Bombs Away

I'm afraid that people will say "enough".
I'm afraid that in 2010 people will say,
"Look, it's a new century, a new millennium,
let's turn the page"
--Elie Wiesel

Each man must for himself alone
decide what is right and what is wrong,
which course is patriotic and which isn't.
You cannot shirk this and be a man.

To decide against your conviction is to be
an unqualified and excusable traitor,
both to yourself and to your country
--Mark Twain

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
The Shadow knows!
___________________

Our news focuses on the scary bomb threats foiled, but not so much on how they came to be so.

The latest package bombs were exposed to Saudi Authorities by a former Gitmo detainee, Jabir al-Fayfi, who received religious training upon his release and subsequent reintegration into society, news that the Limbaugh's and Beck's of the world would prefer to sidestep (Cargo plane bomb plot tipoff came from ex-Guantánamo Bay detainee.) The foreign press covered this fact which was not emphasized in the U.S.'s scramble to ring out the message, "Hit again!"

You may say, "So what? One success proves nothing", and you would be correct. But we should at least hear all of the facts, versus the sole story thread that these people are so bad they should rot in prison. Unlike Santa, we don't know who is good or bad, but we can look at violations of international law such as those that have occurred at holding pens like Gitmo and say, that is a bad.

Around the same moment that al-Fayfi alerted Saudi authorities, former PWOT czar George W. Bush boasted in a television interview that he authorized water boarding because it saved lives. While it is hard to argue with a man of his intellectual stature, it still seems surreal that U.S. courts disallow the accused to enter evidence of possible torture as those details would breech national security, yet the former president confirms his criminal conspiracy on network t.v.

Detaining people in violation of international law is not a solution, but a part of the problem. It is no excuse to say, "I have been sucked into the problem, and so must give tit for tat." Decency and really, simple self-interest (if dignity and safety is the goal) demands a better response. If you tussle with a pig, you will get dirty. President Bush encouraged us to get down in the dirt.

Coverage of the cargo bombs emphasized that they showed al-Qaeda was now focusing on small-scale attacks, but this is obvious. Terrorists are dynamic, and al-Qaeda is a deficient operational group that must use low-level diversified small attacks with semi-skilled operators -- it is all they have got.

Small bombs in cargo planes are cheap and effective, even if the bombs do not detonate. The effectiveness is not in the actual explosion; that would be an ancillary benefit. The effect is in scoring another overreaction, and the continuance of our petrification. Success is counted in the terror wrought via scrolling news coverage and our lust for spectacles.

As David Ignatius wrote in the WaPo:

The greatest damage won't be the attack itself but the public response. The Yemeni plotters saw the frenzy produced by their failed Christmas Day bombing attempt on a flight to Detroit. They must be hoping now, with the package bombs, to disrupt cargo-handling around the world and damage a fragile global economy (Staying Nimble).

The events of 9-11-01 were a one-off; pretty simple. Forget Condi's mushroom clouds.

Anne Applebaum calls al-Qaeda a "weak threat":

Al-Qaeda, at least in its desert hideouts on the Arabian Peninsula, does not pose a serious, existential security challenge to the United States.

If al-Qaeda terrorists are stuffing PETN into underwear or packages, that must mean that they do not have access to cutting-edge biological research or nuclear bomb components. On the contrary, they remain strangely fixated on airplanes and far behind the technological times.

If the best al-Qaeda's remaining cells can do is hide PETN, a 19th-century explosive, inside a printer cartridge, then perhaps we have already succeeded - far more than we usually realize - in destabilizing at least this particular terrorist threat. ... (w)e shouldn't let al-Qaeda take too much public attention, diplomatic energy and government funding from the more complicated, and more dangerous, challenges of the future (A Weak Bomb Threat from al-Qaeda.)

The Christian Science Monitor said the small attacks would further traumatize and damage us economically. But how can al-Qaeda damage our economy any more than our banking industry has -- with the full compliance of our leadership? How can the U.S. be further traumatized?

