No Friendly Skies for You!

See how they run like pigs from a gun,
see how they fly
I'm crying
--I am the Walrus, The Beatles

I never expected, Perry, to see you
reduced down from a full-grown pestilence
to such a frivolous fraction of a man
--The Lonesome Road, O. Henry

Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
You were only waiting
for this moment to arise
--Blackbird, The Beatles
__________________

Ranger has always predicted that one of the more insidious results of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks would be the possibility of the U.S. government shooting down suspect civilian aircraft justified by the miasma of fear which has become our current psychological climate.

The best thing a terrorist group could achieve would be to force the U.S. to do its dirty work by reactively shooting down one of its own commercial airliners. Such a visible show of disregard would surely cause the traveling public to give pause.

Frontier Flight 623 carrying 116 passengers and crew was recently shadowed by two fighter jets until it made its landing in Detroit -- why were these jets on-station? They are useless in civilian skies for any task other than shooting Flight 623 out of the sky. The scenario seems to confirm the hypothesis that U.S. policymakers will shoot down distressed U.S. airliners (Military Jets Safely Escort NYC, Detroit Flights).

The whole hopey-changy thing has not worked out well. People are losing faith in the economy underpinning this fiasco, and they're neither buying nor investing. The economy remains grounded on the tarmac. How much worse if people remained static out of fear for their bodily safety -- a self-imposed rigor mortis in a flat-lined economic state?

Think about it: Dying on a flight to Detroit -- now that's some terrorism.

Hey You!

Vigilia Aeternus (Eternal Vigilance),
Motto of the Marine AT Battalion

There was a checkpoint Charlie
He didn't crack a smile
But it's no laughing party
When you've been on the murder mile
--Oliver's Army, Elvis Costello
___________________

After 10+ years of war, we are still training up and calling Reserve Forces Soldiers to active duty without a 100% certainty of their mission:

Capt. Juan Cristales, the company's inspector/instructor, said right now it's not 100-percent clear what or where the company's mission will be. Cristales is an active-duty officer with real-world deployment experience who has trained this reserve unit for the last two years (Marines say goodbyes before heading to the Middle East).

In the old Army days we used to call this the "Hey You" roster, which meant the First Sergeant would grab whomever, whenever the need arose. These 32 Marines are victims of a cosmic "Hey You!" moment. This is no way to run a war, not even a phony one.

How can a unit train for two years if they do not know their assigned mission until after activation? The military should not operate in this manner. Further, Capt. Cristales is described as having "real-world deployment experience," but is there such a thing as "non real-world deployment experience"? Is there an alternate universe where some Soldiers deploy? Is that the same place Ranger's socks get sucked into when they fail to emerge in matching pairs from the dryer?

A USMC Anti-Terrorism Battalion sounds really cool, but how does this translate into "real world experience"? Has any USMC Anti-Terrorism battalion member ever killed or captured a hard-core al-Qaeda operative? Putting a "IX" and "XI" on a unit crest flanking the Twin Towers does not make it so.

While no hard core terrorist has been apprehended by this unit, assuredly they would function well in an unconventional or guerrilla war (UW/GW) or Counterinsurgency environment. However, neutralizing local threats to Afghanistan and Iraq is not the same as neutralizing Terrorists aimed at The Homeland ™. For this mission, the USMC Anti-Terrorism battalion is an exercise in show, only.

Terrorists are not eliminated by blunt force trauma.

The Not O.K. Corral

--Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957)

Lord, I don't care where they...
Bury my body
Cause my soul is gonna live
With God, oh, oh, oh yeah
--Bury My Body, The Animals

There ain't no grave
Can hold my body down
There ain't no grave
Can hold my body down
--Ain't No Grave, Johnny Cash

Ranger Joke of the Day:
There is a new drink in SOF clubs called the OBL:
It's two shots and a splash
___________________

Ever since my involvement with terrorism in the military and as a Department of Army civilian (DAC), the reaction has always been to militarize the problem, thereby simplifying it via reductionism.

The standard 0-3 reply was, "shoot 'em and kill 'em," to which Ranger would reply to blank looks, "When was the last time a GI shot a terrorist?" The U.S. has not progressed beyond that brute reaction, and now a GI has shot a terrorist. We should consider the response logically versus emotionally, remembering that two Navy SEALS from Seal Team 6 are hardly standard issue GIs, just as Osama bin Laden was hardly a standard terrorist.

