Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Are we caving to AQ threats?

  1. #1
    Council Member Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between deployments?
    Posts
    22

    Default Are we caving to AQ threats?

    Sure seems like it when we close our Embassy in Yemen and announce that it was due to fears of AQ retaliation for our support of the Yemeni government (http://tinyurl.com/y9mhuxb).

    Strategic Communication is the intersection of our actions and our messages, and this action cannot send a more clear message to our adversaries -- although we, our allies, and civilized people across the world are pounding you at every turn, your threats will make us cower inside our outposts in the countries that need our support the most.

    I know the counterargument -- DoS aren't Soldiers and are not sent there to be attacked -- but aren't they there to represent the US and doesn't retreating within our ramparts give AQ the psychological advantage over us? We need, among other things, to reassure our valiant allies that we will stand with them throughout the fight. Do we do that when we close our doors? Did YM close down in response to the many threats and actual attacks they have experienced?

    Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be

  2. #2
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Okay, that is scary! One key message it sends is that "we will stand right behind our allies - out of the line of fire"! It is a very scary message to the rest of us who are watching the US. It also says "When the going gets tough, the tough get going... back to DC". Not the type of message that reassures the rest of the world about your intentions.

    This is, however, a fairly consistent theme for the past 30 years or so, where the people who work for State and various and sundry other countries' Foreign Affairs departments, appear to value themselves more than the countries they are ostensibly serving and representing. It says a lot about how the defence of the country has been abrogated by the self-proclaimed elites of the country.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #3
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default 5 myths about keeping America safe from terrorism

    I'll tuck this article into this thread. Seems fitting.


    5 myths about keeping America safe from terrorism
    By Stephen Flynn
    Sunday, January 3, 2010; B03


    With President Obama declaring a "systemic failure" of our security
    system in the wake of the attempted Christmas bombing of a Detroit-
    bound airliner, familiar arguments about what can and should be done
    to reduce America's vulnerabilities are again filling the airwaves,
    editorial pages and blogosphere. Several of these arguments are based
    on assumptions that guided the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001,
    attacks -- and unfortunately, they are as unfounded now as they were
    then. The biggest whopper of all? The paternalistic assertion that the
    government can keep us all safe without our help.

    1. Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people.
    Americans are at far greater risk of being killed in accidents or by
    viruses than by acts of terrorism. In 2008, more than 37,300 Americans
    perished on the nation's highways, according to government data. Even
    before H1N1, a similar number of people died each year from the
    seasonal flu. Terrorism is a real and potentially consequential
    danger. But the greatest threat isn't posed by the direct harm
    terrorists could inflict; it comes from what we do to ourselves when
    we are spooked. It is how we react -- or more precisely, how we
    overreact -- to the threat of terrorism that makes it an appealing
    tool for our adversaries. By grounding commercial aviation and
    effectively closing our borders after the 2001 attacks, Washington
    accomplished something no foreign state could have hoped to achieve: a
    blockade on the economy of the world's sole superpower. While we
    cannot expect to be completely successful at intercepting terrorist
    attacks, we must get a better handle on how we respond when they happen.

    2. When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a
    good offense.
    The cornerstone of the Bush administration's approach to dealing with
    the terrorist threat was to take the battle to the enemy. But offense
    has its limits. We still aren't generating sufficiently accurate and
    timely tactical intelligence to adequately support U.S.
    counterterrorism efforts overseas. And going after terrorists abroad
    hardly means they won't manage to strike us at home. Just days before
    the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the United
    States collaborated with the Yemeni government on raids against al-
    Qaeda militants there. The group known as al-Qaeda of the Arabian
    Peninsula is now claiming responsibility for having equipped and
    trained Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to blow up the
    flight. The group is also leveraging the raids to recruit militants
    and mount protests against Yemen's already fragile central government.

    At the same time, an emphasis on offense has often come at the expense
    of investing in effective defensive measures, such as maintaining
    quality watch lists, sharing information about threats, safeguarding
    such critical assets as the nation's food and energy supplies, and
    preparing for large-scale emergencies. After authorities said
    Abdulmutallab had hidden explosives in his underwear, airline
    screeners held up flights to do stepped-up passenger pat-downs at
    boarding gates -- pat-downs that inevitably avoided passengers'
    crotches and buttocks. This kind of quick fix only tends to fuel
    public cynicism about security efforts. But if we can implement smart
    security measures ahead of time (such as requiring refineries next to
    densely populated areas to use safer chemicals when they manufacture
    high-octane gas), we won't be incapacitated when terrorists strike.
    Strengthening our national ability to withstand and rapidly recover
    from terrorism will make the United States a less appealing target. In
    combating terrorism, as in sports, success requires both a capable
    offense and a strong defense.

