Fear and Loathing in Benghazi

It seems the hordes of Muslim extremists are at it again. This time they have supposedly responded to an inconspicuous movie, which mocked the prophet Mohammed, by violently protesting outside of U.S. embassies and murdering the U.S. ambassador to Libya. However, as recent reports indicate, the film was not the real cause of the violence. Instead, the attacks were a well-planned terrorist plot, aimed at humiliating the United States on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, responding to the killing of terrorist leaders by U.S. drone attacks, and securing key documents from within the Benghazi embassy.

The violence has sparked a domestic row between the two U.S. presidential candidates. Governor Romney was criticized the administration's response, which initially apologized for the film for offending Muslim sensibilities. He said "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." This was in response to the first statement from the U.S. government which stated that:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

The administration subsequently and sharply criticized the violence. In Secretary of State Clinton's words: "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today."

Nevertheless, judging by recent reports, it is apparent that the administration focused on the wrong aspect at the outset, validating Romney's criticisms. By portraying the event as an overly violent response to an offensive video, rather than a planned terrorist attack, the administration's goal was (wrongly) to assuage anger, not thwart enemies of the United States.

While there is an argument to be made about using carefully worded platitudes to calm a potential diplomatic debacle (success in international relations often comes to those who can artfully use words to avoid using action), there are proper and improper ways to wield diplomatic finesse. The Obama administration's initial response made a number of crucial mistakes that, in combination with past errors, display a profound and naive understanding of the Middle East and public diplomacy, shed insight into the president's misguided worldview, and lay a framework for further attacks on U.S. interests and personnel.

The administration's first error is that they seemingly believe that this sort of Muslim violence is a direct response to a Western provocation. Whether it is the recent film, cartoons printed by a Dutch newspaper, or  a Florida pastor burning copies of the Qu'ran, the administration presupposes that the response in the Middle East is understandable, even if its inexcusable (to be fair, the administration repeatedly and publicly condemns the violence as unjustifiable). The logic stems from a belief that if foolish Americans would just avoid such hateful acts, the Arabs now rioting in the streets would have little reason to resort to violence or detest America.

But as the unfolding story indicates, this logic is far from true. There are much deeper animosities, angers, and conflicting worldviews at work in the Middle East. The American condemnation of the film, alongside verbal, diplomatic, and coercive action against the perpetrators of the violence, did nothing to assuage Muslim angst. In fact, riots and protests broke out in Muslim capitals across the globe, directing Islamic wrath at U.S. embassies in a number of countries. Protests were even staged outside the Swiss embassy in Iran (the Swiss represent U.S. interests there) and in Israel. Jews and the "Zionist-American conspiracy" became instant rhetorical targets and some Arabs celebrated the September 11th attacks.

What is truly at work in the Middle East is an intricate and complex set of ideologies and emotions—a respect for and jealousy of the successes of the West combined with a distaste, even hatred, of Western values. These are often coupled with domestic woes—frustration with economic conditions and poor leadership. Finally and most significantly, there is the role of the jihadists, who exploited the film to further their goal of armed jihad against the West. Anti-Islamic films or cartoons are at most a trigger that set these forces in motion.

Obama's advisers presumably understand the complexities of the Middle East, which is why the president's responses are so befuddling. Apologies will not address the real tension between Islam and the West. Nor will they solve the domestic woes in the Middle East or dissuade fundamentalist terrorists. If anything apologies reinforce, to those Muslims who are so imbibed in societies where dictators can control such expression, the image of a malignant West. For those Muslims who understand that the U.S. government has little control, and thus little responsibility, for such publications (however offensive), apologies are simply condescending.

So then why apologize? It seems that the only reasonable explanation lies in Obama's faulty worldview. As has been argued before, Obama sees the world through a lens that can be aptly described as the "problem of the underdog." In a trend that dominates both his domestic and foreign policies, Obama places an emphasis on castigating those in power and bolstering the supposedly weak. The successful, the powerful, the rich, the former imperialist, the banker, Wall Street, the business owner or anyone else "on top" got there by pushing someone else down. All, by the virtue of their position, have a moral inferiority to those who occupy the concomitant underdog position.

