School Lunches Affect National Security?

It sounds like an Onion News piece, but there is a story up at ABC News called, "School Lunches Are a Threat to National Security, Retired Officials Say." A group called Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, claims that they have identified a

dramatic increase of obesity among young adults age 17 to 24 – a trend that is reducing the pool of healthy young adults available for military service.

They argue that healthier school lunches are needed in order to reduce problems finding physically fit military recruits. I find this line of argument both ridiculous and dangerous.

First of all, despite the supposed problems getting physically fit recruits, we seem to have had little problem filling the ranks of the armed forces. This appears to be a manufactured "crisis" based on nothing. Second, whenever someone advocates more government manipulation of the population, let alone children, for reasons of national security, that should be a cause for alarm. Consider this statement.

The reason school lunch reform is so key, Moore added, is that school is an environment in which "we can get to kids" and influence what they eat. At home, it's much harder to change these habits, she said.

"We can get to kids." I don't want the government deciding what my kids need to eat in order to make them good military recruits. How about if schools just provide a decent, balanced selection of food and let it go at that?

I also question another assumption behind this whole idea. Is there any evidence that school lunches have gotten unhealthier over the years? Were school lunches ten, twenty or thirty years ago healthier than they are now? I recall eating all sorts of junk food items when I was in school. Why are school lunches suddenly a big issue?

The Vacationing NCTC Director

When I first saw this story, I considered it much ado about nothing. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center didn't cut his vacation short after the attempted Christmas bombing. So what? What was he supposed to do? The attack had already occurred, and the terrorist was in custody. The NCTC failed to prevent the attack, but the crisis was over. Why not continue on vacation? It's not like he couldn't be contacted if needed.

On the other hand... If you are the director of a national counterterrorism center, and an actual terrorist attack takes place in the U.S., that's kind of a major event for your organization. It's roughly similar to being the head of a city public transit authority, and having a couple of buses narrowly avoid a head-on collision, because your screening procedures failed to notice that one driver was an alcoholic. That sort of thing doesn't happen every day, and neither do nearly successful attempts to blow up airliners. It's the type of thing that generally does interfere with normally scheduled vacation time. From a purely public relations standpoint alone, continuing a vacation after such an event is pretty stupid, and just reinforces the strikingly incompetent reaction demonstrated by the Obama administration.

But, to return to my initial reaction... If the NCTC isn't capable of functioning without the director, if his presence is just that critical, then it probably isn't worth much in any case. Overall, I think the reaction to this story is an overreaction. It's very bad public relations, yes. And it's evidence of incompetence in the Obama administration -- but that's no surprise. In that department it's a minor blip compared to the stunning idiotic "the system worked" response of Janet Napolitano. But I don't think it the NCTC story says anything significant about national security.

If the 9/11 Attacks Had Failed

Newswire report: Groups of men linked to terrorist organization Al Qaeda attempted to hijack three separate aircraft today. According to statements by passengers and crew, in each case the groups, described as "young Middle Eastern men," were armed with box cutters and tried to seize control of the aircraft. Fortunately, quick reactions by nearby passengers resulted in struggles that overwhelmed the attackers. All nineteen are now in custody. Some minor injuries were reported.

Typical leftist reaction via Twitter: Box cutters? Ooh, scary. That's the best they can do?

Typical leftist blogger: This is the great terrorist threat from Al Qaeda? Apparently the best they can manage to recruit are some incompetent idiots with box cutters. What were they going to do if they actually got control of the planes? They didn't even bring any bombs with them. What a bunch of morons. We're supposed to be afraid of these amateurs? As usual GOP fearmongering is hyping the actions of these terrorist-wannabes as if it were a real threat.

Think this isn't a realistic portrayal? Take a look at liberal reactions to any failed terrorist action, or to any plot that was nipped in the bud by U.S. authorities. Here's Rachel Maddow's description of Abdulmutallah,

some idiot confused rich kid who couldn‘t even handle blowing up his own junk with a bomb that was secreted in his own underpants?

Is there any better brief example of just how utterly clueless most left-wingers are concerning national security matters? Let's see how Maddow's description stacks up against what happened in the real world.

1. Al Qaeda developed an ingenious new type of bomb, specifically designed to get through airport security. Experts agree that it could have destroyed the plane they were targeting.