    3. Getting better control over America's borders is essential to
    making us safer.
    Our borders will never serve as a meaningful line of defense against
    terrorism. The inspectors at our ports, border crossings and airports
    have important roles when it comes to managing immigration and the
    flow of commerce, but they play only a bit part in stopping would-be
    attackers. This is because terrorist threats do not originate at our
    land borders with Mexico and Canada, nor along our 12,000 miles of
    coastline. They originate at home as well as abroad, and they exploit
    global networks such as the transportation system that moved 500
    million cargo containers through the world's ports in 2008. Moreover,
    terrorists' travel documents are often in perfect order. This was the
    case with Abdulmutallab, as well as with shoe-bomber Richard Reid in
    2001. Complaints about porous borders may play well politically, but
    they distract us from the more challenging task of forging
    international cooperation to strengthen safeguards for our global
    transportation, travel and financial systems. They also sidestep the
    disturbing fact that the number of terrorism-related cases involving
    U.S. residents reached a new high in 2009.

    4. Investing in new technology is key to better security.
    Not necessarily. Technology can be helpful, but too often it ends up
    being part of the problem. Placing too much reliance on sophisticated
    tools such as X-ray machines often leaves the people staffing our
    front lines consumed with monitoring and troubleshooting these
    systems. Consequently, they become more caught up in process than
    outcomes. And as soon procedures become routine, a determined bad guy
    can game them. We would do well to heed two lessons the U.S. military
    has learned from combating insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan: First,
    don't do things in rote and predictable ways, and second, don't
    alienate the people you are trying to protect. Too much of what is
    promoted as homeland security disregards these lessons. It is true
    that technology such as full-body imaging machines, which have
    received so much attention in the past week, are far more effective
    than metal detectors at screening airline passengers. But new
    technologies are also expensive, and they are no substitute for well-
    trained professionals who are empowered and rewarded for exercising
    good judgment.

    5. Average citizens aren't an effective bulwark against terrorist
    attacks.
    Elite pundits and policymakers routinely dismiss the ability of
    ordinary people to respond effectively when they are in harm's way.
    It's ironic that this misconception has animated much of the
    government's approach to homeland security since Sept. 11, 2001, given
    that the only successful counterterrorist action that day came from
    the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93. These passengers
    didn't have the help of federal air marshals. The Defense Department's
    North American Aerospace Defense Command didn't intercept the plane --
    it didn't even know the airliner had been hijacked. But by charging
    the cockpit over rural Pennsylvania, these private citizens prevented
    al-Qaeda terrorists from reaching their likely target of the U.S.
    Capitol or the White House. The government leaders whose
    constitutional duty is "to provide for the common defense" were
    defended by one thing alone -- an alert and heroic citizenry.

    This misconception is particularly reckless because it ends up
    sidelining the greatest asset we have for managing the terrorism
    threat: the average people who are best positioned to detect and
    respond to terrorist activities. We have only to look to the attempted
    Christmas Day attack to validate this truth. Once again it was the
    government that fell short, not ordinary people. A concerned Nigerian
    father, not the CIA or the National Security Agency, came forward with
    crucial information. And the courageous actions of the Dutch film
    director Jasper Schuringa and other passengers and crew members aboard
    Flight 253 thwarted the attack.

    Stephen Flynn is the president of the Center for National Policy and
    author of "The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation."

  4. #4
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Nice article, Mike! Did you notice that points 3,4 and 5 all reinforce a separation of citizens from elite experts, while the first two points serve as distractors?
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  5. #5
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    We have to be careful here. Just because Yemen's so-called "government" (which controls 1/3 of the country) is ostensibly anti-AQ doesn't mean they're worth backing.

    The current ruler of Yemen routinely describes all his potential enemies as AQ in order to get assistance to jail/attack/kill them. While AQ is a real presence, not all the rebels in Yemen are AQ, as they are involved in a civil war.

    Backing a thug regime under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule hasn't generally worked well for us in the long term, and generally has spawned more terrorists willing to attack the US because we undermine our own stated commitment to democracy and human rights. As a reporter I know said:

    do you want to take the side of a dictator against his people? do you want to be identified with that dictator and with his victims? then dont be surprised when they try to blow up your planes
    I don't fully agree with the above, but he has a point. I say caution before wading into a civil war we don't fully understand under the banner of chasing AQ.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default There are Think Tanks and there are Unthinking Tanks...