As a representative of the most powerful nation, Obama thus has a responsibility to apologize for our supposed sins. His immediate reaction was to address the slight that allegedly sent the Arab street into an angst-ridden, violent frenzy. The gut reaction of the administration was to publicly atone, in the naive belief that self-castigation would dissipate the violence.

But such a worldview is naive. It, as the administration is now admitting, has failed to address the realities of the situation. It treated a terrorist attack like a PR matter, solidifying in many's minds, both in the West and throughout the Muslim world, that it was cruel and provocative Americans who's blasphemy against the prophet instigated the violence.

This weakens the United States' global stature. It gives credence to the argument that the United States is the crux of the world's problems. It creates and reinforces a false linkage between the individual acts of American citizens and the positions, influence and control of the U.S. government. But most importantly, it fails to address the real issues at work—the political, social, and economic plight of the Middle East, the ideological incompatibilities between political Islam and liberal democracy, and a passionate fundamentalist force that wants to overturn the West's dominance.

While the Romney camp has certainly oversimplified the issue in order to score political points, the administration clearly mishandled the situation at the outset. It is certainly courageous and noble to apologize when our country does something wrong—such is an act of diplomacy that is unfortunately underused—yet it is quite another to apologize for or even condemn the acts of one's own citizens, particularly when the government has little control over their behaviors.

The administration would do better to hold a posture that does not apologize for who we are as a nation nor fail to defend the values and principles that have made this country great. Instead the president should use the opportunities to not only condemn the violence against Americans but to educate the Muslim world, in its inchoate struggle for democracy, that the principles of America, such freedom of speech and expression, have tremendous value, even if they do come with costs.

Israel's Terrible Blunder

Israel is usually pretty smart when it comes to security and mitigating the threats from terror. There is, however, one area where they repeatedly fail to maintain their vaunted standards: their willingness to negotiate for hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday that the Israelis had reached a deal with Hamas, the terrorist group and Gaza's governing regime, for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit, who was abducted five years ago by Hamas agents, will be swapped for some 1,000 Hamas prisoners currently being held in Israeli prisons, many of whom are serving life sentences for terrorism.

The deal, however, is dreadfully foolish. By rewarding Hamas's kidnapping, the Israelis are only facilitating the re-occurrence of such heinous events. It is never wise to provide hostage-takers with incentives to continue their behavior. The payment of ransoms is a sure way to put future Israelis at risk. The only successful way to deter such behavior is to ensure that abductions will never be rewarded and that kidnappers can expect severe punishment for such transgressions.

Equally damning is the price that Israel has agreed to pay for the return of Shalit. It will now release scores of murderers and terrorists, many of whom are sworn to Israel's destruction. At least some of them will undoubtedly commit further terrorist attacks—in all likelihood causing the deaths of more Israelis. It is impossible for the Israeli government to morally justify the release of terrorists when death for some unfortunate Israelis is the inevitable outcome. Trading one captured prisoner for potential, even if undetermined, dead is unfathomable.

Finally, as harsh as it may seem, Israel will not be getting back the national hero that Shalit has been romanticized into over the past five years. As anyone who is familiar with Stockholm Syndrome knows, five years of isolation in a Hamas prison will not have worn well on the young Shalit, who was only 19 at the time of his capture. It is highly probable that Shalit has been completely brainwashed and indoctrinated by Hamas through years of psychological and physical control and torture. In all likelihood, over the course of his imprisonment, his handlers were able to break him. A worst case scenario is that he comes out of captivity as a mouthpiece for Hamas, slamming the very Israelis who sacrificed to gain his freedom. Obviously, such an outcome would be a huge propaganda win for Hamas and a demoralizing blow for Israel. Needless to say, it would only contribute to the mounting costs of this foolish prisoner swap. ^[1]

However misguided, the venerable roots of Israel's policy should not be denied. The intention is pure—to ensure that no solider is left behind, whether alive or dead. This is at least understandable, if not in some simplistic way commendable. It is undoubtedly comforting for the soldiers of such a small state to feel protected by their government. Nevertheless, while one's heart bleeds for the tragic Shalit, the government must consider the broader picture. There are better ways to maintain a commitment for the safe return of one's soldiers. Finding alternative means to punish Hamas, deter abductions, and obtain Shalit's release are the only method to fruitfully maintain Israeli security. Prisoner swaps will only lead to further tragedies and should never be a policy option.

