Can we stop taking our shoes off now? The Hasan revelations raise the unhappy thought that what we’ve been doing these past 8 years isn’t security. It’s security theater.
We thought there was a deal. The public would tolerate some admittedly dopey-looking procedures (walking through the metal detectors in stockinged feet) in the confidence that the authorities were doing the real work of identifying and surveilling the most dangerous threats to public safety.
Apparently not.
For years, genuine experts have warned against the folly of ethnic profiling – that is, applying extra scrutiny to persons because of their Islamic names or country of origin. They were right too. (A point Richard Perle and I argued in 2004 in the book we co-authored.)
But again – the alternative to ethnic profiling is not declining to react to suspicious behavior by a Muslim person lest we somehow corroborate a stereotype. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, hardly any Muslims are terrorists. But when authorities begin to receive credible information that one particular Muslim might be dangerous – especially if that person wears the uniform of the United States – it beggars belief that they would hesitate to act.
Yet hesitate they did. Too bad Hasan didn’t try to smuggle a bottle of water aboard an aircraft. Then of course they’d have thrown the book at him.
102 responses so far
1 Ploni Almoni // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:09 am
It would be interesting for Mr. Frum to expand on why ethnic profiling is foolish, for those of us who, uh, haven’t gotten the chance to read his book.
Israeli security personnel profile aggressively, and for the low-risk majority of passengers, going through security is a breeze. You can take as many bottles of liquids as you want on the plane, and you’ll never be asked to remove your shoes. If your name is Nidal Hasan, though, you’ll get more attention. So what is it that these American experts know about security that those foolishly profiling Israelis haven’t figured out?
2 teabag // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:11 am
The whole War on Terror has been kabuki theatre from the start. Just a ploy by Bushco to keep the people scared. A frightened public is a compliant public. Willing to accept assaults on their freedom like the (SIC) Patriot act, the spying on it’s own citizens and war crimes like torture.
So yes we have been looking at a play (a farce in fact) the last 8 years. Well done GW Bush-Cheney.
3 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:27 am
David,
If ethnic profiling is folly, then please tell us who other than Muslim young males have been active in terror activities against the US for the past ten years or so? Let’s see.
WTC ‘93 Islamic males
Khobar Towers Islamic males
African Embassies Islamic males
USS Cole Islamic males
9/11 (remembr that?) Islamic males
Fort Hood Islamic male
Oh right. One terror attack of any note committed by an avowed anti-government radical. I guess based on Tim McVeigh alone we ought to completely toss out any common sense and do a “random search” of Grandma O’Sheah and her little maltese ‘fluffy” while Muhammed Bin-Madman prances through security unchallenged.
Is is that kind of P.C. crap that kept Hassan a Major in the US Army despite all the signs that he had been converted (or whatever) into a raving Jihadist.
P.C. is tantamount to lying. Lying about the truth to preserve a culture of so-called “tolerance” that turns a blind eye to the trends all around. Maybe those families of 9/11 or the Ft. Hood voctims wish that a little bit more folly profiling had been in order. Too late now though isn’t it…until the next Muslim attack and the next cries from liberals to not “rush to judgement.”
4 joemarier // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:29 am
This is kind of off topic, but why do lefties always take conservative-related (and insulting) names when they decide to comment on conservative websites?
5 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:29 am
My previous post should read 20 years (typo). Yes been going on that long. But let’s not rush to judgement! If I may paraphrase Netenyahu, if Muslims laid down their arms, there’d be no terror threat. If the West laid down our arms, there would be no West! Alluha Akhbar!
6 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:31 am
Joe. Because they THINK they are clever when they are just trite — the way that loser in high school who wrote poems thought he was “deep” when in reality he only made himself look more foolish to everyone but himself.
7 joemarier // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:38 am
Hey! That was me!
8 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:45 am
……From what can tell the reason they didn’t act had very little to do with Hasan’s religion and everything to do with the culture of the Army (he’s one of our own) which tends to give a lot of latitude to anyone perceived to be one of us (you seem the same forces at work in Police forces), nad the much more mundane fact that the army is apparently desperately short of psychiatrists to cope with an avalanche of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental health problems.
9 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:50 am
Joe Marier // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:29 am
“This is kind of off topic, but why do lefties always take conservative-related (and insulting) names when they decide to comment on conservative websites?”
……Humor?…….mind you who can blame them when you’re dealing with someone who takes themselves as seriously as this guy appears to:
“Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:31 am
Joe. Because they THINK they are clever when they are just trite — the way that loser in high school who wrote poems thought he was “deep” when in reality he only made himself look more foolish to everyone but himself.”
10 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:55 am
Ah it’s Otto. The man who has lived several web lives.
11 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:59 am
“I get home and kiss my maman and she fixes me a snack /
Then I head down to my basement bedroom and fire up my Mac.
In real life the only time I’ve ever even been to LA
Is when I got the chance with a marching band to play tuba in the Rose parade.
But on-line I live in Malibu, I posed for Calvin Kein I been in GQ
I’m single and I’m rich and I got a set of six-pack abs that would blow your mind.
I turns girls on that I’m mysterious, I tell em I don’t want nuthin’ serious
Cause even on a slow day I can have a three-way chattin’ with two women at one time
I’m so much cooler on-line, yeah I’m cooler on line!”
–Otto’s Theme
12 wildcat25 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:05 am
Teabag – seriously? You’re claiming the war on terror has been a ploy? A farce? A play? What could the Bush Administration possibly have gained from monitoring U.S. citizens other than information that could – and probably did – protct citizens from acts of terror?
I simply cannot understand your argument – apparently the War on Terror has been a fake all along, yet the U.S. was a victim of a direct act of terror last week at Fort Hood.
13 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:07 am
Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:55 am
“Ah it’s Otto. The man who has lived several web lives”
……One actually….I put up a summary although they removed it……and you never did give us an accounting of a life that is responsible for so much accumulated knowledge and wisdom…..not to mention an addiction to excruciating pop song lyrics
14 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:13 am
wildcat25 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:05 am
“I simply cannot understand your argument – apparently the War on Terror has been a fake all along, yet the U.S. was a victim of a direct act of terror last week at Fort Hood.”
…….He completely overstates the case but it’s hard to deny the “war on terror” wasn’t often exploited for political advantage…….and the shootings at fort hood were not an act of terrorism they were some nut who bought a gun from local gunstore and ran amok……..it’s no more an act of terrrorism than the guy at Virginia Tech or the guy who shot the abortion doctor in Kansas.
15 teabag // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:17 am
Yes the WOT was (is) a means to an end. The end was to use the WOT as a way to introduce all sorts of legislation and procedures that could not get past at any other time. Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as a means to invade Iraq. Without the FEAR card being played endlessly the course of this country would have been vastly different.
Just a few weeks ago it was admitted that the terror threat level was manipulated in order to meet political demands. (the admission was later withdrawn under pressure from presumably Cheney) .
So yes it was in essence a way to cower the populace in order to achieve extreme Right wing ends.
Would those thing (spying on citizens, torture, the unpatriot act) ever come about in any other way? No
16 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:20 am
joe marier:
Because Abbie Hoffman and his fellow New Left radicals set the pace in the 1960s, when they decided that acting like boors and bums from the gutter were political acts. Mouthing obscenities, painting graffiti on public property, refusing to bathe regularly, spreading STDs–all were political acts.
The Left has continued to act that way ever since.
17 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:21 am
Otto…you put up A life. You are smart enough (are you?) to know that sans verification one can say anything. So just assume that I have lived my entire life in a cave and go from there if it makes you feel better. Yes. YOu have lived the lives of Alexander, Caesar, Mother Theresa and Washington all at once from the oil fields of the mideast to the streets of Rome. Sure. And I am the king of Siam.
“When you got Otto’s stats it’s hard to get a date, let alone a real girlfriend /
but he grows another foot and he loses a bunch of weight every time he logs in!”
Now as to the war on terror and being exploited politically this is an interesting tactic by the left (who know that dems are considered weak on national defense issues and softer on crime and terrorism) to paint mentioning of the very real threat of Islamic terrorism as “fear mongering” being exploited for ‘political motivations.” They have what can be described a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy when it comes to terrorism because if poeple actually realized how much danger we are in they would neverentrust the left to the reigns of power in this country.
