group that comprises 42 percent of the population."

Query: What is the minimum amount these troop numbers are going to cost? Stated otherwise, what is the point of temporarily attempting to win over Afghani hearts and minds, if this is going to impoverish or even bankrupt American democracy?

Mr. Boot writes:

"What we have tried is the other strategy, the counterterrorism strategy, and it has been found wanting. This should not come as a surprise, because it is hard to point to any place where pure CT has defeated a determined terrorist or guerrilla group. This is the strategy that Israel has used against Hamas and Hezbollah. The result is that Hamas controls Gaza, and Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon."

My response: Israel is never going to win over the hearts and minds of Lebanon's Shiites or Gaza's Palestinians. Viewed differently, Israel is engaged in a 60-year-old war of independence, and although it has won several battles, the war is still being fought. The final outcome of this conflict will only be determined by my continued willingness and that of my children to don our uniforms and make the ultimate sacrifice.

Wars are no longer won and lost as in the past, and the Taliban is not going to sign surrender documents aboard the Battleship Missouri. The U.S. needs to weigh its objectives and pick its fights in accordance with tactical strength and strategic necessity. Notwithstanding Mr. Boot's scholarly piece, I remain a headhunter at heart. No need to bring McDonald's to Kabul. Instead, let's chase bin Laden to the ends of the earth and put some lead beween his eyebrows.

[Although I disagree with his conclusions in this particular article in Commentary, I strongly recommend Mr. Boot's book, "War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today".]

Obama: Losing Sight of the Mission in Afghanistan

Go to the Internet and do a search for counterterror "experts". You'll discover hundreds of them and thousands of op-eds and articles in newspapers and journals written by them.

Query: How many of these experts have ever fired an M16? How many have ever gone out on patrol in the cold of night or waited for hours in silent ambush? How many have ever looked a terrorist in the eyes or witnessed the bloody aftermath of a terror incident? You can probably count these "more experienced" experts on your fingers and toes, provided you're not missing any digits as the result of a terror attack.

Let's call the counterterror experts, whose knowledge is academic and whose resumes are at best adorned with a visit or two to Afghanistan or Iraq, "theoretical experts". I wonder how many theoretical experts are advising Obama and whether these are the persons behind Obama's decision to expand the American footprint in Afghanistan.

As reported yesterday in The New York Times:

"President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional American troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux.

. . . .

At a news conference in the East Room . . . Mr. Obama suggested that . . . the goals would be to keep Al Qaeda from using the region to launch more attacks against the United States and to bring more stability to Afghanistan.

. . . .

One administration official involved in Afghanistan policy said the president and his top advisers were thinking in terms of 'exit strategies' and not necessarily 'exit timetables.' . . . .

As Afghan security forces are trained and deployed, the official said, American officials and commanders would watch closely to determine when operational control of a given area could be turned over to them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?hp

Remind you of U.S. strategy in Vietnam? It should: The U.S. is going to turn the job over the locals and declare victory. Good luck.

You can only turn the struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban over to the Afghans if you change the way that Afghans live and think, and this is not going to happen. The tribal and Sunni/Shiite conflicts which have persisted for centuries, will continue for many years to come. The U.S. mission cannot and should not be to "pacify" Afghanistan or to enlighten Afghanis as to the merits of democracy.

Moreover, a "surge" type operation is not destined to succeed for any meaningful duration of time. Al Qaeda can go dormant as long as it takes and move to more hospitable climes until a better time for them arises. This is the slippery nature of terror organizations, which makes them so difficult to locate and combat.

What then need be the objective? Simple: Kill Osama bin Laden. No need for a costly footprint that will bleed America dry. You do require ongoing intelligence and the readiness to strike lightning blows when opportunities arise.

Also, continue to go after bin Laden's financing; there can be no terrorist infrastructure or operations without funds.

Finally, the moment you mention "exit strategies", you're finished. You're advertising to friends and enemies your lack of commitment. The bottom line must always be: We're going to put a bullet between Osama bin Laden's eyebrows no matter how long it takes.

Response to Robert Wright's NYT Op-Ed, "Who Created Major Hasan"

Below is an e-mail that I sent to Mr. Robert Wright in response to his op-ed entitled "Who Created Major Hasan", which appears in today's New York Times:


Dear Mr. Wright,

I was the CEO of a company that specialized, inter alia, in anti-terrorist strategies. Today, I am the CEO of a boutique business advisory firm.

I read your op-ed, "Who Created Major Hasan", in today's New York Times and would like to share my thoughts.

