Maureen Dowd, "The C.I.A.’s Angry Birds": After the Boston Marathon Attack, We Should All Be Angry

On Tuesday, President Obama finally got around to acknowledging that the bombing of the Boston Marathon was an "act of terrorism." Hmm, three dead and more than 170 wounded from bombs constructed from pressure cookers packed with BBs, nails and pellets - that sure as heck sounds like an "act of terrorism" to me. But why the delay in acknowledging it as such? Might it have been politically incorrect to do so too precipitously and have cost votes in future elections? Or was this simply the Procrastinator-in-Chief doing what he does best?

And now we have the White House and the media attempting to dance around the issue of the origin of this travesty. As observed in an article in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/boston-marathon-bombs-had-simple-but-harmful-design-early-clues-indicate/2013/04/16/c2b061cc-a6d8-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html?hpid=z1) written by Joby Warrick and Sari Horwitz:

"The [explosive] devices’ design was immediately recognized by counterterrorism experts as a type touted by al-Qaeda for use by its operatives around the world. Similar devices have been used by terrorists in mass-casualty bombings in numerous countries, from the Middle East to South Asia to North Africa."

Well, allow me once again to be politically incorrect and "theorize" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/david-brooks-what-youll-do-next-data.html) that this horror was the work of radical Islamists. I know: the design of the device is available on the Internet, and there is no way of being 100% sure, but in this instance do we really wish to play parlor games in an effort not to offend anyone?

I am offended by this attack. And although the Obama administration in the past would have us believe that the war with al-Qaeda is over - hence, efforts to attribute the attack upon the US consulate in Benghazi to "demonstrators" - it is far from that. The US is under fire from an organization seeking to undermine America's landmarks, institutions and way of life.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The C.I.A.’s Angry Birds" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/opinion/the-cias-angry-birds.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd takes the CIA and the intelligence wing of the United States Army to task for the seemingly casual manner in which they undertake targeted assassinations of Muslim jihadists. Dowd writes:

"After two bloody, money-sucking, never-ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of a weapon for war that precluded having anyone actually go to war was too captivating. Our sophisticated, sleek, smart, detached president was ensorcelled by our sophisticated, sleek, smart, detached war machine.

. . . .

But as The Times’s Mark Mazzetti notes in his new book, 'The Way of the Knife,' 'the analogy suggests that this new kind of war is without costs or blunders — a surgery without complications. This isn’t the case.'

Mazzetti raises the issue of whether the C.I.A. — which once sold golf shirts with Predator logos in its gift shop — became 'so enamored of its killer drones that it wasn’t pushing its analysts to ask a basic question: To what extent might the drone strikes be creating more terrorists than they are actually killing?'

Mazzetti writes that Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, watched one of the first drone strikes via satellite at Langley a few weeks after 9/11. As he saw a Mitsubishi truck in Afghanistan being blown up, Dearlove smiled wryly. 'It almost isn’t sporting, is it?' the Brit asked."

In trademark snarky fashion, Dowd concludes:

"President Obama, who continued nearly every covert program handed down by W., clearly feels tough when he talks about targeted killings, and considers drones an attractive option. As Mazzetti says, 'fundamental questions about who can be killed, where they can be killed, and when they can be killed' still have not been answered or publicly discussed.

It almost isn’t sporting, is it?"

Sorry, Maureen but the savage ongoing war with al-Qaeda is not sport. The Boston Marathon, which most likely was attacked by radical Islamists - again, I admit it's too early to be certain - is sport.

Regrettably, rules - and sometimes laws - get bent in war. Yes, I think we can all agree that given an ideal set of circumstances, it would be much preferable to engage in far-reaching debate and to seek judicial review before taking the life of suspected terrorists by remote control from above. But then, during wartime, circumstances do not always permit reflection and procrastination. Anyone who has ever found himself or herself in a battle zone knows that if you procrastinate too long, you die.

Unlike Maureen, I have every reason to believe in the underlying decency of those working out of Arlington and Langley, notwithstanding my opposition to the Second Gulf War and America's ground war in Afghanistan.

And unlike Maureen, I am also someone who has witnessed up close the aftermath of terror attacks, and know that there are limits to oversight and due diligence when confronting al-Qaeda.

In short, a balance must be drawn, but it must not be forgotten, as we proceed with our everyday lives, that the US is engaged in a war that threatens its existence. The attack on the Boston Marathon, i.e. a violent intrusion upon our everyday lives, was yet another wake-up call.