2. Al Qaeda has expanded its recruiting efforts to attract black Africans from Nigeria, making profiling more difficult. A new source of recruits for Al Qaeda is not a good thing -- I have to write that in case there are any left-wingers reading.

3. Abdulmutallah successfully smuggled the bomb onto an international flight bound for the U.S. To do this he had to pass through security, keep his cool, and do nothing that might give away his intent. This is not a small feat.

4. Abdulmutallah not only got onto his target flight with the bomb, according to experts, he managed to get a seat in an excellent position to destroy the plane, right over a wing tank. 

5. Finally, Abdulmutallah attempted to ignite the bomb and failed, as an alert passenger tackled him. Does this somehow make him incompetent, no real threat? Only if you are a moron like Rachel Maddow. Here's a guy who has overcome security and gotten into perfect position to destroy his target. He's sitting in a plane surrounded by potentially hostile people, knowing that he has to quickly ignite the bomb before anyone can detect him or intervene. Oh yeah, and he knows these are the last moments of his life, since the bomb will kill him first. Does that sounds like it might be an incredibly high pressure situation, one in which even the most highly-trained individual could make some sort of error, or delay just long enough for someone to react? Of course not. Not if you are an utterly clueless leftist. It's all just a big joke.

Left-wing reaction to the attempted Christmas bombing has been so idiotic, that some have speculated that it's all politically-motivated. No one could possibly be as clueless as Maddow and others. The theory is that since heightened fear of terror is bad for the left -- since much of the public rightly understands that liberals can't be trusted when it comes to national security -- therefore liberals have to downplay terrorist threats and pretend that they just aren't that serious. That might be true for a few of the more intellectually dishonest members of the left. But in general, in my opinion many of them really are as clueless as they appear.

Mixed Feelings About Cheney's Latest

Former Vice President Dick Cheney gave a long speech last night at the American Enterprise Institute. As usual, he defended his administration's record on national security policy, and sharply criticized the Obama administration. Every time Cheney gives a speech, I react with mixed feelings.

The first thing I always think upon hearing Dick Cheney is, where were these vigorous defenses of Bush administration policy during the Bush administration? Cheney continues to point out the obvious -- although the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd tries to pretend otherwise -- that regardless of its many faults, it successfully defended the U.S. from any follow-up terror strikes after 9/11. I'm not going to go through the speech point-by-point, because I've addressed almost all of Cheney's arguments before. Most of the criticism of the Obama administration is well-aimed and effective. But the biggest problem is that it comes from Dick Cheney.

I understand why Cheney feels the need to speak out, given the Obama administration's ridiculous and continual attempts to blame any problem on Bush. But every time Cheney speaks, he reminds people about the Bush administration, helps keep BDS alive, and gives new life to Obama's strategy of blaming the past.

Obama and the Democrats have slipped in the polls primarily because of their inability to do anything about the economy. As long as job losses continue, and people see the economy languishing, Democrats are going to get most of the blame -- because they are now in charge. The health care debate has mobilized a significant number of independents to join with Republicans in opposing the administration. They are opposed to Democratic policies, but they are not and were not fans of the Bush administration. In my opinion, now is not the time to go on the attack regarding national security policy, at least not an attack led by former members of the Bush administration. 

A New War Against Radical Islam - Intro

Now that the U.S. has returned to a pre-9/11 mentality, where terrorists who want to obliterate American cities are to be given rights and treated as criminal defendants, our first line of defense, the CIA, is under assault for doing its job, and Democrats, with their secondary concern for national security, are in charge, it is worth considering what the U.S. should be doing to prevent another attack.

I have a list of several proposals, none of which would be acceptable to the current administration or its supporters -- who apparently believe that pandering to the Islamic world, downgrading our defenses, and only remaining on the offensive in one area -- Afghanistan -- will prevent another devastating attack on U.S. soil.  You will note that all of my ideas involve offense, or actions designed to facilitate an offensive posture -- and no doubt many will find them offensive -- taking the fight to the enemy outside the U.S.  There has been much whining and sniveling by terrorist rights supporters about civil liberties. No one is doing more to undermine civil liberties than civil libertarians, with their misguided attempts to extend rights which properly belong only to U.S. citizens to hostile aliens, their efforts to destroy necessary secrecy, and their willingness to cripple our premier intelligence agency. Unfortunately, if there is another major attack on the U.S., it is almost certain that the country will react in part with defensive efforts -- security measures which by their very nature restrict the rights of Americans.  There will be more surveillance, more travel restrictions, more government databases, new calls for documentation and identification, and all sorts of other state infringements on normal life. And they will have strong bipartisan support.