Terrorists by nature are not gun fighters. Not because they lack courage but because they have no need to be. Gun fights are simply not evocative enough for them to risk for the minimal payback. Terrorists that use guns are devolved rather than evolved groups.

A terrorist will never willingly engage in a gunfight save in desperation. It is not to their advantage as they lose initiative, the ace-in-the-hole of a terrorist. They select the time and place of their operations, which will always be against a soft target, ensuring their success. Terrorists will always lose when engaging a government force, and will never do so willingly. This fact defines terrorism: Seeking success with minimal risk and expenditure of assets.

Compare the cost of the operations of 9-11-01 with the $100's of Billions spent to hunt down and kill OBL. The crashed helicopter alone outspent by orders of magnitude the entire operations of 9-11 -- where is the cause for rejoicing in that?

Guns are used by low-level groups for training and criminal activity to finance the group's operations. These groups and activities are easily countered, hence such scenarios are eschewed; if there is gun play it is by low-level, expendable members. Al-Qaeda training camps turn out these people on the cheap, much as Ft. Benning turns out riflemen daily.

Probably, al-Qaeda need not kidnap or rob banks as it enjoys a widespread passive support network contributing funds to its coffers. Since al-Qaeda operations are usually performed by unpaid personnel, operating costs can also be minimized. When was the last time any U.S. warrior or intel-type worked gratis?

Moreover, these riflemen are NOT terrorists -- they are utilized as insurgents and low-level guerrilla types to fight Low Intensity Conflicts (LIC), and are expendable as used condoms. They are the personnel who kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are neither Terrorists nor evil incarnate. They can be called warriors just as easily as an Army PV3 riflemen.

We mistakenly think we are killing Terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are actually just administering post factum abortions upon militants. Militants may be affiliated with and sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but they are not terrorists -- al-Qaeda operatives are too valuable to waste in firefights. Just as the director of the FBI does not engage in street shootouts, so don't high-level al-Qaeda assets. Militants ≠ terrorists.

After Trillions of dollars expended, the U.S. is forced into basic gunfighter mode (which al-Qaeda leadership is smart enough to avoid), and is ecstatic over killing OBL in the most famous rifle shootout of May 2011.

If U.S. policymakers cannot think beyond armed response and individual gunfights, then we have lost the "war on terror". Every death we inflict diminishes the U.S. both morally and financially; each is a negative tally on our scoreboard.

If terrorism is warfare, it must be more than individual gunfights with unarmed adversaries.

JRA

How much pain they have cost us,
the evils which have never happened
--Thomas Jefferson

Had a brother at Khe Sanh
fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there he's all gone
--Born in the U.S. A., Bruce Springsteen

No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a cyclone Ranger
--Turning Japanese, The Vapors
_________________

There is not much to say about the nuclear meltdown and concurrent problems in Japan. Not much directly, but indirectly it provides entree to a blast from the past, this one pertaining to Japanese terrorism.

The now-defunct international terror group, The Japanese Red Army (JRA) was synergistic and operated and cross-fertilized with other transnational groups, behaviors which elevated them to a significant threat level which they actualized on several occasions. They were a focus of law enforcement throughout the free world, though then, as now, we overplayed their actual threat capabilities.

All the little nasty JRA acolytes -- both active and passive -- were of long-term concern to the average Japanese citizen. However, their actual damage was minimal when compared with a real and imminent threat such as confronts Japan now.

Who would have imagined in 1975 that nuclear power plants would pose a much larger and persistent threat than the national terrorist group which was, in today's parlance, a kinetic as opposed to a static threat? Terrorists are and were a much sexier news story than, say, a concrete nuclear energy plant. Che and Patty (SLA) still grace T-shirts; not so, Three Mile Island.

Who in America would say that BP's Deepwater Horizon "spill" is a greater threat to our well-being than al-Qaeda?