We have been exposed to the war violence daily -- the only threat is that we become inured to it and forget the actual threat to our way of life.

--by Lisa and Jim

We're Not for Sure

Ugh! Newspaper! ... litterbin ...
dreadful tinny sort of words. Tin, tin, tin.
Bound ... Vole ... Recidivist.
Bit tinny
--Woody vs. Tinny Words,
Monty Python's Flying Circus
_________________

Sure, it sounds bad.

"A suspected U.S. drone fired two missiles Wednesday at an alleged hideout connected to a Taliban leader. . ." (Suspected US Missile hits Taliban Stronghold).

A suspected hits an alleged.

Suspected U.S. drone. . . why not have a line-up and see if the drone can be identified as a U.S. missile? It's a safe bet the Taliban and Al-Qaeda did not fire the hellfire missile at their suspected hideout. They would not waste a good missile on anything but a hard target, unlike the prime suspect, the U.S. (But boy, that sure would be sneaky of 'em!)

Does anybody else have drones that fire missiles? So, why do we parse tinny words that say nothing, while implying everything?

Addendum: Under, "Oh no, I did it again" comes today's headline, "Pakistan: Suspected US missile strike kills 3" ("A suspected U.S. missile strike on a car killed two alleged militants and a civilian . . .") Because y'know, these very big pesky things that go boom might just be a swarm of locusts or an unfortunate sunspot phenomenon.

You cannot be too sure.

Once More With Feeling

--American Stock Exchange,
LeRoy Neiman (1986)

A plague on both your houses.
They have made worms' meat of me.
--Romeo and Juliet (III, i)

The end of our story
Is there on the door
A cottage for sale

--A Cottage for Sale, Billy Eckstine

_______________

A major feature of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) is recurring nightmares that plague the mind. There are parallels to current life in our late, great nation.

The country voted for change in '08, but all we see is George Bush's shadow -- Groundhog Year, '09. The economy is dying, yet the administration has not turned its face from the same old programs and soporific words. In an argumentum ad antiquitatem we are told: "The bankers are screwing us, but we must bail them out so they can continue to screw us." Uh. . . and why might that be?

Ditto the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©): the change we are getting -- mission creep into Pakistan -- is not the change we wanted. Our reality has become a looped nightmare.

Here are the pertinent intelligence questions which should be answered prior to the employment of another troop or dollar in the PWOT:

• Is the Taliban threat to the Afghan government also a threat to America?

• Has al-Qaeda been isolated from the Taliban in Afghanistan?

• Is the threat to Pakistan al-Qaeda or Taliban, or a combination thereof? If emanating from both, are the threats discrete or linked?

• Where is the proof that al-Qaeda is planning future 9-11-type attacks on the Homeland? If the president utters such fear-mongering comments which serve as justification for the War in Afghanistan, then he can also provide proof of these speculations. We do not need any more WMD moments.

• If the U.S. destroys al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, what is the next step in the PWOT? Since al-Qaeda can move safe havens at will, then why are geographical wars an imperative? Terror groups like al-Qaeda are not tied to nation-state boundaries.

• If terrorism is an international concern, why doesn't the U.S. employ the United Nations in a constructive manner?

These questions have not been raised, let alone discussed, by our wartime Commanders in Chief.

If the U.S. really wanted to show al-Qaeda they don't mean diddlysquat, we would walk away. Our actions validate their institutional goals.

So, Tell Me Again. . .

--War Criminals, Michael Kountsouris

The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone;
E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own.
The 'eathen in 'is blindness must end where 'e began,
But the backbone of the Army is the Non-commissioned Man!\
--The 'eathen, Rudyard Kipling
______________

O.k. -- Ranger is a simpleton, so he asks your indulgence as he attempts for simple if not elegant clarity.