The best way to avoid that scenario is to prevent another attack. And the way to do that without compromising the rights of Americans is take the offense, unleash U.S. power abroad, and destroy & disrupt our enemies before they can strike. Rather than foolishly trying to be liked, a policy pursued by both Obama & Bush, the U.S. needs to instill fear and terror in those who would use terror against us. Our enemies should know that killing Americans will bring not rebuilding efforts, humanitarian aid, or attempts to spread democracy, but death and destruction.

This post will be followed by some specific proposals.

The Impact of Blind Legalism

Daniel Henninger has an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal declaring that "The War on Terror is Over." But more to the point is the subhead, "Lawyers are about to smother [it]." Henninger points out the idiocy and danger of relying on a legalistic outlook for questions of national security, in the wake of the Lockerbie bomber release, and the Obama administration's assault on the CIA. And he offers this appropriate quotation from Oliver Twist,

Faced with a similarly fastidious assertion of the law's triumphal self-regard in "Oliver Twist," Mr. Bumble replied: "If the law supposed that, the law is a ass—a idiot." Mr. Bumble added something acutely relevant to what is happening to the war on terror: "The worst I wish the law," said Mr. Bumble, "is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."

That passage comes to mind every time I hear some naive fool bleating about the "rule of law," and applying that concept to things where it has no real relevance, such as secret operations by the CIA outside the U.S. Henninger notes the real impact of the classified document dump from the CIA.

What the release of the Helgerson report mainly does is open the dams on detainee lawsuits. 

This litigation nightmare, together with the chilling effect of the special prosecutor's potential indictments, has as its goal making the price of aggressive interrogation too high under any circumstance, including a one-hour-bomb scenario.

Read the whole article, but here's the conclusion:  

The message of Scotland's release and the Holder decision is that the will born in the wake of 9/11 is waning. The war on terror is being downgraded to not much more than tough talk. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranians, not yet converts to the West's caricature of its own legal traditions, will take note. In time, they will be back. The second war on terror is in the future.

Many of us have argued for years that 9/11 has effectively been forgotten by much of the U.S. If it hadn't been, ridiculous notions such as rights for terrorists and prosecuting CIA agents for attempting to defend the country would never have flourished. This should be obvious, but you can't fight terrorism with lawyers. The legalistic nonsense which is stifling efforts against terrorism simply gives another weapon to our enemies. American law should be interpreted to protect America and its citizens, not to create rights for hostile alien terrorists, and not to restrict or cripple the operations of an organization designed to operate largely outside the law. 

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

That's the Obama administration. Every time the Obama administration does something positive, such as recognizing the necessity for indefinite detentions in certain cases, it turns right around and does something contrary to U.S. interests. According to the Wall Street Journal,

The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

Unlike the Bush administration, which despite its many faults, at least understood that hostile aliens have no constitutional rights, the Obama administration seems determined to pretend that they are somehow entitled to them -- even if it wants to pick and choose which ones they get.

If we are going to grant foreign terror suspects constitutional rights, there is no point in using military commissions at all. Just try them in regular court, watch them go free, pay out their lawsuits against the U.S. government, and wait to see what new terrorist activities they get involved with. That's the preferred option of terrorist rights proponents. 

Indefinite detention would not be necessary if the Obama administration simply recognized that hostile aliens neither have nor deserve rights of any kind -- let alone during wartime. Military tribunals should simply be able to weigh the evidence against each prisoner, come to a determination of guilt or innocence, set the innocent free, and hand down sentences to the guilty. We are making things way more complicated than necessary.

Obama & "Indefinite Detention"

Terrorist rights proponents are up in arms about reports that the president is putting together an executive order "that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely." But for those who assign a higher priority to national security than to the imaginary "rights" of hostile aliens, such an executive order is necessary.