It is by our own heedless negligence and incompetence we wreak more havoc than those who would wish us ill. A recent mid-flight "Hole in Southwest Jet Attributed to Cracks" could have been prevented with due-diligence by the maintenance and inspection teams. If shoe-bomber Reid and crotch-bomber Abdulmutallab had placed their devices on top of the aircraft, they could not have done as much damage as our own neglect. As friend FDChief says, this shouldn't be happening in an industrialized nation, not in the U.S.

All of the major threats we face are of our own making, and eclipse the threat that we call terrorism.

Last Stop Willoughby

--Keeping Akron safe

Mr. Williams's protection fell away from him
and left him a naked target.
He's been cannonaded this afternoon
by all the enemies of his life.
His insecurity has shelled him,
his sensitivity has straddled him with humiliation
--A Stop at Willoughby, The Twilight Zone

--I only know you got the wrong man.
--Information Transit got the wrong man.
I got the right man.
The wrong one was delivered to me as the right man,
I accepted him on good faith as the right man.
Was I wrong?
--Brazil (1985)

________________

While recently visiting my aged parents it was necessary to pass through four large airports.

There was a Transportation Security Administration warning playing on a continuous loop in each: "If you see anything strange [etc.], report this to the nearest law enforcement officer." Problem was, in two of the four airports, there were no armed law enforcement types visible. In Akron-Canton, I saw a Deputy Sheriff, but Akron is not exactly a threat environment.

The next point: What will an armed cop do to protect us from an IED, or even a camel-mounted machine gun? If a terrorist is going to conduct an attack in an airport it will be done in the blink of an eye, as it was in Lod, Rome and others. However, the reality is, we will never see such an attack in the good old Homeland.

The threat in the airports of America does not originate with the travelers, but rather with the vendors.

All of our airports have inside the security zone commercial activities that have thousands of workers who bypass the outer and inner security belts with ease. This is the weakness of our system. If there is a bomb or weapon smuggled, it will be performed by an insider who is able to bypass the TSA security theatre.

Even so, it is doubtful that any terror organization, to include al-Qaeda, has the ability or operational status to carry out such an attack at this time. For a terrorist attack to have any significance, it must be sensational and symbolic; such a bombing would lack that distinction.

Al-Qaeda will use disposable people like shoe-bomber Reid or crotch bomber Abdulmutallab as a means of keeping pressure upon our infrastructure, but that threat is consistently low order. The supposed bombers that the U.S. has arrested are naught but actors in the terror theatrics.

Actors just as surely as is the TSA organization an eye candy effort which, on a daily basis, closes the barn door after the horse is out

ETA

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna symbol

Ranger Comment of the Day:
ETA is 50 years old. They have survived both
French and Spanish efforts to destroy them.
Ranger will be long gone when al Qaeda
celebrates its 50th.
And celebrate they will.
_______________

fuck marx and mao fuck fidel and nkrumah and
democracy and communism fuck smack and pot
and red ripe tomatoes fuck joseph fuck mary fuck
god jesus and all the disciples fuck fanon nixon
and malcom fuck the revolution fuck freedom fuck
the whole muthafucking thing
all i want now is my woman back
so my soul can sing
--Feeling Fucked Up, Etheridge Knight

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism,
Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, That-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m
--Give Peace a Chance, John Lennon
______________

The Basque separatist group ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna: Basque Homeland and Freedom) had an explosive reappearance on the national scene recently after detonating several bombs in recognition of the group's 50th anniversary.

ETA's reappearance brings several issues to the fore. First, Spain sees this terrorist group rightly as criminals, and Spain's former justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar says they will have their day in court.

"Their only future is the dock of the accused, justice, conviction and jail," he said, though he warned that while the group had been weakened it would always prove attractive to disillusioned youth.

"'No society is free or has immunity from the threat of organized crime and its capacity to attract members from the marginalized and socially excluded elements in society,' he said (Car Bomb in Spain Proves ETA's Resiliance)."

Aguilar understands these truisms about terrorist movements.

Another point of ETA's story is that is that though their "No. 1 leader was nabbed in France last year" and his replacement lasted only weeks, these actions could not keep the group down.

Historically, killing or attritting the leadership only leads to new generations which arise to assume the mantle of leadership, thereby filling in the void. And usually, the new generations are more violent than the preceding. It is a dance of death in which we foolishly believe that we control the orchestra. We may control government violence, but we do not set the beat.

