Rice in Russia - Handing Out Carrots....For Free
Condoleeza Rice traveled to Russia this week to seek its support for referring Iran to the UN Security Council over its apparent attempts to build nuclear weapons, and also to seek its support in pressuring Syria on a number of issues, amongst other things.
Russia flatly refused her on the issue of Iran.
Russian support on the Iran issue was the U.S.' top priority by far. Why then did Condoleeza Rice promise Russia that the
U.S. would not open any new bases in Central Asia - the issue Russia was most concerned with. Russia,
with the aid and encouragement of China, wants the U.S. out of Central Asia period. Both countries feel that they are now in a position to be regional power-houses again, and see the U.S. as the biggest hinderance to that. The issue is both
geopolitical and
economic.
Why then would Condoleeza Rice - and the Bush Administration for that matter - give Russia and China its biggest strategic victory over the U.S. in decades, but get nothing in return? The issue of U.S. presence in Central Asia was one of the U.S.' biggest carrots. By ceding that issue to Russia (and China by default), the U.S. - by all appearances - will now have very few major incentives left to offer Russia and China in return for support on the UN Security Council.
From a geopolitical/strategic standpoint, I cannot see why we (the U.S.) have made this move? Maybe someone can point me toward a good reason.
**UPDATE**: The Media is Missing
The mainstream media has finally begun to pick up on the OU suicide bomber story. They take a cautious but pretty balanced approach, which is probably best for now.
The Wall Street JournalCNNBacktrack:
The Media is Missing
Stopping Sleeper Cells
Recent events in
Oklahoma and
New York City have again focused the public eye on frightening possibility of another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Indeed, it seems
quite plausible that we only narrowly escaped a major attack recently, when an engineering student named Joel Hinrichs blew himself within eye-sight of the University of Oklahoma's football stadium where 84,000 fans had gathered to watch their team take on Kansas State. While the mainstream media has been painstakingly slow to grasp the reality of that event and the local, state, and federal officials have stone-walled the press, the blogosphere has been pursuing the story vigorously. However, the great investigative work done by bloggers has the significant advantage of hindsight.
While law enforcement officials seemingly had some evidence that Hinrichs was more than just a struggling college student, most of the evidence up until now was circumstantial - not enough for to warrant an arrest or probably even a phone tap. For example, we know that Hinrichs met a number of criteria common amongst terrorists. He was a young, middle class, educated male who apparently had grown a beard (a sign of devout Muslim belief); he reportedly frequented an Islamic mosque or community center (though there are conflicting reports); and he was living with a young Pakistani male. Some sources have said that Hinrichs was
already known to authorities, probably for previous illegal or suspicious activity. But even combined with the possibility of a previous criminal record, such "life-style indicators" do not necessarily indicate terrorist activity themselves. After all, that could be the description of any college student.
This fact makes it very difficult for law enforcement personnel to meet the often strict criteria required by law to investigate a suspicious individual, even if an officer's gut instinct tells him or her that something is awry. The question then is what can we do, as a nation, to better protect ourselves against the threat of sleeper cells?
In general, sleeper cells are impossible to spot by the naked eye. Their members go to great lengths to blend into their surrounding environments by getting jobs and going to college, or adopting other life-style habits not dissimilar from the norm. To make matters more difficult, Al Qaida and other groups have made it one of their top priorities to recruit young 2nd and 3rd generation males (and even females) who already live in the countries they seek to target, and therefore have already adapted to their cultures. Despite the subversive and well-disguised nature of sleeper cells though, there are many steps along the road to a terrorist attack where law enforcement agencies have distinct opportunities to intervene and disrupt them.
First, and perhaps most importantly, most terrorists must begin by infiltrating into the target country. There are three reasons for this. The first is that it is often extremely difficult to recruit native operatives. Secondly, high-level terrorist cells put themselves at a greater risk of exposure by doing so, because recruiting a person in a completely different country requires an increased level of communications that could be detected by law enforcement agencies. And third, it is far more difficult to find local recruits who have the skills, and training, required to carry out a terrorist operation. Most of those who do are current or former members of law enforcement agencies or the military, and are more likely to turn over the terrorists than to support them. So, terrorist groups generally benefit most by infiltrating well-trained and reliable operatives into the target country. For this reason, adequate border security and the expedient enforcement of immigration and Visa laws are essential in preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Our commitment to our borders and to our laws is our first line of defense.
Secondly, terrorists often resort to criminal activity to run their operation. They often acquire fraudulent forms of identification, or acquire them under false pretenses; they sometimes steal or launder money for funding; and at some point they come into possession of illegal, often stolen materials and equipment such as explosives and vehicles intended to be used in the attack. Additionally, data shows that a significant number of terrorists have prior criminal records, whether it be arrests, misdemeanor offenses such as a traffic ticket, or immigration violations - including some of those who were involved in the 9//11 attacks. In most cases though, the terrorist is simply fined, jailed temporarily, or released and order to appear in court at a later date. Like most illegal immigrants/aliens though, the terrorists never show up for their court date. Law enforcement agencies must do a better job at identifying possible terrorists during these critical encounters. We must continue to tear down walls between intelligence agencies which prevent information sharing, work within our country and with our neighbors to better coordinate terrorist watch lists, streamline our policies on the deportation of illegal immigrants/aliens, and we should seriously consider ways in which local and state agencies can better assist in the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. That would be a good start at least, and improving in those areas would have broader benefits.
(See Wikipedia's page on the Ahmed Ressam - also discussed at length in the 9/11 Commission Report - which discusses how the "Millennium Bomber" managed to infiltrate the U.S. and Canada from Algeria by using a fake passport, over-staying his Visa, and failing to show up to court hearings on his immigration status.)Third, almost all terrorist attacks are preceded by some degree of surveillance. This is particularly true of U.S. targets, which usually have some measure of security. For one, terrorists must determine the point at which striking the target would result in the most damage or greatest loss of life by examining the structure and patterns of human activity in and around the target. They also need to know the roads and buildings surrounding their target and the strengths, vulnerabilities, and patterns of security personnel. Surveillance equipment such as a camera is not always necessary, but without them, terrorists are forced either to work from memory or to surveil the target frequently, placing themselves at greater risk of being discovered. In general, the surveilling operative will have a camera or a note pad on which to write notes. Target surveillance can be a lengthy process and therefore provides another significant opportunity for security personnel and law enforcement officials to disrupt terrorist operations. However, it is often difficult to spot a terrorist surveilling a target without prior knowledge of what target the terrorists plan to attack. This is simply because of the possibility that any area frequented by large numbers of people can make a good terrorist target, and because terrorists are very good at disguising their activities by blending into their environments. It is not impossible though. Vigilance and alertness on the part of security and law enforcement personnel as well as the public is essential in these instances.