18 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:22 am
wildcat25:
Don’t answer him.
He’s a troll.
The dust of 3,000 human beings, vaporized on 9-11, is all the proof I need that this is a war.
For the deaths of 2,000 human beings at Pearl Harbor, the United States was prepared to totally annihilate the nation that killed them.
That we have not undertaken such a policy this time around is a testament to our restraint and forbearance.
We have also been restrained in our dealings with such as “teabag.”
So far.
19 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:25 am
15 teabag // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:17 am
…….you’re giving a left wing imitation of Raider…….there is threat although the administration took the opportunity to impinge on privacy and civil liberties and much of the “removing shoes” routine is a bit farcical but there’s a threat alright and it has to be guarded against………It’s ironic that all the focus is on the costs of the 9/11 attack when in fact Bin Laden has actually imposed a far greater cost on American society in paying for the numerous measures that it must take to protect itself…….these will be around for long after Bin Laden has gone.
20 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:31 am
otto…commons draconian measures against Muslim militants operating in the US (shutting down mosques, arrests for sedition, mass deportations) would do much more good than taking off shoes but of course the Ottos of the world would scream discrimination.
21 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:31 am
After 9-11, U.S. security officials met with Israeli security officials to learn how their security has been so effective in preventing airliner hijackings. Israeli officials told U.S. officials that their most effective policy is ethnic profiling. No other policy has been as effective for them.
In Israel, all the security screeners at airports are JEWS. No Muslim, even if he seemed to have an impeccable background, would ever be hired as a security screener.
The U.S. has eschewed ethnic profiling, even in our most sensitive positions (this Hasan was being considered for a Homeland Security post), on moral grounds. So be it. But let’s always remember that it makes no sense from the point of view of efficacy–and that Israel, whose El Al airline hasn’t had a hijacking in decades, told us we were making a mistake.
Ethnic profiling, as Raider1 suggests, is simply applying the laws of probability.
When you study Probability Theory 101, you learn about sampling with and without replacement.
Suppose you’re given a huge container which contains a huge number of marbles of different colors.
You reach into the container and pull out a handful of six marbles. And you find that most of them are blue, only one is red.
You reach into the container again and pull out a handful of six marbles. And again, you find that most of them are blue.
You do this again and again. Each time you find most of the marbles you pull out are blue.
NOW: What are the chances that the next time you do this, most of the marbles will be blue?
The answer is that your chances of pulling out mostly blue marbles are good. And you can calculate the probability precisely.
But liberals would get upset and claim we were doing “marble profiling”!
22 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:32 am
18 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:22 am
“For the deaths of 2,000 human beings at Pearl Harbor, the United States was prepared to totally annihilate the nation that killed them.”
……..Er no we weren’t…….that would have been genocide…….we were engaged in a war against a sovereign state who attacked Pearl Harbor as part of it’s strategy for gaining navel supremacy in the Pacific so they could seize valuable territory in the far east……we did what was necessary to defeat them and then were instrumental in their recovery and restoration……..I wonder sometimes Sinz whether you have a part time job as a script writer in melodramas as your language is often so operatic and completely OTT.
23 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:34 am
There you go.
Political correctness–fear of having the ACLU and CAIR and all their buddies coming down on these students like a ton of bricks–intimidated them from filing a formal complaint.
24 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:35 am
Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:31 am
…….Where did all this wisdom and insight come from I ask myself since you’re not willing to tell us
25 mlindroo // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:43 am
Raider1 wrote:
> If I may paraphrase Netenyahu, if Muslims laid down their arms, there’d be no terror threat.
> If the West laid down our arms, there would be no West! Alluha Akhbar!
What an inane statement! I know Israel’s predicament certainly is real — Netanyahu’s statement makes perfect sense in that context — but what about North America and Western Europe? Our countries are more populous, wealthier and spend more on defense than the Muslim nations of the Middle East do.
—
Let’s not start wetting our pants just because some nutjob goes on a killing spree at a military base… Fort Hood was a tragedy alright, but we do not even know yet whether Dr.Hasan actually received any help or assistance from radical Islamic groups.
MARCU$
26 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:45 am
Otto I have lived the same life as you (only one of them not three). By the way Brad Paisley is country not “pop” but whatever. You’re definitely in the cultural loop.
27 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:47 am
Marcus Lindroos // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:43 am
“What an inane statement!………. but we do not even know yet whether Dr.Hasan actually received any help or assistance from radical Islamic groups.”
…….He has a trademark on inanity…….and investigators have now announced they are satisfied he acted alone according to my morning newspaper
28 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:49 am
ottovbs:
Er, yes we were.
American outrage over the Bataan Death March and the brutalization of captured American fliers (hyped by Hollywood propagandists in the service of the FDR administration) made unconditional surrender of Japan or the destruction of Japan as the only two acceptable alternatives.
Even after the A-bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese militarists were all for continuing the fight. Fortunately, Hirohito decided otherwise.
29 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:53 am
26 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:45 am
“(only one of them not three). ”
…….As I said I summarised my background…..you never did…….so until you do give the class warfare a rest…..and no I’ve never heard of Brad Paisley, a cultural deprivation I’ll have to manage without, but he obviously looms large in your life
30 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:54 am
Marcus…youtalk about the populations of Western Europe and NA yet you what can you tell me about the DEMOGRAPHIC trends of same—especially Western Europe? What will be the % of young Muslims to old non-Muslims in two generations? I’ll let you do the research (since you obviously have done none of your own up to this point). Then let me know if this is “inanity” or just the facts.
You liberal are desperate for ANY explanation for ft. Hood beside the obvious one that any child could see in a minute when they take their ideological we are the world blinders off. This was an act of Muslim terror. Allahu Akhbar!
31 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:58 am
sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:49 am
“For the deaths of 2,000 human beings at Pearl Harbor, the United States was prepared to totally annihilate the nation that killed them.”
ottovbs:
Er no we weren’t
Er, yes we were.
………..despite your expertise in the melodrama writing department you need to learn the difference between making war and genocide
32 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 am
Marcus Lindroos:
That’s not the issue, Marcus.
We have many Islamists right here in the U.S. Dearborn Michigan is loaded with them. They’re already hopped up by radical imams with jihadist-like rhetoric about the illegitimacy of all secular governments. They don’t need to be part of al-Qaeda. They espouse an ideology that is openly hostile to the U.S. Constitution.
About them, the FBI says this:
That sounds very much like our character Hasan.
I still remember an incident a few days after 9-11, reported in the NY Times. In Flushing Queens, NYC, a local imam tried to issue a petition pledging support for the U.S. government and denouncing Osama bin Laden. Half his congregation refused to sign it and walked out. They couldn’t decide which side they were on.
Would you want such people in sensitive security posts in a time of war against al-Qaeda?
To me, this is analogous to the problem we faced in the 1930s, when the German-American Bund openly admired the aims of Nazi Germany. Most of the rank and file were decent German-Americans who thought they were building ties between the two countries. In fact, the whole operation was a front of the German Abwehr, which used it to conduct espionage against the U.S.–and to plan acts of sabotage against civilian targets like department stores (which today we would certainly call terrorism), should America and Germany ever go to war.
The radical imams in the U.S. today are serving exactly the same purpose.
33 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 am
LOL…Otto this is circular. You surmised your SUPPOSED background. One that can never ever be verified. And gee, for a guy who is so sure of himself you sure are letting this internet ypcal (me) get to you. If you are so secure you need not defend yourself to me eh?
34 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:02 am
Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:54 am
“What will be the % of young Muslims to old non-Muslims in two generations?”
…….One of Raider’s idee fixe’s is that it’s only a matter of time before the crescent is flying over Buckingham Palace and the Eiffel Tower………he’s an expert don’t you see although he never tells us the source of his expertise in these matters
35 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:07 am
Otto. I know those damned FACTS tend to get in the way of the “World According To Otto” narative you play in your head but it is what it is.
I bet that sand surrounding your head is nice and cool huh. (The rest of us unfortunatley must live in the world as it is…not as a liberal fantacist wishes it to be).