    This is correct:
    "The paternalistic assertion that the government can keep us all safe without our help."
    At least to an extent. There is no way the government can keep us all safe; with or without our help. so he's sorta got that right -- then he blows it by telling us what the governemtn should do in his opinion to keep us a little safer...

    The five myths:

    1. Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people. True, that's a myth and his suggestion makes sense:
    "While we cannot expect to be completely successful at intercepting terrorist attacks, we must get a better handle on how we respond when they happen."
    Unfortunately, that neglects the fact that the Politicians in both parties have no incentive to get that better handle. If they did that, they could no longer vilify their opponents for not doing so. That is more important to many in Politics than are sensible policies.

    2. When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a good offense. That's not a myth, that's correct -- the issue is the word "good." We have not done a good job largely due to domestic politics. See item 1. above. Recall that offense can take a great many forms, it need not be CT and HVT DA...

    3. Getting better control over America's borders is essential to making us safer. Not possible on several levels, not least due to the sheer magnitude of the problem, the great diversity of this nation. Politcal malfeasance, political correctness and incompetence do not help.

    4. Investing in new technology is key to better security. Wrong answer -- dropping political correctness would do more good than all the new technology we could buy. A little common sense and an American recognition that technology and throwing money at problems would also be an asset..

    5. Average citizens aren't an effective bulwark against terrorist attacks. That is a myth. PROVIDED the government loses its holier than thou attitude and empowers its citizens instead of suggesting, thinking and treating them as though they're all a bunch of sheep. Someone let me know when that occurs...

    For all those mythettes, see Item 1, above -- until we elect decent people to Congress and rectify their venality and party loyalty ahead of concern for their Oaths and the Nation, there will be no improvement.

  7. #7
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    We have to be careful here...I say caution before wading into a civil war we don't fully understand under the banner of chasing AQ.
    Hopefully, someone in policy circles believes that to be smart...

  8. #8
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    For all those mythettes, see Item 1, above -- until we elect decent people to Congress and rectify their venality and party loyalty ahead of concern for their Oaths and the Nation, there will be no improvement.
    Which brings us back to how you folks can do that at a system level. I also reminds me of some of the H&MP discussions in Starship Troopers.....
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  9. #9
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Which brings us back to how you folks can do that at a system level. I also reminds me of some of the H&MP discussions in Starship Troopers.....
    marct,There is no system and thats the problem as Ken points out there are at least two competing political systems that only want to get there people elected or re-elected and then there is the third system that steals all the cookies and milk from the country no matter who gets elected

    Music for Systems thinking
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8xtoP2neSQ
    Last edited by slapout9; 01-03-2010 at 05:07 PM. Reason: stuff

  10. #10
    Council Member Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between deployments?
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Not saying that the YM government is worth backing. If they have truly had enough of AQ and take up arms against it, it's a good start, however. My point is that we should think through the impact of our actions before we cave into threats -- and we should be hard-wired against doing so.

  11. #11
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    "re we caving to AQ threats?"

    The whole reaction to terrorism since 2001-09-11 in most of the Western World has been a cowardly.

    A few relatively competent assholes kidnap four airliners with carpet knives and destroy the collective intellect of the Western World by setting fear hormones free. Political fearmongers and warmongers get loose.

    Some incompetent dumbass attempts to blow his pants up in an airliner and millions of passengers have to endure the most stupid "security" checks in history.

    There's nothing that could surprise me any more, not even a completely pointless withdrawal from an embassy.


    We should have said on day one:
    So you've hit us once. Well, we've got our professional police to keep you out in the future and our professional intelligence agencies to hunt you down.
    We are way too many, too rich, too smart, too advanced and too powerful to be much bothered or even scared of you punks.
    A flea may sting an elephant, but it will never ever stop him doing what he wants to do.

    And then we should have done what we felt was right, not taking into account any inflated, irrational terrorism fears and completely ignoring what those punks say or write.

  12. #12
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    marct,There is no system and thats the problem as Ken points out there are at least two competing political systems that only want to get there people elected or re-elected and then there is the third system that steals all the cookies and milk from the country no matter who gets elected
    Hey Slap, that's the system I was talking about . Compare how political, "civilian", leaders are judged as being acceptable at a social level between the current US system and, say, Rome (look at the cursus honorum).

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  13. #13
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    [B][I]

    We should have said on day one:
    So you've hit us once. Well, we've got our professional police to keep you out in the future and our professional intelligence agencies to hunt you down.
    We are way too many, too rich, too smart, too advanced and too powerful to be much bothered or even scared of you punks.
    A flea may sting an elephant, but it will never ever stop him doing what he wants to do.