It appears that there are certain individuals held at Guantanamo, (and probably elsewhere), who are known to be terrorist enemies, yet cannot be prosecuted -- even by military tribunal. A tribunal of the type envisioned by President Bush (but never implemented) might have been able to handle them, but Obama has made it clear that his idea of tribunals would not have the kind of wide latitude necessary to handle these special cases. The most obvious example is the case of a terrorist who is implicated by evidence obtained through torture. Even if the information against him checked out, the use of torture means that it can't be used in civilian court. Whether it could be used in a military tribunal remains to be seen. But there are other possible cases where even a military tribunal probably wouldn't be able to convict. For example...

Iraqi A is an important tribal leader, and a trusted and valuable informant for U.S. forces. Over a couple of years, he clandestinely gives critical intelligence to U.S. commanders. Any information that could be confirmed was always accurate. One day he tells the local U.S. commander, 

"I have learned that Iraqi B is the commander of Al Qaeda in this region. He has been coordinating attacks against your troops."

The U.S. finds and arrests Iraqi B on the word of Iraqi A, a trusted and proven informant. Iraqi B is shipped to Guantanamo. The U.S. sees an immediate decrease in insurgent activity after his capture. The local commander is absolutely convinced that Iraqi A's information was correct, and that Iraqi B is an Al Qaeda leader

During his time in Guantanamo, Iraqi B maintains his innocence. There is no other evidence against him other than the word of Iraqi A, and the resulting decrease in insurgent attacks. The U.S. is convinced that he's an Al Qaeda terrorist. If he's tried in civilian court he will go free. The U.S. has nothing on him but hearsay from a witness who can't be identified, and wouldn't testify in court if he were. Even a military tribunal would probably have to turn him loose based on a lack of hard evidence. In cases like these the Obama administration has two basic options: one, release someone that it is convinced is a terrorist; or two, find a way to keep holding him. Fortunately for the country, it appears that the administration will choose option number two. 

Identifying Nuclear Terrorism

There's an interesting article in yesterday's USA Today about nuclear forensics. The author asks,

If a terrorist nuclear bomb destroyed the heart of a great city, how would we know who did it, with what? Mideast fanatics with a device improvised from stolen uranium? A weapon smuggled in by a rogue regime? A hijacked U.S. bomb?

Who would we retaliate against? The answer is that we probably won't be sure.

international databases cataloging characteristics of nuclear materials worldwide, essential for tracing clues in such an event, are currently "not nearly extensive or usable enough."

One scientist says that there is maybe a " 65 to 70 percent likelihood" of identifying the source of a nuclear blast. If a country openly launches a nuclear strike against the U.S. or its allies we can retaliate. But what happens if, for example, New York City is suddenly devastated by a nuclear device smuggled in by sea? The U.S. investigates and determines that there is a 2/3 chance that it came from Iran, and a 1/3 chance that it was produced elsewhere. If Iran strenuously denies any involvement, what do we do? Are we going to obliterate Iran when there is a 1/3 chance that we might be wrong?

This article illustrates, yet again, one of the many reasons why playing defense against terrorism is a bad idea. Terror plots have to be stopped before they can launch a successful strike. This requires strong, active, flexible intelligence efforts to disrupt terror networks and break-up plots before they reach the execution stage. Left-wing and other efforts to cripple the CIA, weaken our intelligence capabilities in general, and provide unwarranted rights to hostile aliens, strike at the heart of our ability to prevent a terror attack, including the worst-case nuclear scenario.

Best Ralph Peters Article Ever

Peter's has some hits & misses, but "Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars," published in the Spring issue of the Journal of International Security Affairs is one of the best analyses that I've seen in a long time -- by anyone. If you are at all interested in national security policy, foreign policy and warfare, you should read the whole thing. There are so many highlights that it is difficult to choose between them, but here are a few.

As our enemies’ view of what is permissible in war expands apocalyptically, our self-limiting definitions of allowable targets and acceptable casualties—hostile, civilian and our own—continue to narrow fatefully. Our enemies cannot defeat us in direct confrontations, but we appear determined to defeat ourselves.