The U.S. is in Afghanistan to address the al-Qaeda threat, aimed at U.S. interests outside of Afghanistan. That is, except when we are in Afghanistan.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda are two different entities with two different sets of goals. Al-Qaeda and Taliban may be symbiotic, or they may be commensals. The Taliban provided safe haven and training sites to the military arm of al-Qaeda, but it was not the military arm that conducted the 9-11 attacks.

The military arm may have provided support and encouragement, but then again, so have many other elements throughout the Middle East. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a local threat that is best addressed by the concerned national governments, and even if they are unable to do so, this still does not become a war issue for the U.S.

If Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot stand and address internal threats, the U.S. will never be able to do so. If the Afghan and Pakistan governments cannot gain consensual government, U.S. power will not lend stability or legitimacy to the mix.

Fighting the people of Afghanistan and Iraq fails to address the issue of al-Qaeda terrorism. Even if we were to transform these countries into actual states -- which may or may not resemble the U.S. -- al-Qaeda will simply morph, drifting into other failed states; that is what they do. Is the U.S. prepared to fight in every failed state?

The potential threat from al-Qaeda (outside of Iraq) may be much larger than we realize. There is a large worldwide acceptance for the ideology of al-Qaeda, and our actions are certainly radicalizing ones.

Al-Qaeda is acceptable in a large portion of the world. As Islamists, they will gain passive acceptance in rich and poor states alike such as Somalia, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Brunei and Pakistan, to name a few. They have the home court advantage.

Ranger doesn't play cards as well as warrant officers do, but this does not look like a winning hand to him.

No Country for Young Men

This is the saddest story I have ever heard
--The Good Soldier, Ford Madox Ford
_______

Recently Lisa has been saying that Ranger's essays lack facts and seem to ramble, to which a guilty plea is entered. The fact is, the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) is lacking in facts and rambles.

Sound bytes and faulty logic predominate and guide U.S. policy, so why not with Ranger. This proves that he is still a good study.

Two more generalizations:

• The war in Afghanistan is the "Good War."
• Obama says he will escalate the War in Afghanistan

Ranger watched President-elect, Minister of Cool Obama say recently on t.v. the war in Afghanistan must be ramped up to improve the security situation in that nation. He also indicated that Osama bin Laden must be captured or killed since he is still the operational head of al-Qaeda.

"I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al Qaeda once and for all. And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al Qaeda. He is not just a symbol, he's also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against US targets (60 Minutes.)"

Ranger would like for Obama to reveal the intelligence source of his assertion that OBL is still the operational head of al-Qaeda. If this is true, then the entire PWOT has been a national joke perpetrated upon the suckers collectively called the American taxpayers.

OBL is a person isolated in the mountains of Waziristan, and we are being told that he is still relevant. Please show this Ranger some factual information that goes beyond the normal government bullshit. BS is not an intel estimate, nor should U.S. policy be based upon it.

Ranger analysis:

1. There is no nation called Afghanistan. There is a phony government calling themselves a nation Real nations do not have widespread popular insurgencies. However, such uprisings will always be successful dislodging foreign occupation, especially in an environment of utter poverty.

• The Taliban -- however distasteful to Western standards, is reflective of Afghan culture and philosophy. The Taliban is not al-Qaeda. U.S. soldiers can not simply kill Taliban because they are distasteful. If this were the formula, then they would have to kill Rush Limbaugh, too.
  

• Killing or capturing OBL will not end the al-Qaeda threat. Killing OBL is simply revenge, with no further useful purpose. Wars are not fought for venegrance (unless your wife's name is Helen.)

• The source of al-Waeda hatred and funding is Saudi Arabia. This social and educational environment (Wahhabism) poses a greater threat via terrorism support than the Taliban.

• There are no good wars.

The U.S. has and is continuing to stake its national prestige and integrity upon illusions that are naught but smoke and mirrors. The larger issues of Afghanistan and Iraq are not relevant to the PWOT.

If both countries were to become wildly democratic tomorrow, this will not remove the al-Qaeda threat from the world scene.