---

Note:

[1] This is not meant to say that Israel should not do what it can to ensure Shalit's return—it should—but simply that the benefits the Israelis will get from a swap are not only most likely lower than they expect but certainly not worth the broader costs.

Hamas's Political Weakening May Help Israel

The political dynamics in the Middle East are slowly changing - quite possibly in Israel's favor.  A Reuters article reports that Iran has cut funding to Hamas due to the Palestinian movement's refusal to support besieged Syrian President Bashar Assad.  Hamas, which has its political headquarters in the Syrian capitol, Damascus, has long been used by Iran as a political and terrorist weapon against Israel (Hamas currently controls the Gaza Strip).  However, the Iranian leadership is obviously quite upset at Hamas's failure to support the fellow Iranian proxies in Syria.  Assad, who is backed by Iran, has been increasingly under threat as popular revolts against the dictator have increased.  The Syrian regime has also faced increasing illegitimacy across the globe as many leaders, including recently President Obama, have called for Assad's resignation.

Reuters also reports that Hamas has lost funding from its Muslim Brotherhood supporters who are fueling the Arab Spring revolts in Egypt.

Hamas is also widely believed to receive money from the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most popular and organised political force. Diplomats said those payments also may have been reduced because the Brotherhood has diverted funds to support the so-called Arab Spring revolts.

Hamas's financial and political woes may bode well for Israel.  Hamas has recently indicated a desire for a ceasefire with Israel.  According to reports this ceasefire will go into effect Sunday evening. This followed a series of bloody attacks in southern Israel this past week, perpetrated by the PRC, a group of Muslim terrorist seemingly unaffiliated with Hamas.  Israel has responded forcefully to both the PRC attacks and subsequent rocket strikes from Gaza.

All of this seems to suggest that the political turmoil within the Arab states may be weakening Israel's enemies.  Growing infighting among anti-Israel groups, the weakening of dictatorial Arab regimes, and the loss of Iranian influence appear to have strengthened Israel's position.  While the loss of Egypt's Mubarak and the possible increase in Islamist power in Egypt, may have some detrimental effects for Israel, ultimately it appears that the weakening of Hamas, Syria, and Iran may be quite beneficial for Israel. (Egypt, under Mubarak, was a nominal ally of Israel's and now may be taking a more Islamist-friendly approach, as the recent PRC attacks, launched from Egyptian-controlled Sinai, show.) 

Body Bombs and the TSA

TSA has released a warning that terrorists are attempting to bring explosive devices onto planes by surgically implanting them into the bodies of suicide bombers.  While no specific plot has been discovered, TSA has released the statement in order to bolster airport security.  This is in spite of the fact that experts say current security measures are largely unable to detect explosives under the skin.

While discussions of these methods in terrorist circles is not new, the desire to employ such extreme tactics draws into question the entire approach to security that we currently rely upon.  The TSA is constantly playing catch-up to an innovative and determined network of terrorists.  This not only puts us on the defensive, able only to respond, but has steadily placed greater restrictions on our freedoms.  With TSA removing the diapers of 95-year old grandmothers and excessively and unsympathetically patting-down little girls, it is becoming questionable if our security methods are really protecting us - or letting the terrorists win by forcing us to drastically change our way of life.

Security is essential and we should all be willing to give up some freedoms to protect ourselves - that is the primary role of government.  Little girls can, unfortunately, not be exempt from pat-downs as such a rule would inevitably lead to terrorist use of children to carry their weaponry.  However, there is a need to find balance between security and freedom.