36 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11 am
Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 am
“One that can never ever be verified”
…….of course it can’t be verified…….it’s a sort of honor system that you may not be familiar with…….actually I find your ignorant and usually malignant buffooneries typical of a certain group in the country and any comments I make in response have nothing to do with you or me, and everything to do with the adage that evil triumphs when good men remain silent.
37 ottovbvs // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:21 am
sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 am
“The radical imams in the U.S. today are serving exactly the same purpose.”
……..And extreme right wing nut cases posting threats to the govt on web sites or accusing the president of being a mass murder…….or how about anti abortion groups plotting clinic bombings………what would that be I wonder……..the US is a huge and complex society with many diverse strands…….there are extremists and nut jobs of all persuasions around……after all the largest act of domesic terrorism was perpetrated by a right wing fanatic………it’s a fact of life that has to be dealt with in an adult manner not with a lot of stupid hysteria particularly when it’s being whipped up for reasons of politics or nativism.
38 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:02 am
David – in 2000, during the 2nd Presidential Debate with Al Gore, Governor George W. Bush declared:
1) Did Bush have evidence that under Clinton, US Intelligence was quietly using profiling in the face of threats from Al Qaeda?
2) Did Bush suspend such a policy once he took office, in return for his heavy support from the Arab-American community in 2000?
39 LFC // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:05 am
After 9-11, U.S. security officials met with Israeli security officials to learn how their security has been so effective in preventing airliner hijackings. Israeli officials told U.S. officials that their most effective policy is ethnic profiling. No other policy has been as effective for them.
In Israel, all the security screeners at airports are JEWS. No Muslim, even if he seemed to have an impeccable background, would ever be hired as a security screener.
First, Israel has a much less heterogeneous population than the U.S. The vast majority of people are Jews and Muslims. All others make up a tiny minority. When you have two choices (blue and red marbles, to use your example), it’s a lot more straightforward. Try that with 10 or 20 types of marbles and see what happens to your efficiency rate. You can’t even begin to compare the variety of travelers that El Al sees in a given year to any of the big U.S. carriers.
Second, airline security is much different. You have a natural choke point that people must pass through when they go from ticketing to their gate. It’s easy to know that you can put your security right there. Security in other settings can be significantly tougher. Would it really have been efficient to search the vehicle of every Muslim coming onto the base? What about the fact that multiple domestic shooting incidents (something like 4 in this year alone) have actually been perpetrated by white males. Should we profile white males who own weapons coming onto military bases?
The failing wasn’t in the lack of profiling. The failing was that they had found evidence that the guy was a security risk and they didn’t act. It didn’t matter that he was Muslim. If a person with clearance to come onto a military base is a white supremacist, Operation Rescue acolyte, ELF member, or even a Costco member member and they have the same red flags come up, action needs to be taken.
The U.S. has eschewed ethnic profiling, even in our most sensitive positions (this Hasan was being considered for a Homeland Security post), on moral grounds. So be it. But let’s always remember that it makes no sense from the point of view of efficacy–and that Israel, whose El Al airline hasn’t had a hijacking in decades, told us we were making a mistake.
Was Jose Padilla a Muslim of Arab dissent? How about Richard Reid? Profiling has serious deficiencies because once we settle on a profile, terrorists (not all of whom are simply stupid and rage filled) switch tactics. In both Israel and Russia, female suicide bombers have started to show up. Why? Because they could get through security.
And other than 9/11 (suicide bombing by plane being one of those examples of shifting tactics I mentioned above), we hadn’t had a hijacking since 1991. And we’ve had none since. The 9/11 hijackers succeeded by using surprise. Profiling these guys would not have had them arrested (at the time) for box cutters. I often traveled for business in the 90’s with a technical tool case that contained a knife and a multiple screwdrivers, all of which were more effective weapons than box cutters.
But again, we’re shifting to airline security rather than general security, and the two are not analogous.
NOW: What are the chances that the next time you do this, most of the marbles will be blue?
The answer is that your chances of pulling out mostly blue marbles are good. And you can calculate the probability precisely.
Yes, you can calculate the probability precisely because marbles don’t shift tactics. If every terrorists could be depended upon to be from an Arab country (or Afghanistan or Iran or Pakistan or…) and have a vest full of explosives as their weapon of choice, your example would work. The problem is that this just isn’t true.
But liberals would get upset and claim we were doing “marble profiling”!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Hard words to live by, aren’t they?
40 LFC // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 am
sinz54 said… The U.S. has eschewed ethnic profiling, even in our most sensitive positions (this Hasan was being considered for a Homeland Security post), on moral grounds.
This makes no sense. ALL people in sensitive positions go through complete background checks. What the heck would profiling do differently?
41 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:22 am
Otto you are an Islamic apologist pure and simple and refuse to call it for what it is. Do not even begin to compare fringe nut job right wing (or left wing) groups with barely visited websites whose activities are minimal at best to the Wahaabiist mosque system springing up like weeds in the USA fueld by BILLIONS in Saudi petro dollars and protected by the p.c. police in the name of “deoversity” when in any other age they would be seen for what they are, hotbeds of sedition, raided and shut down accordnignly with members prosecuted or at least deported.
That is the classic tactic of the left. Find a tiny tiny sliver of fringe political extremism and tout that as just as much a threat as mainstream Islam. Allahu Akhbar!
42 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:26 am
Otto you are full of it and I call you out is all. I’ve seen you psuedo-intellectual typse sprinkled throughout college quads. All the same. Professing to know so much when so blind to see that left-wing ideology you treat as a religion trumps even the most obvious…such as the case of Hasan.
43 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:29 am
What this incident does point out is that it is impossible to absolutely guard against the lone wolf, inspired by dangerous rhetoric but not acting in concert with any organizations or even cells.
They’re generally going to be very smart, they’re generally going to be very meticulous, they’re often going to show few or no signs of the emotions brewing up in them that could lead them to kill.
It’s going to be a Hasan with an apparent grievance over the US killing Muslims.
It’s going to be a Sodini who believes that modern women are liberated bitches who need taken down a notch.
It’s going to be a Poplawski shooting cops because he’s convinced someone’s coming to take his guns away.
It’s going to be a Von Brunn who embraces white supremacism and feels helpless in a multicultural society that actually elects a black President.
It’s going to be a Roeder who believes that American Law will never fully reflect God’s Law, and thus he needs to take God’s Law in his own hands.
Can you profile for all these things? Hardly. We might want to limit the amount of firepower that any one person can carry around with them in order to limit the carnage, however.
Had Hasan only had his service revolver with him – a perfectly useful weapon if someone is keeping a gun for self-defense – the death toll would likely have been 2 or 3, max. Maybe a couple more if he had a second revolver. The fact that he could legally carry around a semi-automatic weapon that could rapidly fire and reload 20-round clips probably at least tripled the number of people he could kill. I still don’t see the value in allowing private citizens to carry that kind of firepower around on the streets.
44 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:31 am
Raider – what do you think about Bush’s committment during the 2000 debates to eliminating a practice where apparently under Clinton Arab-Americans (were) racially profiled in what is called secret evidence?
45 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:37 am
Balcon…Islamic militants aren’t ‘lone wolves’ so nice comparison of apples to oranges in a cumbersome homage to the p.c. mantra “we are all Hasans” b.s.
Was Mohammed Atta a “lone wolf”? How about the Cole bombers? Khobar Tower Bombers? African Embassaey Bombers. WTC 93 Bombers? And, yes, Hasan.
You will never be able to stop pyschokillers because that is tantamount to stopping murder, pyschosis and human nature itself. But you CAN profile a Muslim male with a one-way ticket on an airliner who has been taking flying lessons funded from overseas who is associated with a radical branch of militant Islam.
46 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:39 am
I think the date is key. 2000. Bush — like ME — probably didn’t comprehend the true threat of militant Islam until he — like ME — saw it with his own eyes on 9/11.
It is the people who AFTER 9/11 still hurl out the p.c. garbage that allowed Hasan to wear the uniform until his date with the virgins arrived whom I simply do not understand.
47 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:55 am
Bush — like ME — probably didn’t comprehend the true threat of militant Islam until he — like ME — saw it with his own eyes on 9/11.