Often when you hear someone say that the U.S. can't do something, what they actually mean is that we are not willing to do it.

an unholy alliance between the defense industry and academic theorists seduced decisionmakers with a false-messiah catechism of bloodless war.

As Peters points out, most people are historically ignorant, especially about warfare. They no longer understand that wars tend to be bloody debacles with hideous casualty levels.

we have become largely a white-collar, suburban society in which a child’s bloody nose is no longer a routine part of growing up, but grounds for a lawsuit; the privileged among us have lost the sense of grit in daily life. We grow up believing that safety from harm is a right that others are bound to respect as we do. Our rising generation of political leaders assumes that, if anyone wishes to do us harm, it must be the result of a misunderstanding that can be resolved by that lethal narcotic of the chattering classes, dialogue.

It's hard to say it any better than that.

One of the many disheartening results of our willful ignorance has been well-intentioned, inane claims to the effect that “war doesn’t change anything” and that “war isn’t the answer,” that we all need to “give peace a chance.”

Unfortunately sometimes war is the only answer. And anyone with a minimal knowledge of history knows that wars can & do change things, often quite dramatically.

our expectations of war’s results have become absurd. Even the best wars do not yield perfect aftermaths.

Look at all the idiots, some of whom should know better, who refer to the Iraq War as a "disaster." They have no concept of what constitutes a disaster in military terms. Even some who should know better allow their political views to take precedence over their understanding of history and foreign policy.

history is no longer taught as a serious subject in America’s schools. As a result, politicians lack perspective; journalists lack meaningful touchstones; and the average person’s sense of warfare has been redefined by media entertainments in which misery, if introduced, is brief.

This point can't be overemphasized. Large numbers of people commenting on our wars are ignorant of history in general, and of military history in particular. They have no frame of reference on which to base any analysis.

This is a long article and I could keep excerpting it. But read it for yourself.

Terrorist Rights Supporters Block Nomination

Philip Mudd, President Obama's nominee for U.S. Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, has withdrawn from consideration under pressure from Congressional Democrats. Mudd, currently a high official in the FBI, was  Deputy Director of the Director of Central Intelligence National Counterterrorism Center from 2003-05 and with the CIA since 1985. 

Let's see, he's a long-time intelligence veteran, expert on counterterrorism, and has worked in both the CIA & the FBI. He sounds like a highly qualified individual for the position. So why are Congressional Democrats opposed?

Democrats on Capitol Hill had signaled their intention to probe Mudd's knowledge of and role in approving brutal interrogation techniques -- some of which qualify under international law as torture -- used by CIA officials against detainees.

Oh no, we can't have anyone at Homeland Security that actually might have made hard decisions on what to do in order to protect the U.S. Protecting the rights of terrorists is far more important than getting a qualified nominee into an important position.

New York Times Whining & BDS

There have been a lot of pretty silly editorials by the New York Times, but the latest is one of the most laughable I've seen in a long time. And this is from the editorial board, not some clown like Frank Rich.  

We do not envy President Obama as he tries to undo George W. Bush’s illegal and shameful detainee policy.

Except it wasn't illegal or shameful. And Obama is basically maintaining it. Other than that, it's a great characterization.

But that does not change the fact that Mr. Obama was wrong when he flip-flopped and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release the photos.

That's an opinion, not a fact. For people more concerned with U.S. security, Obama's decision was the correct one. There was no good reason to release more pictures of abuses. After a section about Obama's proposed changes to military tribunals, we come to one of the most idiotic parts of the Times argument

The problem is that these tribunals, unlike traditional ones, did not just cover prisoners captured on the battlefield. They covered anyone whom Mr. Bush declared beyond the reach of law with the preposterous claim that the whole world is now a field of battle.

The editorial board of the Times is basically declaring that they don't have the slightest idea about terrorism, or what a fight against Al Qaeda entails. There is no "battlefield" in most cases. Al Qaeda isn't an army. It's a bunch of non-state terrorists. The fact that a terrorist is captured in some other circumstances than a battle doesn't make him an ordinary criminal, as the Times seems to think.