The first thing to understand is that we cannot continue to have knee-jerk reactions that restrict passengers behavior after every "chattered," or even attempted, terrorist plot.  A determined enemy will always strive to find new ways around our security.  While we should attempt to stay ahead of them, thwarting plots and instituting new security measures, security officials must be careful to understand the probability of such terrorist schemes actually working.  For instance, the terrorist liquid plot failed yet travelers are still burdened with not being able to bring liquids on planes.

The response to discovered or thwarted plots does not always need to result in greater restrictions for the traveler.  The more we continue to restrict ourselves in fear of that rare one-time event, the less the terrorists have to succeed to severely alter our way of life.  Instead, there must be a greater focus on winning the offensive battle.  Dedicated terrorists will never cease trying to destroy or injure the West.  Probability alone dictates that in playing a defensive game of catch-up we will lose at some point.  Instead we must rid the world of dedicated terrorists, both by directly killing or otherwise stopping current terrorists and preventing the creation of new ones through the use of our soft- and hard-power. 

Admittedly, this alone is insignificant to protect us.  Some will always be "out to get" the West and the TSA needs to continue doing a good job maintaining security.  However, in order to achieve this we need to jettison the outmoded thinking of non-profiling.  As Isaac Yeffet, former head of security at El Al, has said, it is essential to use profiling tools to screen for the greatest threats.  Random searches of, say, grandmothers are a waste of time and resources and ultimately a threat to our security. 

Such use of profiling is not about racial discrimination but about being smart in our approach to security, creating the least amount of inconvenience, and appropriately using our resources.  Profiles are not a simple call to perform invasive searches on every Muslim- or Arab-looking man, but the use of a compilation of looks, behaviors, actions, and other statistically- and expertly-derived characteristics to screen for the most obvious threats.  Such a profile will indubitably change, and it is the responsibility of security services to adapt accordingly.  Our terrorist enemies would be foolish to present their foot-soldiers in the same readily identifiable form.  Nevertheless, profiling will help us stop the clear threats while easing the burdens on the vast majority who offer no threat.  Since technology seems to offer little to solve the problem of "body bombs" we seem to be left with a choice to reevaluate our methods or turn to drastic measures, such as invasive surgery, to maintain our security.

What's Next? Bin Laden's Death

Presidents Obama and Bush and their respective security and intelligence teams deserve a hearty round of applause for the death of Osama bin Laden last night. After nearly a decade of intelligence gathering and a successful special ops operation, the terrorist mastermind has finally been brought to justice.  President Obama particularly deserves credit for executing an extra-judicial killing (the mission was to kill not capture) and handling the event with poise and respectability.

As news reports indicate, bin Laden was killed in a mid-afternoon raid of a compound inside Abbottabad, Pakistan where al-Qaeda’s head was holed up. After a 40 minute battle, Navy SEAL forces were successful in shooting bin Laden in a firefight. Intelligence officials, including CIA director Leon Panetta, were able to watch the operation on a live feed from Virginia. While bin Laden’s death is undoubtedly cause for celebration it raises a couple of “what next” questions.

First, the location of bin Laden’s compound raises some significant questions about Pakistan’s complacency. The compound, described as a near fortress-like facility with four to six meter thick walls topped with barbed wire is located in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Abbottabad is said to be an important seat of the Pakistani government. The building was only a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy, what BBC has called “the country's equivalent of West Point.”

Whether Pakistan knew of bin Laden’s whereabouts has yet to be determined, but obvious questions are buzzing around the media. It seems dubious that the world’s most wanted terrorist could be holed up in a fortress-like compound a mere 40 miles outside of the capital and across the street from a military college without someone in Pakistan’s government or in the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence services notoriously known for their ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban) knowing.

Further news will undoubtedly come forward in the next few days. If it is true that Pakistan had knowledge of bin Laden’s location and failed to assist the United States, it will be impossible for the Obama administration to avoid severe political reprisals against the country. No country or group can be excused for aiding and abetting the world’s most wanted terrorist. While the US will still need to work with Pakistan in the fight against radical Islam, punitive measures would be essential.