The groups are then forced to cross-fertilize in order to gain experience and training, in addition to funding. This ensures an escalation of violence.

Another revealing fact comes in the news coverage itself. In short order, ETA is referred to as a "separatist group," "insurgency," murderers, savages and lunatics, a "major armed group," "soldiers" and "organized crime."

Not once in the AP story were they termed "terrorists". ETA knows who they are, but it is obvious reporters can't define them. It is the same squeamishness they bring to discussions of al Qaeda or the Taliban. This is a key issue -- understanding and defining terrorism and the resultant groups is the key to countering the threat.

"In its half-century of existence, ETA has outlasted every other major armed group in Europe, including the IRA in Northern Ireland, Italy's Red Brigades and Germany's Baader-Meinhof." Read "major armed groups" to mean terrorists.

However, ETA and the IRA have a glimmer of legitimacy, as they can be construed as separatists and in possession of a legitimate political agenda [American Revolution, anyone?] The same cannot be said of RAF, Red Brigades, Action Directe and Baader-Meinhof, all of whom had little claim to legitimate objectives.

Those groups were nihilistic in nature. Al Qaeda is also nihilistic, as their violence is theatre and for violence's sake alone, and lacks any legitimacy. However, the Taliban has an understandable agenda. They want a homeland that is (fill in the blank) in which they are in charge of their destiny. This is as legitimate as the actions of Saudi Arabia's government; the only difference is, the Taliban doesn't sit on oil reserves.

Nobody but an idiot could believe that they could ever destroy our way of life, nor should it be presumed that they want to. Nihilist groups cannot be defeated by armies. The Euro terror groups were destroyed by coordinated police and law enforcement intelligence.

Both Germany and France had major anti-terror functions centralized in their national police and tactically in their respective border police functions. The military did not enter into the equation.

It is not correct to say that ETA has outlasted the IRA. It is safer to say that the IRA is not active at this time, but rather lies dormant. The IRA is not, however, dead. The IRA has elected to resolve their issues in a political manner.

"Politically, ETA also suffered a serious setback earlier this year when Basque voters for the first time chose a government allied with the ruling Socialists, rejecting a party that favored greater autonomy. Several parties closely allied with ETA were banned from taking part."

ETA and sympathizers are denied a political avenue to express their grievances and agendas because they are effectively barred from the political process. Ranger sees this as a needless incitement to violence, since political expression is being blocked by Spanish policy. Terrorism is often a tool of desperation.

"In early 2007, Spanish authorities told AP that they believed ETA had only about 15-20 'soldiers' left, supported by perhaps 100 more collaborators who would give them shelter and other logistical support."

It is interesting that the Spanish government considers ETA a criminal enterprise, yet calls their shooters, "soldiers". Shooters for terrorist groups are not soldiers.

Terminology must be applied properly in order to define the problem. Definitions are mandated prior to development of counter strategies. A large percentage of terrorist operations take place in the media, and their aura is enhanced by misstatements and vague notions.

The larger point is that we have insurgencies, separatist movements, crazies, criminals, crusaders, religious zealots on all sides, and all manner of ideological groups: vivisectionists, environmentalists, eco-terrorists. . . and then attempt to define the problem with a simplistic overlay like terrorism. Simple it is not.

Every nation has a distinct approach and orientation, and elements within nations have different notions as to the problem, as well. U.S. policy is riven -- the Department of Defense, Justice, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSC, NSA and BB King all have different takes and approaches to the subject. We can't agree internally, but gladly attempt to impose our viewpoint on other nations.

Terrorism just ain't that simple.

Terrorists Are People, Too

Go on nail me for treason - arrest me for conspiracy
But I know it’s no crime to desire
That my people should be free
--The Day They Set Jim Larkin Free,
Black 47

The ball is round, a game lasts 90 minutes,
everything else is pure theory. Off we go!
--Lola Rennt (1998)

Who are the people in your neighborhood?
They're the people that you meet,
When you're walking down the street,
They're the people that you meet, each, day
--Sesame Street theme, Bob McGrath,
______________

This is the reason the chaps at SOCNET love me.

Ranger encountered a title at the bookstore yesterday: "All You Ever Learned About Sex is Wrong." Substitute "Terrorism" and you have the history of the Bush and Reagan years vis-a-vis the topic.

Always fascinated at the misunderstandings concerning transnational and international terrorism at policy level in the U.S. systems, Ranger will take the occasion of the recent release of Red Army Faction (RAF) member Christian Klar as a hopping off point.

RAF was a German terrorist group in the 70's and 80's that had no more than 30 active members at its apex. Their passive and active support was obvious, since they moved freely in their chosen area of operation. They had broad quiet admiration and sympathy among Germans. The group disbanded in 1998.

Like al-Qaeda, the RAF had only a vague concept of their organizational goals. "It subscribed to Marxist-Leninist ideology and sought to overthrow the capitalist West German government and to fight perceived U.S. imperialism" (International Herald Tribune). However, they never had the level of support to achieve their grandiose goal, nor did they have a governing plan. Unlike al-Qaeda, many of the founding members of RAF were nihilists.

It is interesting to consider terrorism within the context of its legitimization within a population. The RAF's raison d'etre was nebulous and self-aggrandizing. Compare that with a group like the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which has a chance of being part of a Northern Ireland power structure. Al-Qaeda seems to have a discrete mission statement which, if achieved, would properly cause the group to become superannuated. Both IRA and al-Qaeda have a broader base of support and historical political relevance.

Nobody, including the RAF members themselves, believed they had a match's chance in a windstorm to overthrow the FRG. Germans (and Americans) are too fat, dumb and happy to accept revolution. Because of this internal pacification, RAF did not progress on the spectrum of conflict, unlike other more successful terrorist groups.

At worst, the RAF were a minor irritant to the FRG, and they did claim responsibility for 34 deaths. They were like a collective serial murderer.

The FRG was successful in its police and legal approach, following democratic procedures to deal with these miscreants. This approach is consistent with that of Italy, Spain and France toward their own incidents of terrorism.

My point is terrorism can be dealt with by a democratic society through appropriate police and judicial channels. Even convicted terrorists must someday be released from prison once they have served their sentence and be reintegrated into society. This may strike discord into some hearts, but this is what makes democracy a fact rather than a theory.

As "Matthew Alexander," U.S. inetrrogator and author of "How to Break a Terrorist" said on NPR yesterday, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was just an illiterate thug until he became radicalized while in jail late in life. Conceivably, the reverse can happen, as well. Call it a jailhouse epiphany. Call it 20 years behind bars. Reform is possible, but certainly, doing one's time is the reality. If you don't get the death sentence, chances are you'll rejoin the rest of us at some point.

For the hardcore who demand to jail them for life, consider how you'd like to spend your tax dollars. We believe there are some people who deserve death, and some who deserve life in prison, forever. But their numbers are few.

If it were possible, and the others could come out on the other side and join you in shouldering the burden, wouldn't you rather that than pay to house them for the rest of their days?

Which feeds your society better: vindictiveness and vengeance, or work and integration?

Leap of Faith

"He had, in fact, got everything from the church
and Sunday School, except, perhaps, any longing whatever
for decency and kindness and reason."

"A proper school should teach. . .the Hebrew Bible
as interpreted by men superbly trained to ignore contradictions,
men technically called 'Fundamentalists.'"
--Elmer Gantry, Sinclair Lewis (1927)

A twelve-gauge, double-barreled, grenade-launcher of LOVE!
--Leap of Faith (1992)
_________

Sitting at the Mayo Clinic the past two days and being post-operative leads one to introspection. Thinking on morality inevitably leads one to religion. For us here at Ranger, this is not the little personal religion, but the larger Religion that overtakes a people.

Ranger has always proposed that terrorism is a total cultural phenomenon that entails economic, religious, political, economic, sociological and psychological elements. This applies to most typical terrorists groups, like the Irish Republican Army and ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom), which are but two long-term examples of the genre.

But we have encountered a deviation from the old partisan groups with our created Phony War on Terror (PWOT©). The U.S. has fabricated an enemy cut of one cloth, variously called Islamofascism, Islamic extremism or radical Islam. We see them as the motivating force behind Middle Eastern terrorism. But this impulse is only relevant to al-Qaeda and related sympathetic Wahhabi elements.

In fact, the terrorists, or what we call terrorists, fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not of this fabric. Most elements of the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency are fighting simply because the U.S. is an invading army of occupation, with no ideological ax to grind beyond that of expulsing the occupiers.

This behavior is justifiable, understandable and sanctioned by international law. Bottom line: the U.S. invaded a country without being aggressed upon and targeted the Taliban, a group which never did attack U.S. interests (though they did provide safe haven to the actual menace, which is the terrorist group al Qaeda, as does Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.)

In contrast to the Taliban, all the extreme Islamists targeting U.S. interests have one shared characteristic, from leader Osama bin Laden down to the lowliest recruit. They are all willing to defer their happiness to the supernatural plane. They are willing to forgo material gratification in this life with the goal of entering paradise as an honorably felled warrior.

In effect, the earthly plain is of little consequence and the battle therefore assumes eternal and cosmic proportions. Powerful stuff.

Sure, the Christian ideology retains quaint notions of resurrections and Elysian Fields, but for most, the concept of eternity is only concretized in the form of a vain concept of personal genetic legacy -- a quasi-scientific projection of one's own gametes. But that is as sure as most folks get. The metaphysical persistence of one's essence beyond death is a hope residing on a tenuous faith. Most are willing to hedge their bets in choosing belief in the eventuality of this gossamer afterlife, but this is a far less certain call.

So how does the U.S. true believer, who has most faith in the almighty dollar, address these true Muslim believers? We send troops to fight them, troops who have access to computer porn, but who aren't allowed to drink alcohol in consideration of their area of assignment. Can you say, "hypocritical"? Conflictual?

Our occupation has introduced cell phones, ipods, blackberries, You Tube, My Space and cellphone and computer accessed smut. But the local women wear burkhas and hajibs.

We further believe that oil revenue sharing will buy their loyalty. Foreign aid --throwing truckloads of shrink-wrapped newly minted C notes is another tried and true attempt to pimp them out. But to the true al-Qaeda believer, none of this will ever work. They don't want our money and things, they just want us out of their face and space.

These people cannot be bought off like the pimps that cooperate with the U.S. occupations of their countries. Money is not the answer. They are focused on eternity, and this earthly plain (plane) is simply the line of departure.

The radical Islamists are reminiscent of the religious right in American politics EXCEPT the radical Islamists have a purity of intent that is unknown to church-goin' people like GWB and Cheney. The hardcore Islamists really believe their dogma.

The Catholic church worships their martyrs and saints who preferred a reward in heaven to life on this plane of sin, but the day of the literal self-flagellant is largely passed. And the act of worship has been transmuted into a pecuniary transaction, one of buying indulgences from more sainted entities.

Modern Christianity may call for man to walk in the footsteps of his savior, but also says that there is no greater glory in living the ascetic life. God wants you to be affluent! Surely that bit about the meek inheriting the earth is just metaphorical.

These adherents have no understanding of deferred gratification. They take the dominion over the land and beast part seriously. The radical Islamists do not share in such temporal material revelry. Mohammed never met a Calvinist or Presbyterian.

So if not via force, how does America best countenance the problem of the actual terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda? We lack their ideological fervor, regardless of how arrogantly we believe we are in the right. Because of our milder engagement, they have the better claim to victory on the battlefield.

Some possible ideas:

[1] Keep our Armies off their sacred ground.

[2] Realize that not everyone can be bought and sold by Mammon.

[3] Monitor extremist mosques via police and intelligence on a coordinated worldwide basis.

[4] Hold the real radical Islamists to task -- even if they are in the royal family of Saud.

[5] If it is a time of war, then isolate U.S. borders and protect the homeland from the threat.

[6] Do not allow Islamic individuals to fly in groups on any domestic flight. Surely not without an air marshal aboard. This is surely inconvenient, but then again, so was 9-11.

[7] Establish economic programs to purchase petroleum without trying to dominate their societies. In effect, security trumps phony unrealistic calls to democracy.

These people live in a tribal space and time that is not in sync with U.S. realities. They do not prioritize here and now, and their loyalty is otherworldly. Isn't this something that a Christian President with a higher father should understand?

--Jim and Lisa