Since the Times is apparently so utterly clueless about the practical matters involved in fighting a non-state terrorist group, it's no surprise that their ideas are so ridiculous. The entire article is nothing but whining and sniveling about the supposed evils of Bush, and how terrorists need to be tried in civilian court. You can tell that they are horrified that their beloved Obama isn't living up to expectations. Where are the show trials? Where are the rights for terrorists like the poor oppressed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Obama is actually worrying about national security, and making practical decisions instead of being a BDS-infected nutcase. And the Times can't have that. 

To Praise or Criticize Obama?

It seems that ever time I write something critical of President Obama, I have to turn right around and congratulate him for something else, and vice versa. The president has changed his mind on releasing more inflammatory pictures of detainee abuse, and now opposes it.  Jake Tapper at ABC reports that the president

"believes their release would endanger our troops," a White House official says, adding that the president "believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."

The negative consequences of releasing such photos should have been blatantly obvious to the president. I'm not sure why it took him so long to realize that, or why he would have considered releasing them in the first place. But better late than never. It's good to see that the president isn't afraid to offend the ACLU and other terrorist rights supporters. Hopefully he won't change his mind again.

More Damage to National Security Excites the Left

Left-wingers and other torture rights supporters are excited at the prospect that President Obama might do further damage to the CIA by releasing still more classified information on interrogations.  Here's Greg Sargent at The Plum Line referring to a Washington Post story:  

The White House has decided to declassify and release a classified 2004 CIA report about the torture program that is reported to have found no proof that torture foiled any terror plots on American soil — directly contradicting Cheney’s claims. The paper cites “allies” of the White House as a source.

Sargent and others on the left are happy because they think this report will somehow contradict Cheney. They could care less about damage to the CIA, or to future operations. Like the call for prosecutions, their primary interest is political. The lack of logic is also apparent -- as usual -- as Sargent thinks we are somehow need "proof" that plots which never actually took place were foiled.  Intelligence isn't a matter of proof. It's mostly guess work and involves quite a bit of luck. 

Then there is Ali Frick at Think Progress. If you need a good indicator of the views of the utterly clueless left, read pretty much anything she writes. Frick comments on the story:

The truth of the matter — as this 2004 CIA report purportedly shows — is that “enhanced interrogation” doesn’t work. In fact, it endangers American lives and helps terrorists recruit new foot soldiers.

Numerous high-level officials with full access to all classified information, including torture opponents like current Director of National Intelligence Admiral Blair, confirm that enhanced interrogation produced high level intelligence. But some liberal blogger thinks her uninformed opinion is the "truth." 

There is no reason at all to release still more information about CIA interrogations. The information was classified for a reason, and should remained classified. And of course one report "proves" nothing. Since when do we take any single CIA report as some sort of gospel? The left is doing everything possible to cripple the CIA. They refuse to believe every CIA official who speaks out in favor of enhanced interrogation. Yet if one CIA report appears that seems to agree with their preconceived notions, they'll take that with unquestioning faith.

Another State Secrets Case

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the Obama administration, and reinstated a lawsuit by five men who claim to have been subjected to "extraordinary rendition." The men are suing a subsidiary of Boeing,

accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

Without knowing critical details of this case -- such as whether any or all of the five are actually terrorists -- it is difficult to reach any firm conclusions about the court's action. But I have three observations, based on what is in the article.

1. If we are going to use rendition, we need to be extremely selective about it, and do a far better job of keeping it secret in the first place. Any allegations of rendition should simply be denied and all evidence eliminated. No one we plan to ever set free should be considered for rendition at all.

2. If someone is seized by mistake, let alone tortured, they should be well-compensated. They should be given no cause to file a lawsuit.

3. This particular lawsuit appears to be directed at the wrong target. If a company was cooperating with the CIA, it was assisting the U.S. government and should not be liable. Making companies liable for cooperating with the government is idiotic, plain and simple. I don't care what ridiculous legal justification is used.

Assuming any of their allegations are even true, the key question remains: are the plaintiffs terrorists, or were they innocent victims mistakenly seized and mistreated? 

Abu Zubaida & the Necessity for the Torture Option

In the previous post, I took issue with the Washington Post's labeling of their story on Abu Zubaida. While skimming the blogosphere response, I noticed that the usual suspects, mostly on the left, have seized on the story as expected.  Naturally they accept the one-side of the report that supports their views and ignore the rest. Their reaction goes something like this [italics mine]. See, see, we told you. Not only is torture evil, immoral & illegal, but this story proves that it's also a waste of time and gets nothing but false leads. This is typical of the sort of surface thinking that passes for analysis among much of the left. Unfortunately, the very version of the story they accept demonstrates the flaws in their thinking.

For the purposes of argument I am going to stipulate that the unnamed critics of the administration in the Post's story are correct. According to their version of events, Abu Zubaida was a lower-level cog in the Al Qaeda machine instead of a major figure. Rather than being a prime source of intelligence, he instead knew very little, and what little he did know we learned during initial, non-coercive interrogations. The waterboarding and other coercive techniques produced nothing but false leads. And we disproved every supposed lead that he divulged under torture. This narrative is an excellent illustration of why torture is sometimes necessary and should remain an option in such cases. 

From the critics' own version we know the following things:

1. The government believed that Abu Zubaida was a high-level Al Qaeda leader.

2. Given #1, it was reasonably assumed that he had wide knowledge of Al Qaeda operations.

3. Initial non-coercive interrogations produced limited information.

4. Given #1 & 2, the government reasonably assumed that Abu Zubaida was concealing far more information than had been gained through interrogation.

Therefore the U.S. government faced the following scenario at the time. They had a major Al Qaeda figure in custody with information deemed critical to U.S. national security. Normal interrogation procedures had failed to produce that information. They then had two basic options:

1. Discard everything they believed about Abu Zubaida and accept that they just weren't going to get more out of him. And hope for the best.

2. Try coercion to make him talk and reveal the critical information they believed he possessed.

Which option makes more sense from a national security standpoint? Unlike those worried about the imaginary rights of terrorists, I prefer that the U.S. government err on the side of protecting the country. If a terrorist is mistakenly tortured for information he doesn't actually possess, oh well, that's just too bad. Torture in captivity should be one of the hazards of the terrorist occupation. Better to torture them and reveal false information, than fail to take action and allow an attack to go forward unimpeded.

Unlike what many seem to believe, intelligence operations do not usually involve clear, easily evaluated information. And sometimes people aren't what they seem. Chasing down leads, some or all of which might be dead ends, is a part of intelligence work, whether such information is gained through torture or otherwise. On issues of national security, assuming the worst about a terrorist captive and acting on that assumption is the prudent government position.

A Second Look at Obama's Executive Orders

I bashed Obama recently for his executive orders, but maybe I jumped the gun a bit. That's one of the problems commenting on news stories right after they are first reported. Sometimes you don't get a complete picture, and can end up looking like an idiot after the full story comes out. The LA Times reports that the controversial CIA rendition program will continue, and may even expand under the Obama administration. In addition

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term.

As the quote above indicates, the CIA will continue to be able to run secret interrogation facilities. If this report is correct, it is a huge difference from what was reported earlier. Preserving rendition and the CIA's ability to carry out secret interrogations indicates that the Obama administration is much more realistic about national security than previous news reports suggested. 

I attacked the president in an earlier post, for the idiocy of thinking that an intelligence organization that operates in secret shouldn't be allowed to have secret interrogation facilities. But apparently he doesn't think that at all. I have no problem with merely closing a few long-term secret prisons. Given this latest report, it is also possible that Obama really isn't going to tie the CIA's hands by restricting it to military interrogation procedures. Maybe most of his national security executive orders are actually cosmetic changes for public relations purposes, as some suggested earlier. Let's hope so.

More On Obama's First Big Mistakes

Over at Wizbang there is a post up that reflects much of what I was thinking when I wrote yesterday about President Obama's extremely foolish decision to cripple the CIA, by restricting it to military interrogation rules, and forcing the closure of secret detainment facilities. Kim Priestap writes

I guess we can take War on Terror off of the Wizbang category list as Barack Obama has determined that we should no longer aggressively pursue our enemies and has put an end to the War on Terror with his executive orders. He insists of course that counter terrorism efforts will continue, but they sound purely defensive. It sounds like he will respond after we are attacked instead of aggressively preventing an attack.

This is in reference to a Washington Post article that says straight out, "Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End."  As Priestap says, "And to think I actually believed Obama wouldn't do anything rash regarding national security and our safety."