Second, while bin Laden’s death is certainly a major win for the United States and the war on terrorism, the West should be careful to avoid reading too deep into its operational significance. There are still many terrorists who wish to see harm brought to America. Bin Laden was, in many ways, a figurehead and his incapacitation does not negate the broader threat. Today we can celebrate, but we must not let down our guard. Instead we must continue to fight those who wish to destroy our way of life. This is especially true in the near future, as security forces have been put on high alert for possible reprisal attacks. For many in the Islamic world, bin Laden was a hero and his death a major loss. The war on terrorism will not be won solely by killing major leaders, but by defeating the very ideology that underpins a hatred of the West.

The World vs. Israel

Israel once again stands alone versus the world, suffering an unjustified, biased, and prejudicial backlash over its handling of the attempted blockade-running by a group of pro-Palestinian activists-cum-aggressors. Earlier this week, a flotilla of six ships attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian enforced blockade of the Gaza Strip in what they thinly described as a ‘humanitarian-aid’ mission.

The flotilla was anything but driven by humanitarian aims. The organizers themselves described it primary as a mission to break the blockade – a political, not a compassionate goal.  Greta Berlin, leader of Free Gaza, one of the organizing groups stated, "Our mission is to break the blockade of Gaza."  And while the activists filled their ships with wheelchairs and other non-military items, the cynical ruse was not to provide the supposedly oppressed Gazans with these supplies, but win a public relations battle versus Israel. In this vein, the flotilla refused offers from the Israeli navy to transfer the humanitarian supplies to Gaza overland via the Israeli port of Ashdod, instead opting to have a high-seas confrontation with the Israeli navy.

The activists knew very well that they could set a trap for Israel, creating a win-win situation. Either they would break the blockade, thus rendering Israel’s necessary defense ineffective or they would goad the Israelis into a battle that although winnable in a tactical sense would receive the standard international condemnation.

The Israelis were unfortunately caught in the latter, as the passengers of the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara¸ violently attacked the boarding Israeli commandos after refusing to stop their approach towards Gaza. Despite being primarily armed with paintball guns and cautioned to treat the mission as a police, not a military, assignment, the Israeli commandos were ruthlessly beaten, attacked, and savaged by the supposed ‘peaceniks’. The commandos responded in-kind, defending their own lives, and leaving nine Turkish passengers dead.

Unsurprisingly, there was quick condemnation from the international community. Many critics argue that Israel used excessive force in dealing with the activists. But while such denunciation is routine, is highly unjustified. Video footage [Clip 1 Clip 2 Clip 3 Clip 4] from the incident is unquestionably clear as to the violence of the passengers. News reports, largely ignored by the Western media, indicate that at least 50 of the 700 activists were hired mercenaries, strategically placed to inflict maximum harm. Other reports indicate that guns and other weaponry may have been thrown overboard after the fight. And to boot, there are firm connections between the organizers of the flotilla, a ‘charity’ referred to as IHH, and radical Islamist terrorists, such as Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Israel is the one country the world loves to pick on. In a combination of anti-Semitism, anti-Westernism, liberal apologism, Islamism, and a disgusting moral equivalency, Israel finds itself internationally isolated, save for some tepid support by the US administration. The backwardness and hypocrisy of this is appalling. Little is said when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, killing 46 sailors, criticism is muted against the intra-Muslim massacres that routinely occur in Iraq, and condemnation of the abuses of such regimes ranging from Iran to Sudan is dismissed; however, Israel, operating in a legal and just fashion to defend itself, is blasted from every corner.

Leaving aside the justness of the specific blockade for a moment, it is indubitable that any country maintaining a blockade of an enemy force will seek to maintain the barrier. The activists knew this very well and chose to pick a fight. No blockade can be successful if anyone claiming ‘humanitarian aid’ can simply waltz through. By not complying with the restrictions of the blockade the flotilla necessarily became an antagonistic force towards Israel, which rightly had to impede the ships’ progress. Any country at war would do the same, most without the conscientious regard for the perpetrators wellbeing (and the aid, by the way, is already en route overland to Gaza). As the fate of the other five ships demonstrates, the Israelis had no interest in harming any people on board; only when the pro-Palestinians became aggressive did the commandos feel a need to respond.