I opposed the Iraq War. Although I questioned the existence of weapons of mass destruction, I was more concerned by the creation of imbalance between the aggressive torchbearers of Sunni (Iraq) and Shiite (Iran) Islam.

There can be no understanding of the Middle East without taking into consideration this ongoing Sunni/Shiite struggle. The latest battleground is in Yemen along the Saudi border: the armies of Saudi Arabia and Yemen are fighting Yemenite Shiites backed by Iran. Although this struggle has resulted in almost 200,000 refugees, the war itself is largely being ignored by the Western news media.

Hezbollah and Hamas, both proxies of Iran, need also be regarded from this perspective, i.e. an Iranian effort to achieve regional hegemony. Iran's war is not with Israel, although Iran benefits on the Arab street from this perception, and it is no wonder that Israel received tacit backing from both Saudi Arabia and Egypt during Operation Cast Lead and the 2006 war with Hezbollah. Note Egypt's arrest of Hezbollah operatives monitoring Suez Canal traffic several months ago.

I also oppose continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, because I believe it is ineffective and a waste of resources. As you observe in your op-ed, headquarters for terrorist activity can be shifted from country to country, but within limitations dictated by Sunni/Shiite enmity and shifting alliances. For example, Iran has supported the Sudanese government's war with the country's black Africans, i.e. the War in Darfur, and it is dubious whether Sudan would now be hospitable to Al Qaeda.

What does any of the above have to do with Major Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre?

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars may not have reduced the number of anti-American terrorists abroad, but have certainly inspired homegrown terrorism, which could tear the U.S. apart along religious and ethnic lines. We agree and disagree.

First, as you yourself acknowledge, your conclusions are premised upon only two incidents: 1. Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre; and 2. the murder, six months earlier, of a soldier in Little Rock. On the basis of two isolated incidents in the eight years following the September 11 attacks, I think it is a mistake to engage in far-flung extrapolation.

Rather, I think you should be asking why there have been only two such terrorist attacks. Is it possible that given the economic and educational opportunities that present themselves in the U.S., American Muslims lack motivation to engage in terrorism? Is it possible that Muslim immigrants came to the U.S. seeking economic opportunity and for the most part would do nothing that might jeopardize this freedom and potential?

In the same vein, why is terrorism rarely perpetrated by Israeli Arabs? Is it because that notwithstanding the prejudice they sometimes face in their daily lives, they also enjoy political rights and economic opportunities unavailable in the Arab world? Note that birth rates of Israeli Arabs are significantly lower than those in Arab nations. Is it possible that they have adapted to and seen advantages inherent in Western culture?

You argue that the more Americans denigrate Islam and view Muslims with suspicion, the more likely we will see "homegrown terror". I have a different perception of Americans: a people of benevolence and understanding, and although Americans might be temporarily outraged by a terrorist attack, their "homegrown tolerance" ultimately prevails and enables them to see that "one bad apple" does not spoil the barrel.

In addition, I do not view terrorism as conduct that "infects people with low resistance" per se. Rather, I view terrorism as conduct that prevails among young persons without the means to support themselves. In Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of young Muslim men have engaged in suicide bombings, not only because they have been saturated with anti-Western hatred, but also because their families have been promised housing and other material benefits following their "heroic" deaths.

You write: "Sept. 11, 2001, though a success for Osama bin Laden, was in the scheme of things only a small tactical triumph". There was nothing "small" about 9/11: Osama bin Laden temporarily paralyzed America's financial and transportation systems, and permanently affected the way Americans live, as anyone standing on line at a U.S. airport can attest.

All that having been said, how do we fight terror more effectively and also eliminate much of the violent imagery over the Internet, which you believe inflames Muslims and has the potential to tear the U.S. apart along religious and ethnic lines?

First, the prerequisites for terrorism must be acknowledged. Although it is easy enough for an individual would-be terrorist to purchase a rifle and open fire wherever he chooses, Al Qaeda is a sophisticated organization built upon recruitment, training, armament, logistics and funding. The September 11 attacks were not the product of an "apartment-based conspiracy".

Now suppose more effective measures are taken to curtail terrorist funding: recruitment, training, armament and logistics are all constricted and constrained. Moreover, measures taken against terrorist funding are generally non-lethal and consequently do not contribute to inflammatory imagery.

Continue the war against bid Laden? Absolutely. He should not be granted a moment's respite. However, the U.S. battle against terrorism must be grounded upon American technological strength and pinpoint strikes, which do not deprive the U.S. of its will to oppose terror and tyranny.

Yours sincerely,

Jeffrey