I was fooled also. One of the main reasons I opposed Obama for president, or any liberal Democrat for that matter, was that I believed he simply could not be trusted with national security. I thought his inexperience, his left-wing base of support, and many of his statements indicated that he had a naive view of foreign policy and national security affairs. After his election and some of his appointments, however, my opinion began to shift. It began to look more and more as if I'd been wrong about him, and that he would take a realistic, pragmatic approach and focus his misguided liberal idealism only on domestic policy. No such luck.

Almost everyone agrees that intelligence is critical in fighting terrorism. The U.S. is a large, open society with porous borders. We value our freedoms, and there is a limit on just how many internal security measures we are willing to tolerate. We can't defend everything. Individual terrorists and terrorist groups are difficult or nearly impossible to deter, especially if they are willing to commit suicide. The primary method of stopping terrorist attacks is to discover plots before they can be launched, and to disrupt terrorist networks in various ways. You don't do this by placing a bunch of simplistic restrictions on our main intelligence agency. You don't do it by listening to morons who think terrorists deserve Geneva Convention protections, or even the same rights as U.S. citizens. Most of those who hold those opinions are deluded fools who think the terrorist threat isn't really all that serious, or that unconventional conflicts can be fought according to precise rules and laws.

Intelligence gathering has always been a dirty business that operates outside normal rules and laws.  Intelligence agencies have to deal with counterparts abroad, and unsavory elements of all types. The very nature of what they are doing is often illegal. They cannot be constricted on the basis of what is and is not legal within the United States.  And again, they are not the same as the military and should not be tied to the same restrictions. The very notion that the CIA should have to use the exact same interrogation rules as the military makes no logical sense whatsoever. I'm not looking forward to the Obama administration's next moves. It appears that he is going to be just as weak on national security as many of us feared.

Obama's First Big Mistakes

The New York Times reports that President Obama will issue executive orders that will not only close Guantanamo, as expected, but also shut down the CIA's secret prisons, and require the agency to use the same rules as the military for interrogation of terrorist suspects. Guantanamo is a complicated issue. I believe there are legitimate arguments that the existence of that facility does more harm than good. It's certainly a public relations nightmare at this point. Moving the prisoners to a different location and revamping the rules for how that type of suspect is handled, might not necessarily be bad things. So I'm not ready to consider closing Guantanamo a mistake yet. I think it depends on exactly how it is handled.

But the CIA prisons and CIA interrogations are far different matters. If the NYT report is correct, Obama's planned actions seem to indicate that he is either going to approach national security policy with a Jimmy Carter-like naivete, or that he has caved in to his left-wing base, despite the needs of national security. The CIA by its very nature is designed to operate in secret. Foreign intelligence agencies, to be effective, sometimes have to engage in borderline, dirty, and illegal actions outside our borders. The idea that there is something wrong with the CIA possessing secret interrogation facilities, is simply left-wing idiocy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the CIA has probably maintained some secret facilities for interrogating prisoners throughout its entire history. Why? Because it's an organization that operates secretly. I'm not sure why this basic bit of logic escapes those who are so horrified by these facilities. It is of course possible that Obama simply plans to publicly order their closure, so the government can pretend that they've all been closed, while the CIA continues to operate others in secret. I suspect (and hope) this might be the case, but we can only judge based on available information.

Then there is the ever-debated interrogation issue. I agree with strict rules for military interrogators, and disagree with how the Bush administration handled things. Utilizing borderline interrogation techniques within the military was a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, which I'm not going to recap here. But the CIA is not the military. It is a very different institution, which again, is designed to operate in secret. Spying on friends and allies alike, sometimes requires breaking laws, and doing things that we would not and should not ever permit from domestic law enforcement and other government agencies within the U.S. Restricting how the CIA can interrogate prisoners by tying them to the exact same rules as military interrogators is not only illogical, it is completely idiotic and potentially dangerous to national security. Obama appears to be off to a terrible start on the national security/intelligence front. Given most of his appointments, it appeared hopeful that he'd take a more pragmatic approach. But if reported correctly, these executive orders are a very bad sign. You just can't underestimate the utter cluelessness of the left when it comes to matters of national security. We can only hope Obama's executive orders will be mere public relations ploys, and that the government will permit the CIA to operate as necessary in secret.