Critics, however, point to the blockade as the source of all problems. The fact is that the blockade is necessary, proper, and legal. It is (or has been) accepted by the Quartet, the four major negotiators in the region, and managed in tandem with Egypt. Both Egypt and Israel are threatened by the heinous leadership that is Hamas, which not only subverts its people but routinely sends rockets into Israel. The blockade is indispensable in preventing Hamas from rearming, which ultimately will save both Israeli and Palestinian lives.

The anti-Israel rhetoric is grounded in a baseless argument that the blockade and the fight against Hamas is anything but necessitated by Israel’s desire for security and self-preservation. Arguments that claim collective punishment or state oppression are meaningless pufferies that are aimed to excite the emotions of the naïve and ignore the reality in the region. One only need compare the conditions in Gaza to those in West Bank to see Israel’s true aims when it comes to the blockade. The West Bank, run by the more moderate Fatah, is far less violent and threatening to Israel, and thus has not been blockaded.

The Mavi Marmara incident has unjustly given Israel a black-eye, but should not sway the Netanyahu administration from the correctness of its course. As the next flotilla, led by the Rachel Corrie, heads towards Gaza’s shores, the Israelis must be resolute in protecting the blockade. To give an inch is to undermine the last defense they have against a resurgent Hamas in Gaza. As the international community slowly whittles away at the foundations of Israeli security, the tiny nation must do what it can to preserve its existence. While, per standard procedures, all actions should be taken to minimize civilian harm, Israel must recognize that no matter what actions it takes, short of liquidating itself, it will receive international condemnation. It is far better to receive global opprobrium than sow the seeds of your own destruction.

Who Is Responsible for al-Qaeda's Attack?

The recent attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound flight has served as ample fodder for attacks on the Obama administration and the TSA. While there are grounds for criticism, the knee-jerk reaction to begin the blame-game, alongside the TSA’s predictable reactionary response, needs to be evaluated in a more rational light.

Without going too far out on a limb, the administration does need some defending. Critics on the right, and even the left, have been lambasting the administration’s snafu. Bloggers, such as Karl DeVries at The Bootleg Press, have (tentatively) called for Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s sacking. Other critics  have demanded explanations for why the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not on the no-fly list.

The problem is that in American political culture, the impetuous urge to find a scapegoat ubiquitously overrides true insight into a potential (or actual) disaster. When dealing with issues like security, particularly when threats come from disparate sources, there is always some probability that the ‘bad’ event will occur. No matter how secure a system is, it will never be foolproof.  If a system is 99.99% perfect it means that 1 in 10,000 times the law of averages dictates that the bad guy will get through.  This is especially true when having to weigh tradeoffs between security and issues such as efficiency and personal liberty. An extremely cumbersome yet vastly more secure process could be designed (Maybe have everyone disrobe, wear TSA issued jumpsuits, and be forbidden to have any personal effects on planes); however, the costs in terms of money, time, and personal freedoms would most likely outweigh the added security.  For instance, it is absurd to demand that a single phone call from an individual’s father should warrant inclusion on a no-fly list. Such a precedent would overburden the system with meaningless names added to the list. [And, it might prompt fathers of rebellious teenagers across the globe to literally ‘ground’ their children.]  Furthermore, such an inane system would still fail to be foolproof as some committed terrorist would inevitably find a way to beat it.

Likewise, the TSA has clamped down on security in the most arbitrary and ineffectual way.  For instance pilots are now allowed (and have) to prevent passengers from keeping anything in their laps during the last hour of flight.  It is not clear how keeping a Grandma from the Midwest from reading her copy of Going Rogue during the last hour of flight, is going to stop the next Abdulmutallab from blowing up a plane one and half hours before arrival.