That’s very sad.
48 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:58 am
Raider1:
Another factor contributing to Bush’s shock may have been the fact that a majority of American Muslims had voted for him over Gore in 2000. Bush’s social conservatism had appealed to their innate social conservatism as Muslims.
49 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm
balconesfault:
Given that the body count racked up by Islamists worldwide exceeds all these other types of extremists by two orders of magnitude, I would be satisfied to just profile Islamists. We could save perhaps thousands of lives that way.
And given that the 9-11 hijackers used box-cutters, the plot to blow up ten airliners that was foiled a few years ago would have used liquid explosives, and McVeigh’s plot to blow up the Murrah building in OK City used ammonium nitrate explosives, restricting the use of guns wouldn’t stop these big-time terrorist attacks.
And do you really think that a terrorist, ready and willing to commit murder and hijacking, is going to be deterred by a gun control law? Give me a break.
50 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:06 pm
balconesfault: One more thing.
Many of Hasan’s victims were soldiers. Regulations forbade them to carry arms where they were at the time.
There’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with gun control. It disarms the law-abiding only.
Had those men been armed, they would not have been helpless victims. Indeed, knowing that these men were armed might have deterred Hasan from attacking them.
51 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm
raider1:
But it’s playing right into our hands.
If these liberals running the Government now–Pelosi and Obama–can’t keep America safe from Islamist terrorism, they’re going to invite a reaction from the GOP (allied with Independents) that will sweep them from power.
Unlike Bush on 9-11, they won’t be able to claim they were caught by surprise. It’s way past time for anybody to be surprised at Islamist terrorism.
52 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Another factor contributing to Bush’s shock may have been the fact that a majority of American Muslims had voted for him over Gore in 2000.
Let’s step back and admit – George Bush is no deep thinker.
And in 1996, when the White House Air Security team came out with a list of legislative proposals that the Republicans in Congress shot down as “over regulation” … Bush probably just agreed.
When Clinton blew up a plant that was suspected of manufacturing chem agents, Repubs jeered that it was “just an aspirin factory”, and Bush went along with it. If Spencer Abraham pushed for relaxing surveillance of Arab-American interests, Bush was a political creature.
It was to Republican political advantage to nay-say everything Clinton did to combat terrorism, and George Bush wasn’t the kind of independent thinker to be Presidential and change the dynamic.
53 LFC // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm
And do you really think that a terrorist, ready and willing to commit murder and hijacking, is going to be deterred by a gun control law?
No. The only place I see gun control laws having any effect is in urban areas with high rates of violence, and then probably only the prevention of straw purchases and tougher background checks for felons. I can’t see it having any real effect on terrorism.
The gun show loophole is insane. For domestic crime, this is an area that needs tighter regulation.
54 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Many of Hasan’s victims were soldiers. Regulations forbade them to carry arms where they were at the time.
There’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with gun control. It disarms the law-abiding only.
Had those men been armed, they would not have been helpless victims. Indeed, knowing that these men were armed might have deterred Hasan from attacking them.
Figured this was coming. The problem is that with a Hasan, who plans out everything and acts with the element of surprise, some people are going to get killed no matter what.
There was no deterrence. Hasan knew he was going to get shot. The only question was how many victims before that happened. My personal suspicion is that the revolver he carried, he intended to use on himself – but that he was surprised by being shot by the guard before he could use it.
You may have noted, had you carefully read what I wrote, that I do not object to people carrying guns for self-defense. I am troubled to extending the 2nd Amendment to allowing people to carry around arsenals.
If Hasan only had a revolver, the death toll would have been less. Had he had his automatic weapon and others around him had service revolvers, it would have been less, but likely still higher than had he only had a revolver. If others around him also had rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons and some had reacted in panic and fear from the unexpected attack … the carnage could have been even higher.
55 LFC // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm
If others around him also had rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons and some had reacted in panic and fear from the unexpected attack … the carnage could have been even higher.
True. Very few people, including the vast majority of soldiers, have no training in the proper use of a firearm within an enclosed space with numbers of innocents/friendlies potentially in the line of fire.
56 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Unfortunately it is only a matter of time beofre we are hit with a MAJOR Islamist attack on our soil. Then of course we will look back again to all the warning signs that we did when assessing the now-apparant crescendo of Islamist violence against the US leading up to 9/11. But who can say now we had no idea?
People on the left desperately wish that Muslims were just “regular Joes like us” but the fact is the very nature of Islam prohibits true inclusion, co-habitation and tolerance of any others but their own. Look at the stats and surveys. Most Muslims claim to be against violence…but how many will also disavow the justifications at least for the rage that triggers them? Where are the Muslim groups now (or any time a Muslim commits a heinous act of violence) calling press conferences LOUDLY denouncing such acts? A written statement maybe. But come on. If a Catholic slaughtered innocents solely in the name of Catholicism you would hear priests, even bishops vocally condemning such acts. I highly doubt such condemnations occured in our rapidly expanding mosques here today.
You cannot co-exist unless you RESPECT the others’ belief systems, heritage and traditions. That has going conitnuously one-way, West to East and it will continue to do so until enough sensible people with a clear understanding of what is going on say “enough!” Until then the liberals of the world take us all merrily like sheep to the slaughter. One Fort Hood at a time until a 9/11 X 1000 occurs.
57 "Fairly Benign" | America Watches Obama // Nov 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm
[...] Exit quote from David Frum: “Too bad Hasan didn’t try to smuggle a bottle of water aboard an aircraft. Then of course they’d have thrown the book at him.” No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)Bookmarks Related News Hoekstra: Hold Evidence in Ft. Hood ShootingThe Ft. Hood Hero the Media Has Chosen to IgnoreShooter in Fort Hood Massacre IdentifiedKSM Gave Up Info Identifying Key Al Qaeda Sleeper AgentFt Hood jihadi’s presentation on IslamCould He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? "No We Can’t!"Obama’s Talking PointsU.S. Intelligence Officials Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al-QaedaBlame the Guns(Video) American Muslims Praise Muslim’s Murder of Ft Hood Soldiers TAGS: Abc, Al Qaeda, Authorities, Cancer, Contact, Cracks, Ft Hood, Radicals, Recruiters, Shooter, Tenor, Walter Reed [...]
58 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm
LFC re Sinz’s complaint that there was no profiling:
“This makes no sense. ALL people in sensitive positions go through complete background checks. What the heck would profiling do differently?”
Amen.
59 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 1:36 pm
What woudl profiling do differently? Why it would OFFEND a minority and, perish the thought, we cannot risk hurting feelings even though lives are at stake!
This is country of whimps now.
60 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Local Muslim Leaders Condemn Fort Hood Attacks
Hoover Islamic Center condemns Fort Hood, Texas shootings
Muslims: Texas shooter’s actions unjustifiable
Imam condemns support of alleged Ft. Hood shooter
Muslims Community Condemns Shooting
For Inland Empire Muslims, feelings of outrage, sorrow and betrayal
61 Palin Doctrine // Nov 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I actually agree with David Frum. Wow. I especially like the part about the water bottle, David. Good stuff.
62 LFC // Nov 10, 2009 at 2:11 pm
<Raider1 said… If a Catholic slaughtered innocents solely in the name of Catholicism you would hear priests, even bishops vocally condemning such acts.
You mean like when it came to light that a number of Catholic priests had raped thousands of children, and people in positions of power (right up to the Pope in Father Maciel’s case) protected them? You mean like the the way Pat Robertson defended Charles Taylor because he had big investments in Liberia? You mean like the way Republicans supported huge spending increases by George W. Bush?
People have a tendency to either defend or at least pull into their shells when one of “their own” is implicated. It’s called a double standard.
You cannot co-exist unless you RESPECT the others’ belief systems, heritage and traditions.
Excuse me if, as an agnostic, I find this a bit ironic coming from a right-wing apologist. One only has to read the signs of the Tea Party pinheads to understand that there is, in fact, a huge problem of respect for others’ beliefs, and it’s coming mostly from the hard right.
What woudl profiling do differently? Why it would OFFEND a minority and, perish the thought, we cannot risk hurting feelings even though lives are at stake!