Lastly, electronic transmissions are vital to any terrorist operation. These transmissions can include money transfers between various entities used to fund the organization, as well as computerized and telephonic communications between cell members and between the sleeper cell and the senior terrorist leader(s) directing the group from overseas. Senior operatives must communicate with the sleeper cell constantly. First, to order the group into action; later to assist in the acquisition of financial and other resources; and if necessary to coordinate communications with other sleeper cells; to "refine the target package"; and to ensure that various sets of instructions are followed throughout the course of the operation. Electronic transmissions are a critical capability for any terrorist organization, and therefore it is critical that we do everything in our ability to better enforce our laws which prevent fund-raising by dubious "non-profit organizations", and to seek out and exploit the platforms and networks of communication used by terrorists.
Sleeper cells are notoriously difficult to identify, disrupt, and indict, but all three are well within our capabilities as a nation. It should go without saying that the activities that terrorists engage in habitually is already illegal, yet sadly they often carry out their actions unhindered, and the consequences are often deadly. The best method for thwarting terrorist plots before they come to fruition is also one of the most basic principles of this nation: we must enforce the laws of this country. In order to do so, tough and tedious decisions must be made, red tape must to be cut, and some bureaucracies will have to go on a diet, while others must expand. These things will also require funding. Perhaps most importantly though, adequately addressing the threat of terrorism to the United States requires an intelligent and steadfast leadership commitment to doing what is best for the American people.
……You may now commence with kissing your rear-end good-bye.
October 09, 2005
Sorry So Slow
Sorry I haven't posted in the last couple of days folks!
I just found out that I'll probably be leaving Iraq to head back to the States in about two weeks, so I've been spending most of my time making arrangements rather than reading the news and all.
Leaving country and getting settled back in takes a bit longer than one might imagine, but once I do, I intend to spend a good deal more time working on the blog.
But then again, who knows!? Life is crazy!
Don't forget about me though! Keep checking back regularly, and I'll do my best in the coming weeks to keep this thing rockin'! Take care!
**UPDATES**: Iraqi Constitution; Earthquake; and NYC Terror Threat
UPDATE: Earthquake
The Wall Street Journal today discusses what the U.S. is doing to help the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan this week.
With the consent of the Pakistani government, the U.S. has jumped in with a $50 million pledge, an amount that may increase, according to Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan. The large initial response contrasts with the early days of the tsunami, when the U.S. was criticized for being slow to pledge aid. Yesterday, five U.S.-military heavy-lift helicopters ferried in emergency supplies such as tents and blankets, and flew out causalities. The U.S. military also is bringing in bulldozers and tractors to help with recovery and reconstruction.
The U.S. is consulting with Pakistan about being part of the longer-term reconstruction, Mr. Crocker said. Along with medical supplies, the U.S. may help bring into the Kashmir region prefabricated houses that can be set up quickly and fare better than tents in the coming winter. (Wall Street Journal - 12 Oct 2005)
----------------
UPDATE: NYC Terror Threat
And the Washington Post reports that the terror threat to NYC might have been a hoax.
The alleged threat that led to heightened security on New York subways last week may have been a hoax on the part of an Iraqi informant attempting to get money in exchange for information, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials said yesterday.
The informant has since disappeared in Iraq, and the Defense Department has not been able to locate him, city and federal officials said.
U.S. troops in Iraq captured three suspects south of Baghdad who the informant said were involved in the alleged plot. But none of the suspects, including two who were given polygraph examinations, corroborated the informant's allegations or appeared to have any connection to a terrorist plot, according to intelligence officials. (Washington Post)
**UPDATE**: Earthquake in South Asia - U.S. Should Help
A columnist for the National Review also thinks
the U.S. should do all it can to help the people hit by the devastating earthquake that hit Pakistan this week, and sees an opportunity to improve the U.S.' image in the region by doing so.
Let's face it: we can probably do more to improve the U.S.' image in the Muslim world by aiding in this disaster than
Karen Hughes - President Bush's undersecretary of state for public dimplomacy - could probably do in four years. That's not a swipe at her. Rather, there's still something to be said for that old adage that "actions speak louder than words".
Besides, its not as if Muslim countries are all that open to what the U.S. has to say anyway. That's unfortunate, but its a reality we've got to deal with if we are going to win this war on terror. We have an opportunity in this disaster to make a change public opinion of the U.S. in the heartland of one of the central fronts of the war on terror.
The U.S. should do all it can to help.
That the battered people of Kashmir — some of the most beautiful and peace loving on Earth — were forced to accept the loss of everything material during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of sacrifice, seemed incomprehensibly unjust.
But from every injustice and tragedy also arises opportunity to correct what has gone wrong before. This is one time the opportunity should not be lost. There is a global need to correct how governments manage humanitarian crises caused by natural disasters; there is a regional need for Pakistan and India to engage each other in a way that for once genuinely benefits the people of Kashmir by using the humanitarian crisis as the face-saving cover to resolve their half-century old feud; there is an opportunity nationally for Pakistan’s government to redefine its commitment to provide for its disaffected citizens, and there is a grand opportunity for America to redefine itself as the caring and supportive nation it has always been, but that nobody in the Muslim world seems to see. (National Review Online)
Possible Political Breakthrough in Iraq
Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jafar's government has up to this point bungled the job of political reconciliation between the three main factions in Iraq - Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis - and that fact has only prolonged the mostly Sunni insurgency. Today's events may be the first sign of a substantive political breakthrough in Iraq since its government was elected into office in January.
In a crucial compromise, Iraq's leaders agreed to insert a provision into the Constitution which would allow Iraq's parlaiment, to be elected in December, to make substantive changes/amendments to the Constitution.
This is important because the Sunnis were only scarcely represented in Iraq's government when the Constitution was written, due to the fact that they boycotted the January elections. However, the majority of Iraq's Sunni leaders have come to regret the boycot and are supremely interested in increasing their representation in the government during December's elections, and it is very likely that they will.
The current Constitution, to be voted on by all Iraqis on October 15th, stipulates that no changes can be made to the majority of the document for at least 8 years. The Sunnis - who make up the vast majority of the insurgency, were staunchly opposed to it and intended to vote NO. However, the new provision would allow the National Assembly to make changes as soon as next year. This has major significance for two reasons.
First, this gives the Sunnis a much greater stake in the December elections; they will want to come out in full force. This in turn serves to further exacerbate the rift between Sunni insurgent and Zarqawi's terrorist types who are threatening to kill anyone who votes and have proclaimed to democracy to be anathema to Islam.
Second, the new compromise reached today would allow key issues of the Constitution to be decided by an Iraqi government that is much more representative of its population.
Some Sunni leaders have indicated that they may be more inclined to encourage their people to vote in favor of the Constitution given today's compromise.
U.S. officials have pushed the three days of negotiations between Shiite and Kurdish leaders in the government and Sunni Arab officials, that concluded with marathon talks at the house of President Jalal Talabani late Tuesday.
The sides agreed to a measure stating that if the draft constitution is passed, the next parliament will be able to consider amendments to it that would then be put to a new referendum next year, Shiite and Sunni officials said.
A top Sunni negotiator, Ayad al-Samarraie of the Iraqi Islamic Party, said that if the current parliament approves the measure, "we will stop the campaign rejecting the constitution and we will call on Sunni Arabs to vote yes."
Some other major Sunni parties were not present at the negotiations and it was not clear if they too would be willing to reverse their "no" campaigns.
But the announcement was the first break in the ranks of Sunni Arab leaders, who have been campaigning hard to defeat the constitution at the polls. (Yahoo News)
**UPDATE**: Altering U.S. Strategy in Iraq
In my post, "
A Conservative Argument for Leaving Iraq", I primarily addressed U.S. military/security strategy in Iraq. Something I have not yet addressed though is the political strategy.
The fact is that bringing the Sunnis into the political circle is the only long-term solution to a secure and stable Iraq. The
problem is that the U.S. currently has very limited options for affecting the decisions made by the Iraqi government, which has been ineffective under Prime Minister Jafari. The Prime Minister has in fact done more since being in office to alienate the Sunnis than he has to include them - for example, by ramming the Iraqi Constitution through Iraq's parlaiment against overwhelming Sunni disaproval, making a hasty security and economic arrangement with Iran soon after being elected, and scheduling Saddam's trial for two days after a Constitutional referendum that the Sunnis will vote NO at - and his actions have led directly to continued attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces in Iraq.
So what can the U.S. do to improve the political situation in Iraq without inducing the ever-more vomit-inducing and hypocritical whaling of the "international community" and the far-left about "imposing Western values on Iraq"?
(Since when did universal human rights stop being universal; since when were they only applicable to Western humans? Does this mean the left no longer believes in the U.N.?)We should "Use Our Leverage: Troops", says Senator Carl Levin, and he's got a
damn good point. Senator Levin is in fact right on target when he says that Iraqi leaders do not want U.S. forces to withdrawl completely and he proposes a smart strategy for using that as leverage to coax the power-hungry Shi'ites and Kurds into a more accomodating and unifying political solution.
None of the Iraqi groups wants U.S. troops to leave precipitately. The Shiites want us to stay until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to deal with the insurgency on their own. The Kurds want us to remain for the impending future. And the Sunni Arab leaders want us to stay as a deterrent to those who might seek revenge against them for the actions of Saddam Hussein.
We must use that leverage -- the possibility of an American withdrawal -- to achieve the broad-based political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.
I believe that if the Iraqis fail to reach a political solution by the end of the year we must consider a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces. This does not mean setting a date now for departure. It simply means conveying clearly and forcefully to Iraqis that the presence of our forces is not indefinite and that our staying there requires them to come together politically, since Iraqi unity offers the only hope of defeating the insurgency. (Washington Post)
Earthquake in South Asia - the U.S. Should Do All It Can to Help
The death toll resulting from the massive earthquake that hit south Asia this week has risen rapidly from initial estimates of
3,000 now to
20,000, and the number may continue to rise. Unlike the
reporting during Hurricane Katrina, the press seems to be accurately assessing the damage that this natural disaster has caused. (No claims or racism have yet emerged.)
The country that seems to have sustained the most death and damage is none other than Pakistan, our
reluctant ally in the war on terror. President Musharraf of Pakistan is forced to walk a fine line between aiding the U.S. in hunting down Al Qaida terrorists hiding in the Afghan/Pakistan border region, and placating a Pakistani society largely complacent towards the extremists in their midst, if not supportive of them - to put it mildly.
But now, both President Bush and President Musharraf have an unparalleled opportunity to show the Pakistani people the benefits and virtues of having friends in the United States. Despite the deserved criticism of the U.S.' response to Hurricane Katrina, we remain the most capable nation of any to respond to disasters across the globe. Our military air and sealift capabilities are unmatched, as is the skill, training, and aptitude of our men and women in uniform.
U.S. military and civilian aid to eastern Asia after the tsunami last year significantly
improved the perception of the United States in the views of the local population, even shifting opinions of the largest Muslim nation on the earth towards greater support for the war on terror.
"In a stunning turnaround of public opinion, support for Bin Laden andterrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation has droppedsignificantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased,"said Kenneth Ballen, President of Terror Free Tomorrow, which commissioned thepoll. "The poll shows that the reason for this positive change is the Americanresponse to the tsunami," Ballen added. (Terror Free Tomorrow)
There is little reason to believe that, if the U.S. showed unqualified support to Pakistan in its time of greatest need, the Pakistani people might also dampen their angst towards Americans. This would not be a garuantee that they would support U.S. policies in the region, but it is certainly possible, and the payoff would still be worth it regardless.
Some might argue the opposite - that a U.S. presence in Pakistan would only exacerbate tensions there, but there is no more evidence for that than there is for suggesting that it would have a more positive affect. If President Musharraf truly feels that it would do more harm than good, then we should give him ample opportunity to insist so. Given the potential benefits of aiding Pakistan in this crisis, the issue should at least be pressed strongly.
A strong showing of American military support to the Pakistani people holds the potential for creating a more amicable relationship between U.S. forces and the Pakistani people, which in turn holds to potential for fostering a more fertile base of people who might be willing to provide invaluable human intelligence to U.S. forces hunting al Qaida terrorists. Intelligence involves much more than intercepting phone calls and paying sources for information. Placing U.S. forces inside Pakistan in any capacity would be a benefit at this point, if for no other reason to give them a better understanding of the lay of the land and the culture of the society.
President Musharraf will remain reluctant to accept U.S. help in Pakistan, but President Bush should send Condoleeza Rice or another State Department official to the region as soon as possible to pursue the issue. The attainable net gain for both the Pakistani people and U.S. efforts in the war on terror as a result of U.S. aid to the region are simply too great to shrug off. The U.S. should do all it can to help.
Psychic (or Psychotic!) Seeks $25 Million Reward for Saddam's Capture
I....I'm nearly at a loss for words.
A Brazilian court will consider a psychic's claim that the U.S. government owes him a $25 million reward for information he says he provided on the hiding place of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"Jucelino da Luz alleges that the U.S. armed forces only found Saddam based on his letters that provided his exact location, the very hole where he was hiding in Iraq. So he filed a court case to claim the reward."
The court said Da Luz sent letters to the U.S. government from September 2001, describing Saddam's future hiding place -- a tiny cellar at a farmhouse near Tikrit. He never received a reply. (Yahoo News)
From April 2003-April 2004, I was in Tikrit, Iraq serving as an intelligence analyst with the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division, whose 1st Brigade - working in conjunction with the U.S. special forces' Task Force 21 - was responsible for the capture of Saddam Hussein. I remember the Commanding General of the Division shutting down every internet and phone connection for half a day in order to prevent any leaks of information regarding the raid on the Ad Dawr farm house where Saddam was found.
No one knows whether or not Mr. Da Luz is truly psychic or just DaLuzional. I do know however that the capture of Saddam Hussein was the direct result of painstaking work done by the men and women of the U.S. military and the many civilians who support them.
I also remember doing a few analysis products on Saddam Hussein. I remember the long discussions that were sometimes debates about whether or not Saddam was more likely to be in his home-town of Tikrit which was also the location of the 4th Infantry Division - the Army's "Digital Division" - or somewhere else. Maybe further north; or perhaps south, in Samarra or near the Balad penninsula; or out west of Lake Thar Thar; or maybe even in Syria.
I remember that the advances came in baby steps, excruciatingly slow. Finally, at some point, we were able to create a rough outline of Saddam's security apparatus and provide a general overview of how it operated. That outline formed enough of a foundation of knowledge to provide the special operators with something they could really use.
It was those guys that did the real work - the HUMINT work, the ground work. It was frustrating enough working the matter as little as we did at the Division level, on only a broad level. Those guys must have been tearing their hair out daily. God only knows the mental torture they put themselves through.
But when special operaters have the knowledge and the tools to do the job, there isn't anything they can't accomplish. Those guys are LITERALLY one-man armies - just look at the kill ration during the Blackhawk Down incidient in Somalia, and that was a decade ago. Those guys are machines, and they will find you.
I wish I could explain more - its a fascinating story.
But unless Mr. Da Luz was with U.S. special forces in Iraq on December 13, 2003, he wont be seeing that $25 million any time soon. Nor should he. The real credit goes to those special operators who do the most dangerous job in the world every single day and do it without recognition.
But then, that's the way they prefer it.
**UPDATE**: NYC Terror Threat
There appears to be some resolution finally as to why NYC officials thought that a terrorist plot by three people in Iraq - two of whom had already been captured - to plant 19 briefcase and stroller bombs in the NYC subway system was credible.
In my previous post, I mentioned that four people Iraqi suspects were captured, and wondered if the NYPD had other information about the 14 other suspects who would conceivablly have carried the "other" 15 bombs onto NY's subway.
Answers have emerged now though it seems.
1) The NYPD (assumably) did not know how many suspects might have been involved, but had reports that one Iraqi person had already left Iraq to travel to NYC for the attack, and suspected there were more on the way or already in the city. (That does not appear to be the case at the moment.)
2)
Remote-detonated devices were to be used, similar to the Madrid train bombings, as opposed to individual operatives each carrying a single bomb as during the London attacks.
A Department of Homeland Security memo warned this week that a team of terrorists may have traveled to New York to put remote-controlled bombs in
briefcases and baby carriages in an attack on or around Sunday. (Yahoo News)
Shout-Out for a Shout-Out
I just wanted to give a formal shout-out and a huge thank-you to Mark Tapscott, a "veteran journalist and blogger" according to
Michelle Malkin's blog, and the
Director, Center for Media and Public Policy and the Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow at
The Heritage Foundation.
He was recently gave me a generous plug on his blog,
Tapscott's Copy Desk, and has been very supportive of my fledgling efforts as a blogger.
Others are making the same connections and to other important recent events in the War on Terrorism such as the recent arrest of a Taliban figure in Pakistan. The Analyst Blog is by somebody with experience in the field, literally, and years of experience culling through data and information in search of vital information.
So check
his blog out. He has done some
incredible work on the recent Oklahoma suicide bombing.
**UPDATE**: Altering U.S. Strategy in Iraq
Victor David Hanson - someone whose work I admire greatly - echoed in an article yesterday the "welfare affects argument" I discussed in "
A Conservative Argument for Leaving Iraq".
The key to stabilizing Iraq has been to promote the autonomy of Iraqi security forces — impossible if they are ensured that 300,000 or so American combat troops will do their fighting for them. And in this type of socio-cultural war, a smaller foreign footprint is critical, since the last thing we wish is an enormous ostentatious American military bureaucracy in Baghdad. (VDH)
OU Suicide Bomber Meets the Profile of a Terrorist Suicide Bomber
I was extremely reluctant at first to latch onto the notion that Joel Hinrichs, the 21-year old OU student who blem himself up last week outside of the packed OU football stadium, was a terrorist who blew himself up in part of a terrorist plot.
Now though, the
evidence (and
here) seems to indicate that the bloggers have been precisely on point, while the mainstream media has been severly lacking in what is supposed to be its trade-craft - bringing Americans the most accurate and up-to-date news from around the country and the world.
Not only does all of the evidence presented in numerous blogs make it clear that this was not your
average suicide, the accounts given of Joel Hinrichs mirror those of other terrorist suicide bombers. In other words, Joel Hinrichs appears to meet the "profile" of a terrorist. The numerous "indicators", taken alone (or even collectively in small amounts), do not necessarily indicate subversive or criminal activity. However, Joel Hinrichs appears to meet the vast majority of indicators that constitutes the general profile of a terrorist.
Commonalities Among Terrorists Met By Joel Hinrichs:
- Male between the ages of 18-24 (or 18-35)
- Apparently a 2nd or 3rd generation American at least (terrorist groups prefer actual citizens of the target country becuase they naturally blend into their surroundings)
- Middle class
- College educated
- Living in an apartment with one or more males of "foreign" origin
- In close proximity to (and probably frequented) a mosque, Muslim community center, or university (these are the most common places for terrorist recruiting, coordinating, and socializing in Western nations - Update: The
Dallas Morning News says he frequented the community center, the same one frequented by the "20th hijacker")
- Had recently grown a (probably new) beard according to sources (this is a common indicator of newly found or already held devout religious belief amongst Muslims)
- He appears to have already been known to police in the area, possibly for commiting minor crimes in the past (this is common, as terrorists often must resort to illegal activities to fund or supply their operations - UPDATE:
Mark Tapscott says he has a juvenille record, bringing a piece of metal to school to settle a score with a bully)
- There is also the possibility that Hinrichs registered his car for only nine months because he knew he would soon kill himself
These life-style indicators, in combination with what else we know from numerous law enforcement sources - that Hinrichs tried to aquire amonium nitrate (the same substance used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City), the he used the same type of explosives ("Mother of Satan") as the "Shoe Bomber", that he blew himself up in a heavily trafficed public place, and so on - make it a virtual CERTAINTY that Joel Hinrichs was in fact a terrorist suicide bomber, rather than just some distrubed kid trying to solve his problems by blowing himself up, as the President of the University of Oklahoma (a former Senator who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee) would have us believe.
I only say "
virtual certainty" because, as an intelligence analyst, I am (perhaps overly) accustomed to "nuancing" and "qualifying" my assessments.
There are numerous other indicators that will likely be revealed in the on-going investigation if this does indeed turn out to be a case of terrorism, which it most certainly seems to be. We may likely learn that Joel Hinrichs indeed made financial arrangements for his departure from this earth; that he and those he lived with were "quiet and polite and always paid their bills on time"; that one or more of the individuals may have had a prior criminal history or were in the country illegally; and so on.
Time will tell.
(Resources:
Mark Tapscott,
Accuracy in Media, and
Generation Why)
UT Romps OU in 100th Red River Shootout!!!!
After loosing the Red River Shootout (changed this year to the more
politically correct Red River Rivalry
) to OU the last five years in a row - including a 12-0 shut-out last year, the #2 ranked University of Texas Longhorns routed the Oklahoma University Sooners 45-12 today. The 33 point lead ties the record for margin of victory in the series, and makes #2 Texas a near shoe-in for another trip to Rose Bowl - this year's NCAA football championship game. (Mmmm....I smell roses!!!!)
The Red River Shootout has a long and glorious history. It has been played in the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Tx since 1929, considered neutral ground, mid-way between the UT and OU campuses. However, this tradition is in danger of ending soon, unless the city of Dallas anties up the money to renovate the Cotton Bowl before the contract expires in 2007. I for one, am not at all anxious to the see the tradition changed, instead played at UT and OU stadiums respectively on a rotating basis.
Saturday is the 100th renewal of the rivalry, known until this year as the Red River Shootout. Once again a national title could be on the line. Texas (three) and Oklahoma (seven) have combined for 10 national championships since 1950. And never has the loser of this game gone on to win the national title. Incidentally, in each of Texas' three title seasons, it was No. 2 in the polls when it came into this game. The Longhorns are No. 2 and favored by 13 ½ points.
Texas has won eight in a row [the series record] on two occasions and leads the series 55-39-5. (USA Today)
The name is derived from the Red River that forms part of the boundary between the U.S. states of Oklahoma and Texas.
The winner of the game receives the Golden Hat, which is, appropriately, a gold ten-gallon hat, formerly of bronze. The governors of Texas and Oklahoma often place a bet on the game such as the losing governor having to present a side of beef to the winning state governor, who then donates the beef to charity.
The series began in 1900 and has been played in Dallas since 1912. Dallas was chosen as a "neutral" site since it is situated approximately halfway between Austin, Texas and Norman, Oklahoma - the location of UT and OU, respectively.
Since 1929 the game has been held at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, typically in mid-October during the State Fair of Texas. The designated "home" team alternates from year to year, and ticket sales for the game are split 50-50 between the two schools, with the stadium divided along the 50 yard line.
However, officials at both the University of Texas and at Oklahoma University have indicated that soon the game may be rotated between each campus because they prefer a venue with more seats, which would mean more revenue - the Cotton Bowl seats about 79,000; the Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium seats 80,082 and may soon be expanded further, and the Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium holds 82,112. Additionally, the Cotton Bowl has no luxury suites, is cramped, has narrow seats and its plumbing can be faulty. The current contract to play the game at the Cotton Bowl expires in 2007.
Scrambling to keep the game - which produces about $17 million annually for local businesses - in Dallas, Dallas mayor Laura Miller has said she would support a bond referendum to pay for more expansion and renovation at the Cotton Bowl. Additionally, the State Fair of Texas' governing board has engaged a consultant to prepare plans for a complete renovation. (MSNBC)
Alright, everybody sing along now!
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
And it's goodbye to A&M.
Texas Fight,
Texas Fight,
And we'll put over one more win.
Texas Fight, Texas
Fight,
For it's Texas that we love best.
Hail, Hail, The gang's all
here,
And it's good-bye to all the rest!
(YELL)
Yea Orange! Yea
White!
Yea Longhorns! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Texas Fight! Texas Fight,
Yea Texas Fight!
Texas Fight! Texas Fight,
Yea Texas Fight!
The Eyes of Texas are upon you,
All the livelong day.
The Eyes
of Texas are upon you,
You cannot get away.
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
For it's Texas that we love best.
Hail, Hail, The gang's all here,
And it good-bye to all the rest!
Note: The line, "Hail, Hail, the
gang's all here" is usually replaced
with "Give 'em hell, Give 'em hell, Go
Horns Go!" (LHB)
HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!!
**UPDATE**: Altering U.S. Strategy in Iraq
Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr. has an article in the Sep/Oct 2005 issue of
Foreign Affairs, titled "
How to Win in Iraq", in which he discusses a strategy that would see U.S. troops reducing their footprint/activity in major offensive - hit and run - operations and focusing more on protecting Iraq's critical infrastructure and government. It provides one possible example of the strategy which I elluded to in my first post here, "
A Conservative Argument for Leaving Iraq".
The primary point of such a strategy would be to deny insurgents the "fuel" of having U.S. forces so ever-present for target practice ("adding fuel to their fire), while focusing more on both consolidating and broadening support for U.S. policies amongst the general population (i.e. winning hearts and minds).
Excerpts:
....U.S. and Iraqi forces should adopt an "oil-spot strategy" in Iraq....
The oil-spot strategy, in contrast [to a focus on simply killing insurgents], focuses on establishing security for the population precisely for the sake of winning hearts and minds [which is essential to winning this war].... An oil-spot approach [would be one] in which operations would be oriented around securing the population and then gradually but inexorably expanding to increase control over contested areas....
....The security operations would facilitate reconstruction, offering Iraqis the promise of a better life. Sustained security would also ensure that the benefits of reconstruction would endure, rather than be sabotaged by the insurgents....
....Although securing [Iraq's less violent, relatively stable provinces] as well as key national infrastructure and previously secured areas should be the military's first priority, the four unsecured provinces cannot simply be abandoned to the insurgents.
-Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr. Foreign Affairs. September/October 2005.
**UPDATE**: NYC Terror Threat - Sleeper Cells Involved?
Another suspect has been aprehended here in Iraq by U.S. forces, the NYPD is canvassing the city with security, and NY Governor George Pataki has also called in the National Guard to assist as well. However, there seems to be some disconect between local and federal officials with regards to the whether or not this threat was imminent and required such immediate large-scale action.
The disconnect appears to look something like this:
-U.S. forces have captured 3 of 4 Iraqi suspects
-The 4th suspect is believed to have traveled outside of Iraq (probably to Syria at least) probably on his way to NYC
-HOWEVER, NYC believes that the threat involves NINETEEN suitcase bombs
So we have 4 suspects, but 19 bombs. We're missing 15 suspects then. To my knowledge, the federal government and U.S. forces in Iraq have no knowledge of an additional 15 suspects. To my knowledge - from reading the media reports - that information was not given by the sources that led to the capture of the 3 suspects, or from the suspects themselves during interogations.
So the question I have is, does NYC know something that the federal government doesn't, and if so 1) has it told the federal government and 2) if not, why?
As the press has been reporting, the NYPD has a VERY robust counter-terrorism operation within the NYPD, complete with translators, local and international sources, and analysts to sort through all of the intelligence.
It seems that the possibility exists then that there were ALREADY additional terrorists in NYC plotting to conduct attacks against the NYC Subway system, and that the suspects captured in Iraq were simply on their way to NYC to participate in the attacks. It is still possible that the 3 captured in Iraq were the masterminds of the plot, or that they had a key role in coordinating the plot, but if the report of 19 suitcase bombs is correct, then they were clearly not alone in their actions. Yet it is highly unlike that the other suspects are all still in Iraq. Some of them - if they exist - MUST already be state-side. That would make sense strategically - from the terrorists' point of view - and also logically from what we know of the apparent gaps in this investigation thus far.
Furthermore, the U.S. intercepted a letter between Al Qaida leaders around May 30th which discussed a "spectacular Ramadan Offensive" (
WorldNetDaily). Ramadan began 2 or 3 days ago, depending on the sect of Islam. If Al Qaida was serious about its Ramadan Offensive then, and serious about attacking the U.S. during that offensive, they would have had to have operatives/terrorists placed in the U.S. at least 5 days ago. However, that is a very conservative estimate which assumes that terrorists entering the country would have brought all of their supplies (explosives, etc) with them, which is unrealistic.
In reality, operatives would had to have been in country for at least a month - more like 3-6 months - to aquire the necessary bomb-making materials, surveil targets, and plan and conduct their attacks. They would have activated "sleeper cells" already in country in other words. So the distinct possibility exists that the individuals captured in Iraq were simply on their way to NYC to participate in the attacks, and possibly also that they provided a link between sleeper cells in the U.S. and Al Qaida in Iraq or Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Generation Why has suggested the possibility of a sleeper cell in Oklahoma, related to last weekend's Oklahoma suicide bomber.
That's all for now. Back to work!
(Hat tip again to
Mark Tapscott)
Edit: I should clarify.... I am not so much speculating or predicting here as I am simply attempting to illustrate the underpinnings of how terrorism operations work in a more general sense.Regs,The Analyst
**UPDATE**: Threat to NYC Subway
It turns out that the NYC Subway threat
was a result of information gathered from recent arrests - in Iraq.
U.S. intelligence officials said U.S. forces earlier in the week had raided a base belonging to Ansar al Islam, a small group linked to al-Qaida comprised of Islamic extremists from Iraq's Kurdish minority, in the city of Musayaf, south of Baghdad.
The raid recovered information that 19 suicide bombers using suitcases and baby carriages planned to hit the New York subway system, they said. The information was passed to the FBI, which turned it over to New York officials. (Mercury News)
**UPDATE** Muchos gracias to Mack Tapscott for the generous plug on his Blog. Definently check his blog out for excellent updates and analysis of the Oklahoma suicide bombing, and more.
**FLASH**: "Credible Threat" to NYC
NYPD Commisioner Ray Kelly has reported that there is a "credible threat" to NYC - specifically its subway system. (
Reuters)
To me, the timing of this threat and its apparent credibility suggest the distinct possibility that this threat is a result of information gathered from recently killed/captured terrorists/jihadists.
Threats derived from computers, documentation, or other sources exploited from recently captured persons are some of the most credible, and turn-around time for operations based on that information is usually within a week (and on-going afterwards).
The two captured persons I am thinking of specifically are the recent
suicide bomber in Oklahoma (Hat tip: Mark Tapscott), and the arrest of the
Taliban spokesman in Pakistan this weekend. During both incidients, invetigators reported seizing both documents and equipment (computers, fax machines, etc) from the individuals or their homes.
It is possible that information gathered during one of those arrests (or another arrest I haven't mentioned) have led to the "credible threat" information now coming out of NYC. I might even cautiously suggest that the Oklahoma suicide bomber may have been in contact with other jihadists in the U.S. planning similar attacks.
Let us hope that everything turns out alright.
**UPDATE**: On the Welfare Affects Argument for Leaving Iraq (Eventually)
The
LA Times reports that top U.S. Generals have also put forward the Welfare Affects Argument and suggested reducing the military's footprint in Iraq in recent meetings with Congress:
During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.
For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.
John P. Abizaid, who supervises all U.S. troops in the region, said the broader fight against Islamic extremism required the United States to "reduce our military footprint" across the region and push governments in the Middle East to fight the extremists themselves.
"This is about dependency," he said.
The advisor said that U.S. commanders were concerned that Iraqi troops could become too dependent on the American presence, but that there were no plans for a hasty pullout from the violent provinces before the Iraqis were up to the task."There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence and what constitutes not being ready to fight," he said.
Harriet Myers Nomination: What Was Bush Thinking?
There are a number of angles from which to examine this issue. We already know that many Republicans and Democrats are upset with the nomination of Harriet Myers. It seems that few people are optimistic at this point. So what was Bush thinking!?!?
Angle 1: My initial thought was that the president would nominate a woman or a minority - a strictly conservative one - and force the Democrats to vote against another woman or minority before the 2006 election. Its always been one of Rove and Bush's power-plays to put the Democrats in the position of being obstructionists, while at the same time revealing their disgust for any minority that doesn't toe their ideological line.
But isn't it a little early to be playing that card? The elections are still a long way off, especially in the minds of voters who are more concerned right now with the recent disasters, the new school year, etc....and we haven't even hit the holiday season yet.
So if Bush is going for the obstructionist card, he'd either need a prolonged battle over this nominee - one that will last at least into the new year, or a NO vote.
Angle 2: Putting up a "dummie" nominee that is ?likely to get voted down? in the Senate would postpone the real battle until at least December; probably even until the beginning of 2006 after the court returns for its January session. That would put the REAL confirmation hearings much closer to the 2006 election, during the run-ups to them. The public, having somewhat of a short-term memory and needing a key issue to latch onto for the elections - something to fire up the base, would be much more sensitive to the "obstructionist" card then.
Not coincidentally, that would also give the President more time to get out of his current ratings slump and better position him for a tough fight. Americans have had enough tough fights for the last two or three months, and Bush will probably catch a break when they do. His ratings have already eased up to a decent 45% this week.
Besides, who better to send into battle - to "take one for the team" - than a close personal friend?
But who knows. We've got a long month ahead, and more months after that (bet ya didn't know that months come after months huh!? :).
Angle 3: Right now, Arlen Specter says he wants a vote by Thanksgiving, but this confirmation hearing could end as early as the end of the month if there's not much to find and not much opposition to voting Myers down. Then the President would be under pressure to nominate someone by Thanksgiving, and that would kinda take the bang out of the whole shabang.
Angle 4: Then again, this President has never been known for appointing people who are "ideologically unreliable" to positions of power (as Hugh Hewitt notes). Myers may not be well known, but she's been with Bush a long time, so you can be perdy darn sure she's no softy and no David Souter. In 1996, Bush called her "a bit bull in size six shoes".
Angle 5: There is still the distinct possibility that another Justice will retire during Bush's term - Kennedy is the name thrown around most often. I don't need to post a link to tell you that Bush wants to nominate his good friend Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court as the First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. You can practically hear the president giggle every time its mentioned. (Did you just hear something!?)
If he is counting on being able to do that - which he very well could be, one would think that the president would appoint another rock-solid conservatives to the court this time around, given that Alberto Gonzales is not well-liked by the conservative base because he seems fairly liberal on social policies. It would make sense to do so now - before the 2006 elections - rather than to force Republicans up for re-election to vote on a moderate or unknown nominee that might discourage the party base.
So Angle 5 may give a little more weight to Angle 4 then.
Angle 6: Here's a thought: If Harriet Myers does end up being a rock-solid conservative, and if Alberto Gonzales does end up on the court in the end, then you have three very close Bush confidants on the same court. Myers and Roberts then may just be able to pull Gonzales to the right on key issues should he "go wobbly" on conservative judicial philosophy - at least maybe in the short term.
We shall see folks! Whatever happens, this going to be an interesting course of events to watch.
A Conservative Argument for Leaving Iraq
Conservatives have long been known for arguing the perils of the welfare state. An over-emphasis on welfare programs, conservatives (and many liberals) argue, leads to a culture of dependency that discourages private or personal investment while erecting inefficient and entrenched bureaucracies that feed off of ever-more taxpayer dollars. Why would anyone work, conservatives ask, when the government will pay them not to? Indeed, the
International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank have both issued reports in recent months that explicitly acknowledge the negative affects of too much government welfare.
It has been common over the last many years for Americans to
question whether the U.S.' strong security role in Europe, and particularly Germany, has perhaps caused it to take its security for granted. Headlines such as, "Shorter Work Weeks in Europe Subsidized by U.S. Taxpayers", have not been unheard of. Some of these often-jaded articles have even made some poignant points.
As a strong economic conservative then, I ask, might the “welfare affects principle” not also apply to U.S. subsidized security in Iraq?
The Bush Administration has consistently stressed that we must "stay the course" in Iraq, and has repeatedly refused to set a timeline for withdrawal. (Although, any astute spectator recognizes Bush’s long-held goal of ending this war on his watch. Why let someone else take the credit for it?) The President has also raised the point that a total withdrawal is in no one’s best interest. For the sake of argument though, let us put aside arguments for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq at current levels and allow me to put forth a few generalizations based solely on the welfare argument.
First, security in Iraq is overwhelmingly an American burden. For many of Iraq’s leaders, this permits them the leniency to be concerned with security only so far as it affects their own security, or their grip on power. Indeed, for leaders such as Muqtada Al Sadr, who thrive on anti-American or strict nationalist sentiment, the serious difficulty that Coalition Forces have maintaining security only provides fodder for their cannons. In those cases, the U.S. is not only largely subsidizing the security for those officials, but is also absolving them of any personal responsibility for the security situation while making their political case for them. Muqtada al Sadr could not be more pleased with the U.S. inability to provide immediate and unchallenged security for the Iraqi people.
This brings us to our next point. Shouldering the overwhelming burden of security, in terms of personnel, equipment, and funding, allows Iraq's politicians to criticize the situation without necessarily having to provide solutions themselves. Were Coalition Forces not present to take all of the blame however, the Iraqi people's discontent over the security situation would be directed instead at the Iraqi officials whom they elected into office for the very purpose of providing a more secure, stable, and prosperous Iraq. There is much cause to believe that this would be the case.
In a
recent poll, the majority of Iraqis said that they feel that attacks on Coalition Forces are justified, but that attacks on Iraqis – civilian or otherwise - are not. This presents a strong case for the argument that, if Coalition Forces were not so available for target practice, insurgent attacks would either subside or be more frequently directed at Iraqis and at the critical infrastructure that average Iraqis so depend upon. If we draw our conclusions from the polls then, Iraq's insurgents will find Iraq an increasingly hostile environment to operate in with U.S. troops gone or diminished in numbers, and their legitimacy might wane quickly.
The same goes for the terrorists and foreign fighters that are pouring across Iraq’s borders to wage their jihad on Coalition Forces and innocent Iraqis. There is no telling how many foreign fighters travel to Iraq only to attack Coalition Forces, but it is very likely the majority of them. Meanwhile, the CIA and other bodies have stated frankly that Iraq has become
the new training ground for terrorists from around the world, breeding a new generation of battle-hardened and often brain-washed terrorists looking for a free trip to the Land of the 40 Virgins at the expense of even one U.S. soldier or Iraqi Shiite: the preferred targets; infidels all. How many foreigners might be less inclined to cross the border into the terrorist training ground of Iraq though were U.S. forces not so present? That is not a question that anyone can answer, but it certainly stands to reason that the draw would be less significant and the numbers would dwindle. Of course, they would not stop coming altogether.
There are already strong signs that foreign terrorists are becoming increasingly disliked by native Iraqis. Recently, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi issued a
fatwa declaring all-out war against Shiites. The significance of this fatwa did not seem to resonate with the foreign press though. Extremist Sunnis such as Zarqawi and Bin Laden who espouse the Salafist doctrine of Sunni Islam have in fact been waging war against the Shiites since the death of the Prophet Mohammad. This crucial history though has been all but buried since 9/11 though. Also largely unnoticed has been the ongoing split between Iraq's native insurgents and Zarqawi's terrorists.
Following Zarqawi’s fatwa, dozens of
Iraq’s Sunni leaders came out to express their solidarity with their Shiite brethren. Iraq’s Sunni insurgent groups also instantly
rejected Zarqawi’s barbaric plea. Just as important were the
recent events in the Iraq-Syrian border town of Al Qaim. Zarqawi and his henchmen had raided and pillaged the border town and began enforcing their extremist version of Islam on the town’s people, forcing many of its residents to flee. The Albu Mahal tribe did not run though -
they fought back. Unfortunately, their bravery was in vein. Those resisting the thugs were practically slaughtered, and Zarqawi's terrorists made examples of them by abducting and brutalizing the tribe's men, women, and children, beheading many. This was meant to be a warning to Iraqis not to oppose AQI, but instead it has caused a number of tribes with strong ties to the Albu Mahal tribe to seek out a local alliance against Zarqawi and his thugs.
The split between native Iraqis and AQI has been broiling beneath the surface for some time and U.S. forces have been somewhat slow to exploit it. The presence of U.S. forces, it could be argued, has in fact provided cover for AQI to continue its campaign of indiscriminate slaughter unhindered, not to mention providing many local insurgents an excuse to ally with the likes of Zarqawi. After all, how much motivation would local Iraqis have to oppose AQI when they too are opposed to the presence of U.S. forces? That motivation has always been there - AQI has consistently targeted innocent Iraqis - but it has generally been secondary to the desire to expel U.S. forces from Iraq. It could be argued then that a decreased U.S. presence in Iraq would force AQI's indiscriminate slaughter of civilians to the front pages of Iraq's newly independent press and help to solidify the split between native Iraqis and foreign terrorists. This seems very plausible. Iraqis, who are extremely nationalistic, would likely then put pressure on the Iraqi government to expel the terrorists, or else do the job themselves.
Lastly, requiring the Iraqi government to more fully fund its own security would give Iraqi officials a much greater stake in ensuring that the money is being spent effectively and efficiently. As the Iraqi government takes on more responsibility for the needs of its people, its government agencies will be forced to compete for more finite monetary resources. This would force the Iraqi government to better prioritize its spending and funnel more money into the areas where it is needed most: security, infrastructure, and basic nutritional and medical needs.
Certainly, there are many lines of argument to be considered here, and a full and immediate withdrawal is obviously not advisable. The immediate rebuttal to this welfare argument is that even most conservatives agree that welfare is necessary to help those who truly cannot help themselves. Iraqi forces though are not entirely incapable of providing security, nor are they perhaps fully capable of doing so. The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in the middle. On the other hand, Saddam managed to secure his nation into complete and utter submission, even with a rag-tag military degraded by a decade of economic sanctions. So it may not be all that foolish to suggest that Iraqi forces may be capable of surviving a decreased U.S. presence in Iraq. So how might U.S. forces being to wean Iraq off of U.S. security? “Softly, softly”, the Brits might say.
While maintaining some semblance of security in which the fledgling democracy in Iraq can continue to build, it may be advisable to at least decrease the U.S. footprint in Iraq's major cities or in other areas. Perhaps U.S. forces might do well to shift their security focus to Iraq’s critical infrastructure, the majority of which remains unguarded to this day. There are a number of possibilities, all of which have their down-sides, and all of which are undoubtedly already being considered by high-level officials. When or how such a plan will or should be implemented is another question for another day.
America has finally provided the Iraqi people with a democratic infrastructure that allows them greater power to determine what its government does and when it does it. There will come a time when the U.S. would do best to give the Iraqis the opportunity to exercise that power to force their government to provide security for them, instead of allowing the U.S. to shoulder the burden and blame while many of Iraq's leaders are permitted to remain complacent without retribution.