The problem is not the current system, per se.  Potential terrorists will inevitably find new and ingenious ways to breach our systems in the never ending game of cat and mouse. We should continue to monitor their methods and tactics and respond by altering our strategies.  However, the unavoidable infiltration does not necessarily mean the system has failed.  What it means is that the laws of probability have finally caught up to us.  Instead of rashly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, mistakes like this need to be studied, understood, and used to incrementally alter the system. The costs of proposed changes need to be carefully understood and weighed against the perceived benefits.

More importantly, we have to dampen our urge to see heads roll. The fact is that the TSA is our defensive force. They will never be the ones to win this war for America. Their successes will be largely unheralded, while their failures painfully public. If every time a mishap occurs we reflexively burden ourselves with arbitrary restrictions and decapitate our leadership, we only raise the costs to the American people without actually addressing the source of the problem.

The real war is in the offense; America needs to stop these young, disillusioned men from becoming Allah’s warriors. The failed foreign policy that has yet to reap the grandiloquently stated rewards is where the Obama administration deserves its criticism.  Regardless of who is on duty – whether Napolitano or her successor, Obama or the Republican President that follows him – no American airline will be one-hundred percent safe when there are still young Muslim’s willing to take their own lives to satiate their hatred of the West. The culture of scapegoating is futile. Let’s focus on the real problems.

Real Justice is in a Military Court, KSM Does Not Belong In NYC

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) will stand trial in New York federal court. This is an egregious mistake on the part of the Obama administration.

The trial will surely become a show – a mere opportunity for KSM to have a platform to spout his anti-American gospel. KSM, who has admitted to being the 9/11 mastermind, has long wanted the opportunity to preach his hatred. A trial will not be about finding justice – everyone from Obama down to the average New Yorker knows KSM is guilty. Instead, it will become an opportunity to put the U.S. on trial and attack the legacy of the war on terrorism.

Additionally, a civilian trial has different standards of admissibility of evidence. This will require the government to introduce classified information in order to successfully convict KSM. Likewise due to higher standards, certain evidence will be excluded. Any confessions or information extracted through ‘coercion’ will be inadmissible. The change in admissible evidence will only put the U.S. at risk, by exposing sensitive information and making a clear-cut case open to legal technicalities and loopholes. Just imagine what will happen if some wily attorney manages to free KSM (who, by the way, has asked for death).

However, more important than either of these issues is the general, theoretical concepts that are at stake here. By trying KSM in a civilian court, the government is explicitly stating that acts of terrorism – the brutal murder of U.S. civilians – are not acts of war, but criminal acts. This is not only untrue, but creates dangerous precedents and incentives.

First and foremost, military trials, despite critics’ claims, are not above the law. They are a long-present instrument of the U.S. legal system and have justly and successfully been used before. Trying an individual in either system is not an issue of following law or not following law, but a matter of what type of crime and law needs to be addressed. Holder does not disagree with this concept as he has simultaneously sent a number of other Gitmo detainees to military trials.

The problem is that the Justice Department does not seem to believe that KSM is an enemy combatant, but rather a common criminal. According to Politico, Holder admitted that KSM could have been tried in a military court, but felt justice would be better attained in a federal court. In his mind, in order to be an enemy combatant one must attack a military target. This is a gross distortion of reality. The 9/11 terrorists were members of an enemy army. Just because they did not wear uniforms or have a physical nation to call home, does not negate the fact that this was an act of war.

By failing to correctly address this, Holder has created perverse incentives for the enemies of the United States. Those who wish to bring harm to the U.S. will now have greater incentives to avoid the rules of war (such as the Geneva Conventions). After all, what right-minded (if there is such a thing) Islamist terrorist would chose to fight Marines in Afghanistan and then face military laws, rather than bring the battle to American civilians and civilian courts?  William McGurn stated in the Wall Street Journal that Holder’s decision creates a world where, “If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.”

These perverse incentives create greater risk for American civilians. The current administration unfortunately seems more concerned with appeasing a misguided notion of fairness, rather than protecting the American people. Ultimately, they will reward a terrorist movement by providing a way for our enemies to wage war without suffering the appropriate penalties. The real path to justice is through the military court system – a system designed to handle war criminals. By avoiding this fact, Holder is flying in the face of justice and endangering our success in the war on terror.