For people that already have to go through background checks for sensitive positions, what would profiling constructively do? It will require additional resources to perform and investigate the profile alone, so what can we reasonably expect it to find that the regular process will not? I want a bit of a cost/benefit analysis, and you hand me fluff. How about a serious answer?
63 Raider1 // Nov 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm
LFC I see you do not see the difference between Catholics commiting crimes and Catholics commiting crimes in the name of Catholicism. Your example would be more apropos is a Catholic priest raped children and claimed he was doing Jesus’s will and no priest comdemned that. Not defending such conduct obviously but your point spins off into a different tangent. And you set up a straw man and beat the crap out of him well.
And again, assuing your charges against Robertson are true just for argument’s sake, was Charles Taylor killing in the name of Jesus? No. Take that straw man number 2!
And then you get into rising cost of government and at the point you just fade into the mist with any pretense of logic you have left.
Please show me where someone committed a heinous act in God’s name and were protected by their Chirstian peers.
As for your little Tea Party alliteration, I am not sure what signs so offended you. There is a difference between believing differently than someone (as I believe differently than you and will tell you so) and believing your very existence is a blasphemy and thus am I perfectly within my rights to decapitate you.
You seem to have something against straw men. That’s fine because I see nothing here that contradicts my premise. Nice try though. (For a second you even sounded clever…for a second).
And I wasn’t aware that you needed to go through a background check to get on an airplane these days. I must have missed something since my last flight.
64 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 2:49 pm
LFC:
You don’t have to go through an extensive background check to become an Army major, unless you are going to require a security clearance for specialized work. (I don’t know whether you have to go through an extensive background check to become a psychiatrist.)
You don’t have to go through an extensive background check to travel by air as a civilian.
There are a zillion sensitive jobs in America (oil refineries, nuclear plants, subways, etc.), where you can find some type of employment without an extensive background check.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that if a guy dressed up like Osama bin Laden shows up at a nuclear power plant looking for work as an operator, you would have no problem with that?
65 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm
balconesfault:
Evidently, that’s what it was, a civilian factory:
http://www.slate.com/id/2098102/
Clinton, to his credit, did try to fight terrorism. He mentioned Osama bin Laden in one or two SOTU speeches, as I recall. But his methods were ineffectual.
I do NOT blame Clinton for failing. To try to fight terrorism and fail is not as bad as to rationalize terrorism altogether, as the Left was doing. Robert Scheer and Noam Chomsky attacked Clinton vehemently for his bombing of the Sudan factory and for his bombing of Iraq. (After 9-11 happened, Chomsky actually said it was no worse than the Sudan factory bombing.) And then there was the left-wing rag Salon.com:
66 LFC // Nov 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I see you do not see the difference between Catholics commiting crimes and Catholics commiting crimes in the name of Catholicism.
Cover-ups and protection were done in the name of protecting the church. Strawman argument #1 destroyed.
And again, assuing your charges against Robertson are true just for argument’s sake, was Charles Taylor killing in the name of Jesus? No.
Robertson was doing church business with church funds with Taylor. He threw away his religious scruples (if he ever had any) to protect his church’s cash flow. Strawman argument #2 destroyed.
Please show me where someone committed a heinous act in God’s name and were protected by their Chirstian peers.
Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. Tiller, and George W. “God speaks through me” Bush, the man who institutionalized torture as U.S. policy and falsified justification for a war that killed over 100,000.
And still no substantive answer as to what profiling would do for our security above our background check process. Typical hard-core righty. Asked for substance, you provide fluff. I think I’ll stick with sinz who actually has something to say.
67 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm
do NOT blame Clinton for failing. To try to fight terrorism and fail is not as bad as to rationalize terrorism altogether, as the Left was doing. Robert Scheer and Noam Chomsky attacked Clinton vehemently for his bombing of the Sudan factory and for his bombing of Iraq.
How about attacking Clinton not out of principle – which at least motivated Scheer and Chomsky – but out of pure political gamesmanship?
That’s certainly what he faced from Republican pundits and politicians, who would all have agreed in principle that we needed to defend ourselves from threats abroad – but then who mocked Clinton for bombing the aspirin factory, rushing to criticize faulty intelligence with the same vigor they applied to defending the faulty intelligence that led us to the much more costly and damaging Iraq invasion – who regularly denounced Clinton for bombing Iraq when they failed to allow our inspectors access to facilities (remember ‘wagging the dog’?) and then defended Bush for invading Iraq when our inspectors had full access?
What is worse – being a pacifist like Scheer and Chomsky, who believe in a moral standard that is unrealistic in our world … or being an out and out hypocrite willing to undermine the President not out of conviction – but out of a desire to see him fail?
And yes, you might find an author (Shapiro) in Salon who wrote something demonstrably stupid – now can you demonstrate that this actually had any influence on Democratic policy?
No, you can’t. That is why you cold-warriors stuck seeing Democrats as a bunch of yippies storming the Chicago Convention are really out of touch.
Certainly there are still peaceniks on the left. But to claim that they dominate the party, or even have Obama’s ear to any significant degree, is just partisanship chasing a reason to remain partisan, without link to reality.
68 Travis // Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Military Industrial Complex…name 1 time in the last 50 years when the US Military Industrial Complex didn’t get what they wanted. Fort Hood, sadly, is a lucky accident to them….one that will help extend the War on Terror. As always, follow the $.
69 Reason60 // Nov 10, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Getting back to Frum’s original post;
I am a white middle aged middle class Christian male; what prevents me from taking a handgun and walking into the local mall and emptying the clip on innocent civilians?
Not one thing. Suicidal spree killers, whether they are motivated by political ideology or barking voices in their heads are impossible to prevent.
Not one thing, except….I don’t want to. I am emotionally stable, enfranchised, I am connected to my community, and I see hope and opportunity by remaining within the civilization of sane people.
That can’t be said for Hasan.
Our strategy to acheive our goal of national security since 9-11 has been two-fold:
One, to “harden the target” , that is, to put up barriers to hijackers and to erect blast walls and concrete barriers;
Two, to wage war on Al-Quaida in hopes of destroying its ability to attack us;
Both strategies are failing.
No matter how “hard” our targets are, there will always be trusted people who are allowed within the perimeter; and there is no way to acheive a foolproof level of security screening in a free society. We would need a Stasi-like Security State in order to guarantee no more Hasans.
As to the second, we have failed by creating more enemies than we had at the beginning-
By any standards, we have created millions of enemies by our own actions- ever drone strike creates about a dozen more.
The fact that we can sit here and argue that the wars are necessary and a good thing, is irrelevant- a Pakistani civilian who saw his house get blown up with his family inside, isn’t going to be persuaded by an article in the Weekly Strandard.
Worse, our strategy is preedicated on the notion that we can reduce the terrorist threat to zero- that we can create a world where no terrorist can operate. This is madness. The whole point of terrorism is that is is easy- anyone can take a handgun and empty the clip into a cafe, and cause chaos. Our current strategy accepts no level of risk, and sets an insane level of safety that cannot be achieved.
The original goal was to capture Osama Bin Ladin; we have failed at that; but instead of acknowledging that, our leaders have widened and expanded our goals to become building a new regime in Iraq, building a nation out of thin air in Afghanistan, chasing Al-Quaida into Pakistan.
As a direct result of our Iraq poilicy, its archenemy Iran was emboldened, and is now rattling the nuclear saber; As a result, we are now being told that we must make war on Iran;
As a direct result of our Afghanistan policy, Pakistan is now teetering on civil war and anarchy; So we are being told that we must push deeper into pakistand and wage war on the Taliban there;
As a direct result of our Iraq/Af/Pak wars, the entire region is inflamed, and the hard line Islamist forces are on the march.
After 8 years of hardening targets and waging war against the 9-11 plotters, we are worse off than we werre on 9-12. Can anyone dispute the following points?
1. We have more enemies;
2. There are more unstable regions in the Muslim world;
3. Our enemies have more allies, and ;
4. We are further away from our goal of security than ever before.
If our true goal is national security, our actions so far have only produced failure. Hardening the targets, waging war on an illusory enemy that grows every time we attack it, is a losing strategy.
At some point we will have to accept that yes, there will be lawless areas of the world; that yes, there does exist the possibility that a lone crazed gunman can attack civilians. There has to be some acceptance of risk, some level of security that is not worth the cost.
Reducing our global footprint, allowing Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Pakistan to find their own way, and defending ourselves from reasonably preventable versus all possible threats, is a better course.
70 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 6:29 pm
After 8 years of hardening targets and waging war against the 9-11 plotters, we are worse off than we werre on 9-12. Can anyone dispute the following points?
The problem is, you’re fighting the “Elephants in Times Square” argument, and you’re dealing with the reptilian brain, and that’s a powerful combination to take on.
71 Travis // Nov 10, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Great points, Reason60..all of them. And I agree completely.
But now put yourself in the shoes of the President. Could you, as President, pull us out completely from these regions, thus asking the American people to accept these risks you describe? Especially knowing that your opponents (whether their motivation is political or otherwise) will come after you like gangbusters for “putting Americans at risk” (you and I both know that the risk of staying is > the risk of leaving, but public opinion may not agree)? If so, you would significant increase the liklihood of not getting reelected. I don’t think it’s right that this may be a significant motivating factor for a current President, but I think it’s fairly accurate.
I don’t believe Obama has the balls to pull us out, Bush certainly didn’t…will our next President?
72 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:04 pm
balconesfault, responding to Sinz, wrote: “Certainly there are still peaceniks on the left. But to claim that they dominate the party, or even have Obama’s ear to any significant degree, is just partisanship chasing a reason to remain partisan, without link to reality.”
If it weren’t for the silly attempts to impute the statements of a few individuals on the Left with limited influence to everyone who disagrees with conservatives and the GOP, he wouldn’t have much to say on this board.
73 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Travis,
I agree with you and Reason60, and it will be a big mistake if Obama doesn’t pull out. But, believe it or not, we may not be giving Bush enough credit. Maybe he didn’t commit more troops to Afghanistan because he knew it was an impossible task. Maybe he realized the best course was simply to rely on special forces. For both military and political reasons, he probably couldn’t admit this.
As for Obama’s motivations, I don’t know that he actually believes Afghanistan is a wasted effort and, therefore, is staying there for political reasons. There are many intelligent, influential people across much of the political spectrum who think Af/Pak can be “won.” They are wrong and they can’t even define winning, but they still believe this. No doubt, Obama has received advice from some of these people and he may be persuaded by them.
74 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Travis … you’re spot on.
There is virtually no political safe harbor in a rapid withdrawal, no matter how sensible such a policy might be. That said, Obama has made it clear that he plans to follow the Iraq timeline that was established in our agreement – withdrawing combat troops by mid-2010, withdrawing all troops by end of 2011. Afghanistan is more complex, since Obama has already met his campaign pledge and is being told that this might only be a fraction of what we’ll really need. Will Obama pull out of Afganistan, even if that’s the right thing? Probably not – at least not in his first term.
It is useful to remember that with a President McCain, we’d probably be dealing with some much more scary shit right now.
75 anniemargret // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Pulling out of Afghanistan now would require enormous moral courage. I can just hear the outrage from the Republicans, although staying will exact an enormous price to pay in death and more billions spent, without achieving their goals.
There is something about America that requires we stay for as long as we can stand it, until we exhaust ourselves in bloodshed, or when our backs are finally pinned against the wall, before we recognize the futility of fighting wars when all points are turned to failure. We waited until 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam before we finally pulled out; despite their knowledge that there weren’t going to ‘win’ but they kept sending troops. They are long dead, their names put on a wall in DC. Those last thousand that gave up their lives because politicians couldn’t stand the idea of not ’saving face.’
This is the great moral failure of war . There has to be a point where sanity and pragmatism reigns. I agree with “Reason60″…. more troops will die and more money will spent and we will not prove anything. This is not conventional warfare and it will not be won conventionally.
Better intelligence networking, strong allies, and put the money into the infrastructure and beef up security. He’s right…. you can never wipe out terrorism…like whack-a-mole, strike one down, and another rises in its place.
76 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Maybe he didn’t commit more troops to Afghanistan because he knew it was an impossible task.
An impossible task, perhaps – but for a different reason than you think, methinks. I don’t think it was possible for us to escalate in Afghanistan until we began pulling combat troops out of Iraq. Our troop rotations just couldn’t support it.
77 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:28 pm
This is the great moral failure of war
This is why we must be much more careful before entering into a war. Not everything is Grenada. The Pottery Barn warning is a good one.
78 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“I don’t think it was possible for us to escalate in Afghanistan until we began pulling combat troops out of Iraq. Our troop rotations just couldn’t support it.”
Good point. And, since he initially under-resourced Iraq, maybe he simply thought these wars could be won with minimal effort, which is why he fired Gen. Shinseki.
79 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 7:55 pm
And, since he initially under-resourced Iraq, maybe he simply thought these wars could be won with minimal effort
That’s what happens when you listen to Don Rumsfeld. That was pure Rumsfeld doctrine, that better technologies could lead to less boots on the ground, and that could facilitate us rolling through country after country in the Middle East in quick progression. If you’ll recall, not only did we ramp down our forces in Afghanistan too rapidly … but we did so in Iraq, as well.
Had we not gotten bogged down in Iraq, it is almost certain that Syria would have been our next target … and after that, Iran.
And that was the conflict with Shinseki, who had little respect for Rumsfeld’s ideas.
80 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm
balconesfault:
81 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Reason60:
Can we all agree that a 9-11 size attack (thousands dead, major structures in ruins, an economic hit to the economy of the U.S.) must be prevented no matter what the cost?
82 sinz54 // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:22 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
Obama is staying in Afghanistan because he boxed himself in with his own rhetoric.
On March 27–just 7 months ago–in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Obama called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” Obama’s words don’t leave very much wiggle room:
No hedging of bets there, eh?
And that’s what is so pathetic about Obama’s performance. He committed himself to a visionary future for Afghanistan, and boasted it was the product of a “comprehensive review”. But now that his hand-picked general has told him how much it will cost, he’s channeling SNL’s Emily Litella: “Never mind!”
83 anniemargret // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:27 pm
sinz54: Yes. But how? I am still astounded that NYC has not been hit again.. If you know New York you know thousands are on the streets all day every day and into the night. All it would take to bring stark terror to our soil again would be some suicide bombers with suitcase nukes, or simply blowing themselves up taking others with them.
Strategically placed in various points across the city, blowing up buses, cars, people, etc… they could bring Manhattan again to a standstill. That little old lady crossing the street with a shopping bag could be a terrorist.
Ergo…my point. I really do not see how one can prevent terrorist attacks unless there is a strong network of intelligence. Strong. Network. Which means allies…. That is the only way I can see. You simply cannot put enough police on the streets of major cities and think we can stop them.
84 MI-GOPer // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:07 pm
BlankHeaded muses: “It is useful to remember that with a President McCain, we’d probably be dealing with some much more scary shit right now.”
Bzzzt. Wrong again, my partisan hack. Under President McCain, there would have been a correctly managed surge in Afghanistan long before your dithering president could even make a decision. The War on Terror would still be a war on terror and not a War on Rush, War on Fox, War on Medicine, War on Private Insurance, War on Wall St, War on Middle Class Pocketbooks, War on Balanced Budgets, etc.
Not only that, but President McCain wouldn’t have shut-out his Secy of State because he feared his own political survival… he wouldn’t have chosen tax cheats and liars and Marxists to fill his Cabinet… he wouldn’t have doubled the national debt of 233+ yrs in less than 9 months… he wouldn’t have enshrined partisan rancor into the very fabric of Washington… he wouldn’t have asked fellow citizens to spy on each other and report all “contrary thinkers” to the Fishey Office at the WH for enrollment on the newest Enemies List… and, most importantly, President McCain wouldn’t have pissed off our allies to the extent that they’re unwilling to assist NATO in winning Afghanistan.
Plus, President McCain wouldn’t have done the Obama Muslim Apology Tour to the extent where the French look more resolute on Iran than the US govt… what a humiliation.
85 MI-GOPer // Nov 10, 2009 at 9:10 pm
But then, I forgot, BlankHead.
To you, that’s the right order of American contrition for not impeaching Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney and Bush.
Obama is both a cowardly, unprincipled man and a liar of pathological proportions. President McCain was and is, neither. But that’s what comes with an honorable military service and years of experience in public service.
86 Reason60 // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“Can we all agree that a 9-11 size attack (thousands dead, major structures in ruins, an economic hit to the economy of the U.S.) must be prevented no matter what the cost?”
This sounds reasonable…until you consider that the entire 9-11 attack was pulled off with nothing more sophisticated than boxcutters and guile.
The basic rule is, that the more simple and low tech an operation is, the easier it is to pull off- and conversely, the more difficult it is to prevent.
Terrorists have a saying- “A few dead, a lot watching.” All they really want is spectacular footage, and photogenic carnage. The 9-11 attacks were an insignificant trifle, from a military standpoint; but wildly successful from a terror standpoint.
Lets consider another scenario- A dozen gunman with assault rifles in the Mall of America at Christmastime, spraying wildly into crowds of shoppers, then turning the guns on themselves.
How can we prevent this? Assuming they don’t make stupid mistakes like creating a webpage called TheAttackOnTheMallOfAmerica dot com, or leave a trail of breadcrumbs from the gun store to their house, there really isn’t any way in a free society to prevent this. Our laws are written with the expectation that criminals don’t want to get caught, and suicidal plotters frustrate that.
Basically, unless we revoke 8 or 9 of the first 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, or turning our cities into armed fortresses, we can’t prevent this. I know it is unnerving to say this, but we do in fact live with a reasonable amount of risk every day.
The word here is reasonable; We can establish a reasonable level of security, we can take reasonable steps to deter obvious threats, but to acheive a level of security in which a simple, low tech attack cannot possibly be launched is actually impossible- at any cost.
And as for whether any politician can withdraw from the wars- I am pessimistic. We have created a culture in which bellicosity is confused with strength, and macho posturing with Churchillian determination. It reminds me of my readings on Imperial Rome, where every new Emperor was obligated to initiate a war somewhere, in order to validate his military credentials; and as often as not, the inexperienced fool would blunder through a campaign, only to lose men by the tens of thousands. Looking tough was more important than effective governance.
When I saw Bush strutting across the carrier deck in his flight suit, it made me think of mad Emperor Commodus who actually did pose as a gladiator, in an effort to impress the crowd.
In my more pessimistic days, I wonder how Franklin Roosevelt would ever get elected today-in a time of war, when we needed strong leadership- an elderly man in a wheelchair (who didn’t even wear a flag lapel pin!) would be torn to shreds on Fox news.
87 balconesfault // Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Sinz: Rather, my view was always that if you’re going to fight, make sure you know how to win. Don’t throw a blind punch and expect that the enemy will be impressed. Rather, the enemy will just get angrier–and more contemptuous of America for such a pathetically weak response.
Perhaps you can inform us what that punch was that we threw that brought down the Soviet Union?
If terrorism was such a big threat that Clinton kept mentioning it in his SOTUs, then didn’t it deserve a more comprehensive, forceful response than lobbying a few cruise missiles at ONE factory?
Response? You need proportionality and rationality to your response. Terrorism is not intended to bring down a greater foe. And it is not only, as some will allege, to dissuade a greater foe from doing things out of fear.
As we’ve seen time and time again in the last decade, terrorists act many times in order to provoke a response that will force people to take sides – with the aggressor, or with the terrorists. And raging around like a bull in a china shop ends up convincing a lot of people into into choosing up with the terrorists … as we unfortunately saw this last week up in Ft. Hood.
88 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 11, 2009 at 12:01 am
Sinz wrote: “Obama is staying in Afghanistan because he boxed himself in with his own rhetoric.”
In light of the fact that you have not yet declared yourself to be a psychic, forgive me for dismissing your pronouncement of Obama’s unstated motives. More likely, he made the above statement because he actually believed in the war in Afghanistan, which very well may be why he has not decided to pull out.
89 hro001 // Nov 11, 2009 at 2:32 am
Spartacus: Your original claim was “As for Obama’s motivations, I don’t know that he actually believes Afghanistan is a wasted effort and, therefore, is staying there for political reasons.”
Yet when Sinz provided you with evidence of your dear leader’s rhetoric, you dismissed it – and chose to move the goal-post. But that aside, if, as you now claim, Obama has “not decided to pull out” because he “actually believe[s] in the war in Afghanistan” perhaps you could explain why he’s now engaging in seemingly interminable consultations and discussions.
In your response, please bear in mind the “comprehensive policy review” that had concluded by March 27, and McCrystal’s August urgent recommendations in order to meet Obama’s “… clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.”
One certainly wonders: was he lying then, or is he lying now?
90 hro001 // Nov 11, 2009 at 2:47 am
Come to think of it … speaking of “the terrorists who oppose us”. Seems to me that Nidal Hasan had made it quite clear that he holds considerable admiration for “the terrorists who oppose us” – so much admiration that he chose to emulate them to the best of his ability; even to the point of evidently engaging in considerably less than pious activities prior to his planned murder rampage. I seem to recall reports that at least some of the 9/11 perpetrators had treated themselves to nights on the town, prior to their voyage to their respective 72 virgins. Hasan, however, was somewhat more restrained:
http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2009/11/nidal-hasan-starz-strip-club-devout.html
91 balconesfault // Nov 11, 2009 at 4:55 am
One certainly wonders: was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Then again, he could be serving the proper job of Commander in Chief – which is not simply to defer to the judgement of the commanders in the field.
It is quite possible to conceive of a strategy for defeating Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan that does not involve the US permanently occupying Afghanistan. It is not possible for America to militarily control every country on earth where Al Qaeda may set up operations, and the Commander in Chief must consider the sustainability of any operations that we commit to.
92 sinz54 // Nov 11, 2009 at 9:23 am
SpartacusIsNotDead:
But when did he make that determination in the first place? Evidently it was long ago, because all through his 2008 campaign, he hammered on that theme too.
As President, Obama made that speech because he still believed we needed to win in Afghanistan. But the speech went further. Obama said that he was announcing a policy to achieve that goal, a policy he claimed he had reached through a careful process of evaluation and consultation with his advisers. Evidently that process must not have worked very well, because only 7 months later, he has to start all over again. Not on new tactics, but on a whole new policy.
Going all the way back to his 2008 campaign, Obama drew a clear line in the sand on Afghanistan, a line he claimed he had carefully determined was sound. There is no way he can scuttle away from it just 7 months later without appearing weak and a flip-flopper as well. In that case, the GOP should demand an accounting of just what changed between March and now to cause such a huge shift in policy–and why Obama didn’t consider such scenarios back in March. (Didn’t Obama know last March that there was corruption in the Afghan government? He just found that out last month?)
93 Independent // Nov 11, 2009 at 10:03 am
“Bzzzt. Wrong again, my partisan hack. Under President McCain, there would have been a correctly managed surge in Afghanistan long before your dithering president could even make a decision. The War on Terror would still be a war on terror and not a War on Rush, War on Fox, War on Medicine, War on Private Insurance, War on Wall St, War on Middle Class Pocketbooks, War on Balanced Budgets, etc.
Not only that, but President McCain wouldn’t have shut-out his Secy of State because he feared his own political survival… he wouldn’t have chosen tax cheats and liars and Marxists to fill his Cabinet… he wouldn’t have doubled the national debt of 233+ yrs in less than 9 months… he wouldn’t have enshrined partisan rancor into the very fabric of Washington… he wouldn’t have asked fellow citizens to spy on each other and report all “contrary thinkers” to the Fishey Office at the WH for enrollment on the newest Enemies List… and, most importantly, President McCain wouldn’t have pissed off our allies to the extent that they’re unwilling to assist NATO in winning Afghanistan.
Plus, President McCain wouldn’t have done the Obama Muslim Apology Tour to the extent where the French look more resolute on Iran than the US govt… what a humiliation.”
nicely said. a president mccain would have never gotten us this deep into trouble, this fast. what’s the first rule of politics obama forgets? quit digging the hole deeper.
94 Independent // Nov 11, 2009 at 10:13 am
sinz54, you can argue coherently with balcones and the other trolls here but they’ll just move the goalposts once again, dismiss your arguments, take the least argument and turn it upside down in a ridiculous restatement or put words in your mouth. it’s their standard method of operation.
at the end of the day, they know that truth is their worst enemy and simple facts are their undoing. like when obama’s white house got caught slamming cheney’s supposed lack of constructive involvement with afghanistan only to find out that the obama white house adopted the cheney report and strategy and asked cheney to keep the report’s implementation silent and secret from the public.
oooops!
these guys are fumbling faster than the 1938 chicago bears… who hold the world record for the most fumbles in a season.
someone needs to ask john f kerry… is a hopeless fumbler worse than a fumbling flip-flopper?
95 balconesfault // Nov 11, 2009 at 11:45 am
Independent he wouldn’t have doubled the national debt of 233+ yrs in less than 9 months
Huh? Did the national debt just jump to 20 trillion dollars in the last 9 months?
I would have thought someone besides Independent would have noticed this.
Do your documentation, man – there might be a Pulitzer in this for you!
96 mlindroo // Nov 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm
> Marcus…youtalk about the populations of Western Europe and NA
> yet you what can you tell me about the DEMOGRAPHIC trends of same—especially
> Western Europe? What will be the % of young Muslims to old non-Muslims in
> two generations? I’ll let you do the research (since you obviously have done none
> of your own up to this point). Then let me know if this is “inanity” or just the facts.
These kinds of predictions are essentially pure conjecture — not fact. One cannot simply extrapolate from current trends and determine the percentage of hard-line Muslims decades from now.
It’s certainly true that countries such as Sweden, U.K., France and the Netherlands have a large immigrant population (15% or more), but far from all are Muslims and those who are tend to come from relatively liberal countries such as Turkey. Bruce Bawer et al. assume Muslims will never become an integrated part of Western society, that they will retain a distinct fundamentalist and intolerant culture essentially forever and at the very least turn their local enclaves in cities such as Rotterdam into fundamentalist enclaves. At worst they will subjugate entire nations. I don’t buy it…the “newcomers” are among the poorest and least influential members of society and they are geographically isolated from their countries of origin. Today’s immigrants are not at all compatible to e.g. the Goths, Vandals or Lombards of the 6th century or the Normans of the 10th century and even those did not survive as independent ethnic groups in the long run.
Now, this does not mean that I have absolutely no qualms about immigration from Muslim areas… Far from it. Some policies such as allowing male Muslim immigrants to import wives (who have no formal education, do not speak the local language and tend to become housewives almost entirely shut off from society) from abroad are just plain stupid and I am glad the Danes ended this policy. I would encourage vigilance rather than hysteria, though.
MARCU$
97 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm
hro001,
I don’t fully understand the 2nd paragraph in your post @ 89.
Sinz first claimed Obama was boxed into adding more troops by his strong rhetoric on the war. This implies that Obama does not actually believe in the war, but is now forced to support it because of his earlier rhetoric. I responded by saying Obama may have used such strong rhetoric because he actually believes in the war. Therefore, he’s not “boxed in” by his rhetoric; his strong rhetoric is a product of his beliefs, possibly. I don’t know what’s in his heart, but the fact that, as of today, he has not pulled out of Af/Pak makes his actions consistent with his rhetoric. Aside from thoughtless partisanship, is there any reason to doubt his words when they’ve been consistent and have matched his actions?
As for Obama’s decision to now re-evaluate the strategy in Af/Pak, this is a very good thing. If he was wrong 7 months ago when he committed full-scale, it would be foolish and evil to continue on that course merely because he’s afraid people are going to consider him weak because he changed his mind. Moreover, there is very little reason to believe that more troops in Af/Pak will produce an achievable goal.
I know it’s a rather foreign concept to the conservative mind, but “staying the course” when the course is wrong will never produce a good outcome. I think Lincoln and FDR are perfect of examples of how it’s better to keep changing course if that’s what it takes to get it right than to stay on the wrong course merely because you don’t want to be criticized for changing your mind.
98 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Sinz wrote: “But when did he make that determination in the first place? Evidently it was long ago, because all through his 2008 campaign, he hammered on that theme too . . . Obama drew a clear line in the sand on Afghanistan, a line he claimed he had carefully determined was sound. There is no way he can scuttle away from it just 7 months later without appearing weak and a flip-flopper as well.”
He almost certainly did make that determination a long time ago. For most of the past 8 years most people across the political spectrum believed a stable, self-sustaining government that kept the Taliban and Al Qaeda from control was possible, provided the U.S. made a sufficient commitment. Only recently, have many thoughtful, influential people started to question this premise. So, I don’t understand why it’s doubtful that he formed this opinion awhile ago.
As for flip-flopping, getting wrong the first time is no reason to get it wrong again – particularly when getting it wrong the second time means more American soldiers will die in a fruitless cause. See Vietnam. I guess as a conservative and true patriot, you probably disagree with this.
99 balconesfault // Nov 11, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I guess as a conservative and true patriot, you probably disagree with this.
Oddly, sadly enough, there are patriotic conservatives who believe that we really are weakened as a nation by changing our mind … even when it is clear that we are on the wrong path. The thinking is that we send signals to our enemies that we can be defeated, and signals to our friends that our resolve can’t be trusted … and thus it is worth the death of many more men in a futile cause to uphold some measure of reputation and honor.
100 Independent // Nov 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm
sinz54, you can argue coherently with balcones and the other trolls here but they’ll just move the goalposts once again, dismiss your arguments, take the least argument and turn it upside down in a ridiculous restatement or try to put words in your mouth.
it’s their standard method of operation.
at the end of the day, they know that truth is their worst enemy and simple facts are their undoing.
like when obama’s white house got caught slamming cheney’s supposed lack of constructive involvement with afghanistan only to find out that the obama white house adopted the cheney report and strategy and asked cheney to keep the report’s implementation silent and secret from the public.
oooops!
these guys are fumbling faster than the 1938 chicago bears… who hold the world record for the most fumbles in a season.
someone needs to ask john f kerry… is a hopeless fumbler worse than a fumbling flip-flopper?
and while we’re on the subject of the least patriotic senator ever to serve in the senate, john-made-up-medals-kerry, i wonder if he’s the main guy advising obama to cut-and-run from afghanistan? it is what the democrats do best. plus, leave our allies high and dry on a whim.
the real problem the trolls have here is that they share nidal hasan’s dislike of america and distrust of the american military. they think the islamic terrorists are justified in killing innocent americans. for years we heard these trolls say that bush and cheney blew up the twin towers and then planted the evidence to make war on muslims. hasan is every bit as hateful as the garden variety troll found on this site… remember, for most of these trolls, the was no reason to be proud of america until the obama got elected.
101 Obama Just Dithering on Afghanistan « Cynical Synapse // Nov 13, 2009 at 4:05 pm
[...] there don’t have the right equipment, choosing not to decide would be criminal. It would be tantamount to failing to take action with MAJ Hasan’s warning signs Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Obama, Just Make a Decision on [...]
102 balconesfault // Nov 13, 2009 at 5:40 pm
sinz54, you can argue coherently with balcones
actually, sinz and I have some very good discussions. there are things we can agree on, and we both understand where there are some sharp dividing lines between our ideologies. aside from his occassional lapse into labeling people who disagree with him as people who want to weaken America (rather than acknowledging that they simply have a very different viewpoint of what it is that will strengthen or weaken America going forward into the 21st century) I find him very reasonable.
I’ve actually noticed a lot more opprobrium and invective hurled Sinz’s way from the right than from the left lately. For example, who do you think wrote this:
“sinz hates palin or it bitter because his inflatable girlfriend wont give him any.. got it — you hate women, you hate conservatives, teabags, polls, yada yada yada”
or
“well thank you very much for trying to shove those words into my mouth, sinz54… i didn’t say dulles was a dove and I didn’t say eisenhower was a dove either. that’s your selective spinning at full tilt”
or
“Nixon put the flag on the moon, sinz54. You can bow down with your head toward the west and worship facing Yorba Linda. Of course, you can’t. That would get someone from Boston out to your home to yank off that Kennedy decoder ring you wear with such pride, no?”
You must log in to post a comment.