    And then we should have done what we felt was right, not taking into account any inflated, irrational terrorism fears and completely ignoring what those punks say or write.
    Now your talking!

  14. #14
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hey Slap, that's the system I was talking about . Compare how political, "civilian", leaders are judged as being acceptable at a social level between the current US system and, say, Rome (look at the cursus honorum).

    Cheers,

    Marc
    marct, I think people are going to start moving to Canada very shortly, better economy,better health care, better guvmint,better psych tests for military........

  15. #15
    Council Member Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between deployments?
    Posts
    22

    Default We might make them mad

    No troops for Yemen: White House aide (AFP) 3 January 2010, http://tinyurl.com/y8d459z

    Do we really need to announce this? Might be the right answer if YM can defeat AQ with only indirect support or if we are not concerned about AQ shifting its flag from PAK to YM, but do we need to announce it the same day we close down our Embassy in the face of AQ threats?

    The dots connect to describe a direct line from the threat to our decision not to intervene. I'm sure the connection is not lost on our enemies.

  16. #16
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    marct, I think people are going to start moving to Canada very shortly, better economy,better health care, better guvmint,better psych tests for military........
    Drat, Slap! We keep gettin' "invaded" by you southerners ! We're just going to have to do something about boarder security ....
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  17. #17
    Registered User SteveO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Do we really need to announce this? Might be the right answer if YM can defeat AQ with only indirect support or if we are not concerned about AQ shifting its flag from PAK to YM, but do we need to announce it the same day we close down our Embassy in the face of AQ threats?
    Mr. Martel,

    I didn't read it that way. We already have an active indirect FID program with the Yemenis to train/equip CT and border police. Section 1206 and 1207 plus antiterrorism through Title 22.

    My take on PM Brown's comments was that UK/US would strengthen existing security assistance.

    Perhaps the embassies closed in advance to avoid being targets for retaliatory actions once the stepped up FID/SA/SFA programs pushed deeper into YM internal defense apparatus.

    But, yes, on first blush, the dots connect to weakness. I'm hoping there is a little bit more to it.


  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Empty Bravado

    If there is a credible threat, then it makes perfect sense to close an Embassy for a day or two while law enforcement and intelligence assets attempt to collect more intell and hopefully neutralize the threat. It also allows time for the host nation to increase local security measures around embassy row (a temporary surge). Closing Embassies based on credible threats is a long and prudent practice, and we shouldn't confuse closing an Embassy for a day or two as pulling in our fangs. Embassies are not security outposts, they're diplomatic outposts. What would be foolish and unacceptable is to open the Embassy when we have credible threat information that results in the needless deaths. That is simply empty bravado. Ambassador's don't make the call to close Embassies lightly, so I think unless the facts indicate otherwise we should trust their judgment.

    Personally I think it is good news that we announced we're not sending troops to Yemen. We're not falling into the trap of over reacting like we did previously. We're providing less propaganda for the bad guys, and we should be able to do all we need to do through covert and low visibility support. AQ used to bragg all they had to do was wave a flag in some country and the U.S. would come running, thus over extending themselves even further. We're no longer playing into their hands, but we're still getting after them. Anything other than a low visibility presence there would likely be counterproductive to our efforts in the region.

    MikeF, that was a good post. I'm somewhat ambivalent one point one. In democracies there are always contrary opinions, and each side generally over states their case considerably (or over communicates a particular point such as XX is soft on terror) in an attempt to garner more support for their position. Rational debate has never been a part of our political culture, and fear is a good way to motivate the masses whether it is drugs, commis, terrorists, etc. The previous administration played the fear card effectively for political power (didn't do much against AQ IMO) and the former VP is still barking from the sidelines. Though I'm at a loss to see where we're any softer on terror now than we were two years ago.

    On the other hand, there are valid reasons for concern. There is little doubt that AQ and other extremis groups would employ a WMD in the U.S. if they ever get one. There is little doubt they would attempt to pull off another attack on the scale of 9/11 if we allowed them to do so. This is at least the third attempt on one our commerical airlines since 9/11 (first was the shoe bomber, then the big plot to blow up several airlines that was disrupted in the UK, and now the Christmas bomber). Governments are obligated to defend their people, and they rightly lose legitimacy when they don't. If the attack Christmas bomber was successful the ripple effects on our economy (actually the global economy, since safe commercial flight is essential) would have been hugely damaging.

    That means we (not just the U.S.) need to make tough, rational decisions where we effectively balance our efforts and investment in defense (which IMO is grossly under invested in) and offense (and like Ken suggested, that doesn't always mean military action).

    This another rare moment where I disagree with Ken, because I think investing in the right defense technology is critical and it does make a difference. Where we do agree is that politically correct policies are hamstringing security efforts. Profiling is not "nice", but it can be effective in focusing efforts on likely suspects, while refusing to profile can very well allow a terrorist to get through our security measures.

    There are no easy answers.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 01-04-2010 at 01:52 AM. Reason: add doesn't

  19. #19
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Hey Bill,

    Ambassadors don't make the call to close Embassies lightly, so I think unless the facts indicate otherwise we should trust their judgment.
    Agreed. Common sense goes a long way when things get violent.

    Personally I think it is good news that we announced we're not sending troops to Yemen. We're not falling into the trap of over reacting like we did previously.
    It’s interesting to think about why Yemen is coming to the forefront of media consciousness at this time. How much can be ascribed to diversionary tactics, poor governance, etc? A measured and balanced approach applied with cunning and focused ruthlessness as needed has much to recommend it.

    On the other hand, there are valid reasons for concern. There is little doubt that AQ and other extremis groups would employ a WMD in the U.S. if they ever get one. There is little doubt they would attempt to pull off another attack on the scale of 9/11 if we allowed them to do so.
    Agreed, we have a small number of hard-core enemies who will do whatever it takes to try and hurt us. Along these lines, our discussion the other day regarding the development of conditions to reduce the number of radicals, in particular via the local educational system, seems worth revisiting. What is Yemen doing to fix its problems in this arena?

    During my reading today I a came across the following article in Die Welt, Westliche Demografie-Sorgen bei der Terrorabwehr (Western Demographic Concerns associated with the Terror-Defense). The article is an opinion piece written by a German high school teacher. If his numbers are correct the demographics are interesting to consider: He states that there are ~24 million Yemeni’s and that the nation has a demographic a ratio of 1000 (40 to 44 y/o men) to 5950 (0 to 4 y/o boys). The effects of disease, immigration, etc. are not discussed.

    The author’s article is also interesting in that it displays a European approach and provides a datapoint regarding our allies. These same ratios are then examined across the US, England, and Germany (they decrease) and the potential impact of war losses upon single child families (common in Europe) are discussed.

    Perhaps we will see an increase in NGO’s in Yemen as a result of the current events.

    If the attack [by the] Christmas [underpants] bomber was successful the ripple effects on our economy (actually the global economy, since safe commercial flight is essential) would have been hugely damaging.
    So what can we learn about effective security and cost containment from Israel?

    What Israeli security could teach us By Jeff Jacoby in the August 23, 2006 Boston Globe.


    That means we (not just the U.S.) need to make tough, rational decisions where we effectively balance our efforts and investment in defense (which IMO is grossly under invested in) and offense (and like Ken suggested, that always mean military action).
    The need for cost effective Full Spectrum Capabilities are something most of us agree upon.

    More often than not, however, I am a ‘people are more important than hardware’ fan. IMO we need to get serious about integrating DoD, DoS, and our myriad OGA’s into cohesive and unified instruments of US Policy. The current inefficiencies are very costly and are arguably a function of the size of the organization. The upcoming QDR will be telling.

    As we sometimes do, I disagree with you regarding limiting the definition of offense to just military action. Consider the recent raid upon the treasury led by banks, the narco business model, and lawfare. The Chinese analysis of unrestricted warfare is also worth considering.

    There are no easy answers.
    True,

    For some reason I do like the concept of Cursus Honorum however (thanks Marc ) it’s certainly a start…

    Steve
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 01-04-2010 at 01:52 AM.
    Sapere Aude

  20. #20
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    If there is a credible threat, then it makes perfect sense to close an Embassy for a day or two while law enforcement and intelligence assets attempt to collect more intell and hopefully neutralize the threat. It also allows time for the host nation to increase local security measures around embassy row (a temporary surge). Closing Embassies based on credible threats is a long and prudent practice, and we shouldn't confuse closing an Embassy for a day or two as pulling in our fangs. Embassies are not security outposts, they're diplomatic outposts. What would be foolish and unacceptable is to open the Embassy when we have credible threat information that results in the needless deaths. That is simply empty bravado. Ambassador's don't make the call to close Embassies lightly, so I think unless the facts indicate otherwise we should trust their judgment.
    Precisely! One particular internet commando claimed the President was "surrendering to AQ." While his was an attempt to start a political food fight, it displayed a basic ignorance of some pretty standard security principles.

Similar Threads

  1. Muslim's Blunt Criticism of Islam Draws Threats
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2006, 12:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •