More Defense Vendors, Please

(Compiler's note: More evidence that the gov't should keep their hand out of business.)

By Jay Hancock

In 1993, Defense Secretary Les Aspin invited more than a dozen CEOs of big weapons and aerospace companies to dinner at the Pentagon. In what has become known as the Last Supper, he shocked them by saying that, with the end of the Cold War, America had too many defense contractors and that the companies needed to merge or die.

Merge they did. But 15 years later, as the fiasco with the Air Force's tanker contract and widespread Pentagon procurement dysfunction demonstrate, it's not clear that fewer contractors is better. Monopoly-like power exercised by a few dominant vendors is no better, it turns out, in the defense industry than it is in software, electricity or cable TV.

The next president ought to consider undoing what Aspin wrought and spurring a Ma Bell-like breakup of dominant defense companies.

The tanker contract, which could eventually be worth $100 billion, wouldn't have even been nominally competitive without the participation of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which teamed up with finalist Northrop Grumman.
Boeing, the loser in the competition, protested the Air Force's decision to award the deal to Northrop and EADS, the parent of Airbus. The Government Accountability Office upheld Boeing's appeal based on what it said were flawed procedures by the Air Force.

But the larger point is that the United States couldn't even field a full team at the bidding table.

Outsourcing and globalization may be fine for TVs and tomatoes, but it's another matter for key hardware needed to defend the country.

Since the Last Supper the number of major defense contractors has shrunk from more than two dozen to half a dozen.

Fewer vendors usually means higher prices and shoddy service. Pentagon procurement has never been a model of efficiency and alacrity, but things are as bad as ever despite years of reform efforts.

The Defense Department "is not receiving expected returns on its large investment in weapons systems," the Government Accountability Office found this year after evaluating dozens of major programs and finding most were over budget and years behind schedule. "The final result is lost buying power and opportunities to recapitalize the force."

Why work hard to please your customer when you know you'll get the business anyway?

Fueled by the war in Iraq and the homeland security boondoggle, profits at Northrop, which has a big electronics operation in Linthicum, have more than doubled in five years. Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin's profits have tripled. Boeing's are up nearly sixfold.

Faced with the lack of competition and failure of a functioning market in defense procurement, the Pentagon has installed endless rules and bidding procedures to try to create the illusion of a market.

It's similar to what's going on in electricity, where grid managers and public utility commissions conduct highly stylized "auctions" that are tilted in favor of the vendors and whose results surprise nobody but the customers paying the price.

"Because we are pretending like we have a competitive system, we are putting myriad rules and regulations in place to actually compensate for the fact that it's not true competition," Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, said of defense procurement at a hearing last month.

The thicket of rules deters bids from outside companies interested in breaking into the defense business, she said, adding, "it's almost surreal how ridiculous it is."

While mostly praising results of defense consolidation in a column in Defense News two years ago, former Lockheed Martin boss Norman Augustine warned that, in cases where only one company provides a crucial product (an example is aircraft carriers, made only by Northrop Grumman), "it is simply a stroke of the pen away from de facto nationalization of the industry."

That may not be such a terrible idea. Many countries handle defense purchases through state-owned companies.

But better we try to make the private defense base more diversified and competitive.

"We need a bold strategy to reverse consolidation and a vigorous debate on the consequences of globalization for U.S. security," former Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim and former Missile Defense Agency chief Ronald Kadish wrote in TheWashington Post this year.

Aspin and the other hosts of the Last Supper were trying to help taxpayers by getting contractors to streamline overhead costs through mergers. But in the long run, by cutting competition, they may have hurt taxpayers instead.

Augustine suggested in his column that Aspin should have served Rolaids at the famous meal. From defense company shareholders' point of view, champagne might have been more appropriate.

Crocker judges insurgency no longer 'much of a challenge'

Iraqis won't allow civil war, he says...

A Pentagon Battle Over 'The Next War'

Many military officers are pushing back against Defense Secretary Gates' focus on
preparing for more 'asymmetric' fighting rather than for a large, conventional conflict.

Insider fighting within pentagon between SECDEF and military leaders with respect to the focus of future conflicts.

WASHINGTON -- Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is not a fighter pilot, wing commander or war planner. But he is waging what many officers consider a crucial battle: ensuring that the U.S. military is ready for a major war.

Dunlap, like many officers across the military, believes the armed forces must prepare for a large-scale war against technologically sophisticated, well-equipped adversaries, rather than long-term ground conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

What Is the Arab World's Problem?

In recent years, former CIA analyst and Clinton-administration National Security Council staffer Kenneth Pollack has found himself so close to Bush administration Middle East policies—like regime change in Iraq and Gen. David Petraeus' surge strategy—that it's hardly surprising he'd now like to put some distance between himself and an unpopular White House. Thus, in A Path out of the Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East, Pollack adopts a countermeasure perfected over the last several years by Arab liberals concerned that any association with Bush is likely to lose them respect, if not their freedom or their lives: trash the White House pre-emptively and then restate the general principles of its Middle East policy. ...

Coasties Prevent 'Internation Incident' with Mexico

...It all started when the 46-foot sport-fishing boat Senor Hefe chugged out of San Diego at three in the morning ... and blundered into an improperly lit, circular tuna "cage" net being towed by a Mexican commercial fishing boat. Though not seriously damaged, Senor Hefe's crew found itself trapped in a ring of metal bars, in international waters. "We all think were in some sort of crazy dream," one fisherman recalled.

The Mexican fishermen were powerless to help, so the Americans radioed the Coast Guard. But before the Coasties could arrive, a Mexican Navy patrol boat appeared (pictured), its crew wielding Uzis and bad attitudes. Mexican sailors started cutting away portions of the cage, preparing to board Senor Hefe -- a big no-no in international waters. ...

Radical Islam gains ground in campuses

Almost third of Muslim students on Britain's campuses believe killing in the name of religion can be justified, according to a controversial survey described as the most comprehensive of its kind.

The poll, conducted for Islam on Campus, a new report from the Centre for Social Cohesion think-tank, also found that 40 per cent of those interviewed supported the introduction of sharia law for British Muslims. ...

Bummer... Petraeus Won't Join Obama in 16 Month Timetable

REALITY SETS IN-- PETRAEUS WILL NOT BACK OBAMA'S HASTY RETREAT PLANS

Here's a major blow to the mainstream media and their non-surge supporting darling, Barack Obama...

FDA, Military Health System Expand Data-Sharing Agreement

FDA and the Military Health System are expanding an existing information-sharing agreement, Government Health IT reports.

Since July 2007, MHS and FDA have shared information regarding the review and use of FDA drugs, biologics and medical devices. FDA has a similar information-sharing partnership with the Veterans Health Administration.

Now, FDA and MHS' agreement will be expanded to include the use of MHS databases to track unexpected side effects of newly approved prescription drugs. FDA also will use MHS databases to study and track food poisoning outbreaks and bioterrorism incidents.

The MHS patient databases include information on more than nine million active-duty personnel, their families and retirees (Buxbaum, Government Health IT, 7/24).

Salute the Danish Flag

By Susan MacAllen

In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. An elderly woman to whom I was close said something to me one day that puzzled me for many years after. I forget what the context of our conversation was, but she commented that I - as a young American in Denmark - should not let any Dane scold me about the way America had treated its black population, because the Danes in her view treated their immigrants at least as badly. I wasn’t sure which immigrants she meant, so I asked her. She answered that she meant those from the Middle East.But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn’t see these Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism - one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism. Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves.

As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:“Muslim immigrants…constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.”“Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.”

“Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.”“Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem…

”“Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.

”It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S.: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives.

Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.In 2001,

Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of “racism” by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t. In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary.

In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. “We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,” he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark’s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, “The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,” Hvilshøj says, “There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.”

And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, “In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.” Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone.

Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.

The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Susan MacAllen writes a political blog, askew.blogharbor.com, and has written on an extensive array of subjects for over 20 years. She has lived overseas and been intimately involved in the French culture since the Muslim immigrant population emerged in the south of France.

Obama's Trip: No Bounce, No Flags, No Wounded GIs

(Compiler's note: He (Obama) didn't want the American flag shown at his speech in Germany and at his press conference in Paris. He canceled a trip to visit wounded soldiers when he was told the press couldn't take pictures of him. And the American public thought the press coverage of his trip was simply "excessive.")

How to contain radical Islam

The best global strategy for the US may be the one that won the Cold War

By Commander Philip Kapusta and Captain Donovan Campbell

THE EVENTS OF Sept. 11, 2001, brutally announced the presence of an enemy seemingly distinct from any our country had faced before. Unlike previous adversaries, such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the Spanish monarchy, this new enemy was difficult to define, let alone understand. It was not motivated by causes that an avowedly secular government could easily comprehend, and it took an amorphous yet terrifying form with little historical precedent.

Our leaders responded to this new threat with dramatic changes. In the largest government reorganization of the past 50 years, the Department of Homeland Security lumbered into existence. A new director of national intelligence was named to oversee America's vast intelligence apparatus, and the defense of the homeland was made the military's top priority. Most dramatically, the United States announced - and then implemented - an aggressive new policy of preemptive war.

Yet, with the seventh anniversary of 9/11 approaching, it seems clear that policy makers have not responded particularly well. Islamic extremists are gaining strength, while America finds itself increasingly isolated in the world. The coalition of the willing, never overly robust, is now on life support. In the Middle East, the Islamist parties Hezbollah and Hamas have enough popular support to prosper in free and fair elections, and Al Qaeda is adding franchise chapters in North Africa, the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, and elsewhere. Our most prominent post- 9/11 action remains the Iraq war, which has arguably failed to improve America's national security even as it has strengthened the position of our sworn enemies in the government of Iran.

Underlying these global setbacks is a core problem: The United States has yet to formulate a holistic strategy to guide the prosecution of our new war. We have not articulated a clear set of mutually reinforcing goals, and we have not undertaken a consistent set of actions designed to achieve our aims even as they demonstrate our national values. Indeed, we have not even managed to properly identify our enemies; despite the rhetoric of the past seven years, America is not at war with terror, because terror is not a foe but a tactic.

Blundering forward, we have squandered the swell of global good will after 9/11, punished our friends, and rewarded our enemies with shortsighted, even self-destructive, tactics.

Yet what we face today is not wholly novel: It is a war of ideas, mirroring the Cold War. Like the Communists, violent Islamic extremists are trying to spread a worldview that denigrates personal liberty and demands submission to a narrow ideology. And, as with the Cold War, it must be our goal to stop them. The United States should therefore adopt a new version of the policy that served us so well during that last long war: containment.

... Drawing heavily from articles written by the American diplomat George Kennan, the landmark National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) outlined a strategy of containment that served as the core of American foreign policy for every president from Truman to Reagan.

Presciently, NSC-68 identified the essential clash between the United States and the Soviet Union as one between diametrically opposed ideologies. On the Soviet side was a dogmatic belief system that demanded absolute submission of individual freedom and sought to impose its authority over the rest of the world. On the American side was an ideology premised on the overriding value of freedom, a system founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual. This ideology relied upon its inherent appeal, and did not aim to bring other societies into conformity through force of arms.

The policy of containment represented a tectonic shift from the military-centric, unconditional-surrender mentality of World War II.

... containment did not define success as the military defeat and unconditional surrender of the Soviet regime. It had more modest ambitions: geographic isolation of the communist belief system and slow change over time. By fighting a global struggle for influence, the thinking went, America could avoid a costly full-scale war against the Soviets.

...The path dictated by NSC-68 was not a straight line to the collapse of the USSR, but the strategy proved remarkably effective. Communism expanded outside of its containment zone in a few instances, but, for the most part, the United States and its allies successfully implemented the indirect approach recommended by NSC-68. When the once mighty Soviet empire imploded in 1991, it was almost precisely as NSC-68 had predicted.

...Strikingly, if one replaces "communism" with "Islamic extremism" and "the Kremlin" with "Al-Qaeda," NSC-68 could have been written in 2002, not 1950. Like communism, Islamic extremism lusts for political power, in this case through the restoration of the caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law on all peoples. Indeed, language from NSC-68 rings eerily true today - it described the Soviets as "animated by a new fanatic faith, antithetical to our own." Al Qaeda and its ilk are the latest in a long line of narrow ideologies that claim to provide the only true answer to life's existential questions. And as with Soviet communism, the idea has a geographic nucleus.

Our task now is to envelop this nucleus with prosperous, stable countries whose inhabitants are free to choose their own beliefs. Working from the outside in, the United States must partner with nations on the periphery to help them build a stronger middle class, enhance their education systems, improve basic health, and lower government corruption. ...

...It is popular to blame these failings on the attention and resource deficits created by the Iraq war. But they are just as much the result of the black-and-white mentality that governs our approach to foreign affairs - liberal democracy or nothing. In working with periphery states, we must be willing to accept outcomes that are less than perfect. Indeed, we must be willing to accept ruling regimes that may not like us at all. We are not trying to create mini-Americas scattered across the globe; we are looking to foster stable, free countries whose people will have little interest in the repressive ideology of our enemies.

On occasion, extremist governments hostile to the existence of the United States (Hamas in the Gaza Strip) will enjoy broad popular support, but preemptive wars must become a thing of the past. We cannot say that we value freedom and then seek political change through force when the choice of the people produces regimes not to our liking. **However, the military can, and must, be used to target individuals bent on terror aimed at American interests. Furthermore, if a nation enables attacks on our homeland, as Afghanistan did under the Taliban, then we must use all necessary means to defend ourselves. On rare occasions, this will require full-out war and post-invasion reconstruction.**

...Going forward, adopting a strategy of neocontainment will entail checking Iran's expansion efforts through proxies rather than direct strikes against the country itself. Just as we limited Soviet expansion without using overt force against the Warsaw Pact, so too can we contain the Iranian regime without flying B-2s over Tehran.

Furthermore, we must institutionalize the lessons learned so painfully over seven years of war. The military must dramatically improve its nation-building doctrine, capacity, and will, acknowledging that postwar stability is much more important in the long run than is dominating the active combat phase. We remain unchallenged in our ability to win conventional military conflicts, but we must develop the language skills, cultural awareness, and civil-affairs specialists necessary to prevail in unconventional campaigns and in fighting's messy aftermath.

Our next president will inherit a nation weary of war, a world skeptical of American motives and actions, and undecided conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the energy and excitement of a government transition offer both the outgoing and incoming administrations the opportunity to take bold steps.

On the battlefield, it is at least as important to articulate what you are for as it is to define what you are against. In a war of ideas, this is even more critical. To do this across the world, nation by nation, will take time, and that does not come naturally to our fast paced, results-oriented society. But we need to muster the requisite patience. Untold numbers of lives hinge on it.

Navy Commander Philip Kapusta is currently serving as chief of strategic plans at Special Operations Command Central, in Tampa. Marine Captain Donovan Campbell recently returned from his third combat deployment. His book, "Joker One," will be published by Random House in March. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the US government.

Grenade Found In Car Crossing Bridge From Canada

U.S. Customs officials discovered a grenade in an SUV crossing from Canada into the United States over the Ambassador Bridge late Sunday night.

The Detroit Police bomb squad was called in to examine the grenade, which officials hadn’t yet determined was live or a souvenir, according to one fire official.

Three Canadians and three Americans were in the SUV, the fire official said. ...

Entering the inner world of a terrorist

After every terror act we tend to blame government, investigative agencies, political parties, religious and ethnic groups. If terrorists are mindless, would they resist from executing their killings so proficiently? Lopez tries to find the answer. WHENEVER TERRORISM strikes India, there is always a backlash against the government, investigative agencies, political parties, religious and ethnic groups. And of course all needles of suspicion, point towards Pakistan and Bangladesh as the source of terrorism, while each of the accused groups defend themselves.

I was reflecting and talking to a number of anti-terrorism experts on this subject and thus, I decided to examine a terrorist, from a total different angle. India maybe armed with sophisticated investigative agencies but yet, year after year, we are always caught off guard and we face disastrous attacks, killing of innocent human beings. I agree that terror attacks are mindless but are terrorists mindless?

If terrorists are mindless, would they execute their killings so proficiently? Terrorists are people with a clear mind, pure and wholesome. They are completely committed to what they do. And they kill because their humanity has been killed, which is why they do not have respect or regard for human life. They see it as inconsequential and extravagant, not vital and necessary, yet nothing supersedes their agenda. They are so successful with their acts because they are ruled by their hearts and not just the mind. It is simply a matter of conviction and moral ethics for them. They are never satisfied or gratified with what they do because it is a matter of purpose of their living and agenda. They are tenacious, focused individuals, who believe who believe that they are doing an eternal work. In contrast to the popular sense that suicidal terrorists are socio-pathic whackos, many experts argue that they are effectively pursuing their goals and they are rational human beings.

Why do you think it takes years for any terrorism case to be decided in court? Is it only because of corruption or lethargic judicial machinery? It is mainly because the accused has power and sanity to fight till the finish. Yet, even by the time we jail or hang them, another cell forms and takes control. A psychologist from Washington, DC Rona Fields says, “A terrorist’s definition of right and wrong is very black and white, and is directed by an authoritative director and there’s a total limitation of the capacity to think for themselves.” She further adds, “These true believers, are angry people, but they don’t feel guilty about their anger.”

Terrorists usually want publicity, which they as a group cannot normally not afford or buy. Therefore, any media source, surrounding a terrorist act tells the world that a problem exists, which must not be ignored but yet solved. Though they know that perusing people to favour their act, will do no good, they, however, always pursue a favourable vote for their cause. Using this tactic, terrorists usually attract more sympathisers for their agenda. And this usually involves forming good relationships with the Press which is often cultivated and nurtured over a period of years.

Political analyst, Kent Oots, says, “The physiological approach to terrorism suggests that the role of the media in promoting the spread of terrorism cannot be ignored in any discussion of the causes of terrorism. Thanks to media coverage, the methods, demands and goals of terrorists are quickly made known to potential terrorists, who may be inspired to imitate them upon becoming stimulated by media accounts of terrorist acts.

“Terrorists are already frustrated individuals who are disposed to manipulating their victims as well as the Press, the public, and the authorities. They note that the potential terrorist need only see that terrorism has worked for others in order to become aggressively aroused.”

Former member of FBI’s Forensic Psychology Advisory Board for the Behavioral Science Unit, Jim Hawkins says, “As professionals in the law enforcement and intelligence communities increasingly direct their energies and resources to countering and preventing this type of extreme violence, they are working to acquire new knowledge and skills. In learning about terrorism, they not only should consider the specific ideology of those who commit or advocate acts of terrorism, but also gain an understanding of the process of how these ideas or doctrines develop as well as the various factors that influence the behavior of extremist groups and individuals”.

He further adds, “An investigator might reasonably wonder why such an understanding is important. The answer lies in the old military adage know your enemy.

In one of the many translations of The Art of War, Sun Tzu, a well-known Chinese general, is quoted as saying, know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.”

It is high time that law enforcement agencies, adapt a very rare approach to curb terrorism. Conducting post mortem’s after the blasts, is just not the right attitude to tackle terrorism. These professionals, need to build an attitude by understanding how extremist ideas develop. This includes, designing new programme to understand and collect behavioral information of individual’s and groups. It is not necessary that only ideologies, be examined but, how a person will act in a given situation because ideology is just one of the factors but the most crucial areas to be examined are the behavioral factors, which contribute in majority.

It's a war against India: Narendra Modi

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday said there is one mastermind terrorist organisation triggering the blasts in different parts of the country. ( Watch )

Speaking to reporters after reviewing security at the city police headquartes here, Modi said the common pattern of all the blasts in the country was an indication that one terrorist organisation or nation was behind them.

SUBMARINES: Run Silent, Run Cheap

For over a decade, the U.S. Navy has had an internal feud going on over the issue of just how effective non-nuclear submarines would be in wartime. In an attempt to settle the matter, from 2005 to 2007, the United States leased a Swedish sub (Sweden only has five subs in service), and it's crew, to help train American anti-submarine forces. This Swedish boat was a "worst case" scenario, an approach that is preferred for training. The Gotland class Swedish subs involved are small (1,500 tons, 200 feet long) and have a small crew of 25. The Gotland was based in San Diego, along with three dozen civilian technicians to help with maintenance.

For decades, the U.S. Navy has trained against Australian diesel-electric subs, and often came out second. The Gotland has one advantage over the Australian boats, because of its AIP system (which allows it to stay under water, silently, for several weeks at a time). Thus the Gotland is something of a worst case in terms of what American surface ships and submarines might have to face in a future naval war. None of America's most likely naval opponents (China, North Korea or Iran), have AIP boats, but they do have plenty of diesel-electric subs which, in the hands of skilled crews, can be pretty deadly.

It's only a matter of time before China gets lots of AIP boats. Meanwhile, China is rapidly acquiring advanced submarine building capabilities. One new Chinese diesel electric sub design, the Type 39A, or Yuan class, looks just like the Russian Kilo class. In the late 1990s, the Chinese began ordering Russian Kilo class subs, then one of the latest diesel-electric design available. Russia was selling new Kilos for about $200 million each, which is about half the price other Western nations sell similar boats for. The Kilos weigh 2,300 tons (surface displacement), have six torpedo tubes and a crew of 57. They are quiet, and can travel about 700 kilometers under water at a quiet speed of about five kilometers an hour. Kilos carry 18 torpedoes or SS-N-27 anti-ship missiles (with a range of 300 kilometers and launched underwater from the torpedo tubes.) The combination of quietness and cruise missiles makes Kilo very dangerous to American carriers. North Korea and Iran have also bought Kilos.

The Chinese have already built two Yuans, the second one an improvement on the first. These two boats have been at sea to try out the technology that was pilfered from the Russians. A third Yuan is under construction, and it also appears to be a bit different from the first two. The first Yuan appeared to be a copy of the early model Kilo (the model 877), while the second Yuan (referred to as a Type 39B) appeared to copy the late Kilos (model 636). The third Yuan may end up being a further evolution, or Type 39C.

The Type 39, or Song class, also had the teardrop shaped hull, but was based on the predecessor of the Kilo, the Romeo class. The Type 39A was thought to be just an improved Song, but on closer examination, especially by the Russians, it looked like a clone of the Kilos. The Yaun class also have AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), which allows non-nuclear boats to stay underwater for days at a time. China currently has Song class, 12 Kilo class, one Yuan class and 32 Romeo class boats.

Based on the experience with Australian and Swedish subs, the U.S. Navy has been developing new anti-submarine tactics and equipment. In secret, obviously. But now there is another complication. Animal rights groups have succeeded in getting courts to rule that the navy use of their anti-submarine training center near San Diego is illegal, and use of sonar must be limited (because of possible harm to marine animals). The navy keeps fighting the lawsuits, but it now faced with the prospect of abandoning the training site, for one somewhere the lawsuits can't reach. The training site is expensive because it is wired, with under water sensors that enable training or test results to be precisely recorded, and changes made to equipment or tactics. The center also enables sonar operators to get realistic training. There is no opportunity to get trained on the job, as mistakes can get your ship quickly sunk.

Meanwhile, potential enemies build more of their cheaper, and higher quality, diesel-electric boats, and train their crews by having them stalk actual warships (including U.S. ones.) The subs are getting more numerous, while U.S. defenses are limping along because of the sheer technical problems of finding quiet diesel-electric boats in coastal waters, and the inability to train and test enough because of lawsuits.

IRGC Revamps To Counter Enemy Within

By Alireza Jafarzadeh

The ayatollahs continue to enrich uranium, despite the high-profile meeting on July 19, 2008 in Geneva between Tehran's top nuclear negotiator and senior western diplomats representing the Group of 5+1. No surprise there. They are banking their regime's survival on nuclear capability. Ali Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator, once said that giving in to the West's demands that Iran suspend its enrichment would be suicide.

But, however much their regional role is tied to developing a nuclear weapon, domestically their grip is being challenged on a daily basis. Indeed, the backbone of the ayatollahs' regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), is being revamped at great haste, primarily to cope with rising dissent. The region's changing geo-strategic dynamics coupled with sanctions targeting the IRGC, and its terrorist elite unit, the Qods Force, are also factors.

According to intelligence gathered by the Iranian Resistance's network inside Iran, on June 28, 2008, Mohammad Ali (Aziz) Jafari, the IRGC Commander-in-Chief, launched a major reorganization of the Corps. The scale of this re-org is unprecedented since the 1985 re-vamp, when the clerical regime's founder Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the IRGC split into three branches - Army, Navy and Air force.

The new structure changes the IRGC from a centralized to a decentralized force with 31 provincial corps, whose commanders wield extensive authority and power. According to the plan, each of Iran's thirty provinces will have a provincial corps, except Tehran Province, which will have two.

The key questions are why, and why now. A look back at the summer of 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was propelled to the presidency, provides some insight. His rise came about through a "complex and multi-layered" plan devised by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and the IRGC top brass. With Khamenei's backing the IRGC had already taken the reins of power in most key areas. Ahmadinejad's presidency placed the IRGC atop the executive branch, and the metamorphosis of the IRGC into a politico-military force was complete.

Khamenei then sought to implement a strategy reflecting the new pecking order. To this end, on August 21, 2005, just days after Ahmadinejad's inauguration, he ordered the formation of the IRGC Strategic Research Center and appointed then Brig. General Jafari as its head.

Within two years, the Strategic Research Center developed the new strategy, whose main components are: 1) A reign of terror on the populace; 2) Terrorist suicide operations capable of striking at the "enemy", including on "enemy" soil; 3) Increasing Iran's missile strike capability; 4) Acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

With a new strategy at hand and the IRGC in control, Khamenei felt all the pieces were in place. He was mistaken. According to reports from within the IRGC, Khamene'i soon realized there were growing problems with IRGC personnel. With Ahmadinejad's cabinet at the helm, many veteran IRGC Brig. Generals gravitated toward political, cultural and naturally, economic realms. Not only were they disinclined to fight, but they were also reluctant even to wear the IRGC uniform.

Almost a year ago, feeling the effects of internal unrest and foreign pressure worsening, Khamenei dismissed Major General Rahim Safavi, once a darling of the radical factions but later described by Ahmadinejad's cronies as a "liberal" and softy.

On September 1, 2007, Khamene'i promoted Mohammad Ali Jafari, a friend of Ahmadinejad, to the rank of Major General and appointed him IRGC Commander. On October 20, 2007, in his first public statement following his appointment, Jafari explained that "According to the judgment of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, the Guards' strategy has changed. Accordingly, the Guards' primary mission at this juncture is to fight the internal threats."

He added: "Internal security and its preservation are the tasks of the State Security Forces and other security organs. But if the problems go beyond a certain point, then the Guards - with the permission of the Supreme National Security Council and the Supreme Leader - will take charge."

According to one of the regime's analysts, "The whole security environment is intended to really suffocate or torpedo any possible change from within." In February 2008, Jafari acknowledged the regime's inability to uproot the opposition, saying, "Animosity toward our revolution is never-ending. As we move forward, the battle between the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries becomes more critical and complicated."

Jafari has stressed that the IRGC's new strategy entails two essential components: accurate intelligence about enemy activities, and an increase in the regime's missile capabilities. Earlier this month, he told reporters that the IRGC "is equipped with the most advanced missiles that can strike the enemies' vessels and naval equipment with fatal blows." Back in May, he was quoted by the state-run Fars news agency as saying that "An independent command might be created in IRGC in order to fortify the structure and activities of the missile section."

Another of Jafari's priorities during the past ten months has been dealing with the wave of retirements, buy-outs, and resignations by IRGC Brig. Generals. Obviously, these coincided with Khamenei's efforts to tune the regime's military apparatus with the threat of a military confrontation. Khamenei found he had no option but to purge most of the commanders of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war and replace them with post-war commanders. This explains why a good many of the twenty provincial commanders announced since June 28 have lower ranks than Brig. General, which means they were lower-ranking officers during the Iran-Iraq war.

In May, Jafari alluded to Khamenei's unhappiness with the old-timers. Speaking at a ceremony introducing the new commander of Tehran's paramilitary Bassij Force (tasked with internal security), Jafari said that "in the past few years" there had been "negligence" about "domestic security" in the IRGC. Calling for a reorganization and review of the IRGC's mission, he added that the negligence was due to "a few good years" during the Iran-Iraq war, when the IRGC pursued mainly "military activities" and paid "little attention to other aspects" of its responsibilities, meaning preserving the theocratic regime against popular dissent. Strengthening Bassij Force has been the core element in the IRGC re-org.

The revamping of the IRGC underscores the reality that while the ayatollahs' foreign policy imperatives are to establish a client state in Iraq and acquire a nuclear weapon, domestically they are at risk from the Iranian people and their democratic resistance movement - the enemy within. The success of this domestic movement is the key to a non-nuclear, peaceful Iran and to an independent and democratic Iraq.

---

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis (Palgrave: February 2008).

Jafarzadeh has revealed Iran's terrorist network in Iraq and its terror training camps since 2003. He first disclosed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

Until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran's parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Islamist bombers target Olympics

A MILITANT Islamic group has threatened to attack the Beijing Olympics with suicide bombers and biological weapons and has claimed responsibility for a string of fatal bombings and explosions in China over recent weeks.

In a video released by IntelCenter, a terrorism monitoring group, a bearded man identified as “Commander Seyfullah” is seen reading a declaration of jihad against the Olympics and warns athletes and spectators, “especially Muslims”, to stay away.

It was issued by a group calling itself the Turkestan Islamic party. The group may be allied with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement – designated a terrorist organisation by the US, China and several other countries – which seeks independence for the Muslim Uighur people of China’s far west province of Xinjiang, which Uighur separatists call East Turkestan.

O'S HEALTH RX: COVER ILLEGALS

DEMOCRATS' single most important domes tic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

Uncle Jay Explains the News

Today's word is ENHANCE.

Web jihadist employed by federal contractor

Communications worker says dead GIs 'bring great happiness to me'

A young American Muslim has been employed by a federal contractor while running a radical website promoting al-Qaida.

Until just last week, 22-year-old Samir Khan worked at the Charlotte, N.C., branch of Convergys Corp., which in March was awarded part of a $2.5 billion federal contract to set up emergency communications centers in the event of terrorist attacks and other national disasters.

Female Suicide Bombers in Iraq; Why the Recent Surge?

The number of attacks carried out by female suicide bombers in Iraq has increased sharply in 2008, causing observers to probe more deeply the motivations of the women involved and review policies that might be prompting the surge. Others are trying to determine whether this new tactic signals Al Qaeda's innovation or desperation in its fight against Iraqi and US forces.

A female suicide bomber killed nine people and injured 12 others on Monday at a market near Baquba in Iraq. A BBC report highlights that the attack is the latest in a wave of bombings by women. ...

Did Obama's aides secretly meet Iranian officials in Baghdad?

This theory is supported by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki’s strange behavior.

On July 17, he and President Bush agreed by video conference on a “general time horizon'' for the reduction of US combat troops in Iraq. This general time horizon would be included in agreements now under negotiation that would define the US role in Iraq and the status of American forces there.

But then along came Barack Obama, and Maliki backtracked on his agreement with the US president, evidently under Tehran’s influence.

Without even a polite by-your-leave to Washington, the Iraqi prime minister said the Democratic senator’s 16-month timeline for the exit of American troops from Iraq “could be suitable”.

A rumor, which may have its source in administration suspicions, went around Washington and Baghdad this week, that while Obama was in Baghdad, some of his advisers met secretly with Iranian officials who came especially to the Iraqi capital for the purpose. Because of that meeting, they explained, the Democratic senator decided to head south to Basra to see for himself how US-Iranian understandings were working on the ground.

(Tehran’s possible switch of negotiating partners from Bush to Obama is analyzed in the next article)

Wednesday, July 23, Ahmadinejad broke the Iranian wall of silence, although his two-track statement did little to dispel the fog of uncertainty hanging over Washington.

He declared, “The Iranian nation… will not retreat one iota [on its nuclear program] in the face of oppressing powers.”

In a different tone, he praised US participation in the latest round of nuclear talks with Tehran [in Geneva] as a “positive step forward,” towards recognizing Iran’s “right to acquire nuclear technology.”

He was saying that American was on the right path, but needed to try harder to swallow Iran’s position whole. ...

After satirical cartoon, Taliban tells editor of Pakistan's Daily Times to repent; "otherwise you would meet the fate of other nonbelievers"

"Other clerics of the Red Mosque argued that since Ms Hassan was teaching the Koran to her students in the mosque, any attempt to belittle her was blasphemous."

That's quite a stretch. But it underscores how conveniently blasphemy laws and other provisions of sharia lend themselves to being used to settle scores and elevate those in power beyond insult or challenge. "Death threat for editor Najam Sethi over Islamic cartoon," by Zahid Hussain for the Times Online, July 26: ...

Congress' bailout opens doors to eminent domain seizures

By Bob Unruh

The congressional plan to bail out the U.S. housing and mortgage industries, which could be approved by Congress and signed by the president as early as this weekend, actually endangers Americans' housing, according to the director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"Of all the unintended consequences of the housing bill that passed the House – of which there will likely be many – one of the most ironic and far-reaching may be this: that whatever security marginal homeowners have from foreclosures, their homes will be far less safe from being taken by a bureaucrat through eminent domain," John Berlau wrote on the organization's website. ...

Iran Will Share Its Nuclear Resources with Syria

Ahmadinejad figures that by compromising Assad as Tehran’s nuclear confederate, he will force him to run scared back to the Iranian fold....

What Are the Chances Al Qaeda Has WMD?

The A. Q. Khan smuggling ring’s lax security let vital nuclear secrets slip through its fingers. One set was purloined by a Swiss insider and may well have reached terrorist hands....

Bush Pulls Iran Diplomacy Carpet from under Obama

President Bush hijacks Barack Obama’s opening to Iran to fashion a legacy for his successor and help John McCain get elected. Early US gains: a deal on oil pricing, a helping hand from Tehran in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran Asks Pakistan for Nuclear Warhead Technology

Washington has got hold of evidence that Tehran never wavered from its drive for a nuclear weapon while engaging in diplomatic negotiation – formally in Geneva this month and under wraps with the United States.

Still protesting loudly that its nuclear program was designed purely for peaceful purposes, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s exclusive intelligence sources report that American undercover agencies in Pakistan found out that in June, Tehran asked the Islamabad government to restore their cooperation of 2004 and 2005 – or earlier, in developing and manufacturing the Ghauri-3. This is a medium-range, road mobile, liquid propellant ballistic missile, which is equipped to deploy nuclear warheads against civilian and military targets.

The discovery prompted the statement on July 20 by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I fundamentally believe that they’re on a path to achieve nuclear weapons some time in the future,” and the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert’s projection that Iran would have the components for assembling a nuclear bomb by the end of 2009 or early 2010.

Olmert offered this estimate based on updated Israeli intelligence to the visiting Democratic presidential contender, Senator Barack Obama, Wednesday, July 23.

Iran is now on record as bidding for a nuclear weapon

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources report that the Ghauri-3 is a highly hybridized concoction, an offshoot of the Hatf-5 program derived from the North Korean No-dong 1.

The Hatf-5 guidance system is believed to have come from China, possibly through North Korea, which sold the technology to Pakistan and Iran.

Iran participated in the development of the Hatf-5, to which the Shahab 3 ballistic missile is similar in appearance and capabilities.

The Pakistanis developed the nuclear-capable Ghauri-3 as their answer to India’s Agni-3.

Without beating about the bush, Tehran asked Pakistan to turn over the diagrams and plans for mounting and operating nuclear warheads on the jointly-developed Ghauri-3.

Iran counted on an easy ride with the new Islamabad government, assuming that the change of administrations in Islamabad had sharply reduced President Pervez Musharraf’s clout.

Military experts estimate, that by getting hold of the Pakistan plans, Iran could have shortened the process of nuclearizing its ballistic missiles by a year at least.

To find out Pakistan’s response to Iran’s request, the White House asked Musharraf, who is formally in charge of Pakistan’s missile and nuclear warhead arsenal, for clarifications of its intelligence finding. The Pentagon also requested information from the Pakistani chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

Gen. Kayani replied stiffly that the question should be properly addressed to the government – not the army. However, Musharraf did confirm that the Iranians had indeed made the application for nuclear warhead technology, but the government headed by Yousef Raza Gilani had turned them down.

This confirmation of US intelligence input has placed in the hands of the Bush administration proof of Iran’s quest for a short cut to weaponizing the components of its nuclear program – the closest step so far to a smoking gun. ...

Obama Caught Stealing Ideas From Cuban Communist Regime

(Compiler's note: Interesting video caption and explanation.)

Surprise!... Obama stole his "civilian security force" idea from the Castro Regime. ...

Civilian defense force explanation by Senator Obama can be found here.

You must be nicer to Muslims, Britain is told by UN human rights chiefs

Britain was told yesterday by a United Nations committee to take firm action to combat 'negative public attitudes' towards Muslims.

The nine-member human rights committee also criticised some of the UK's antiterror measures.

The body, which is composed of legal experts, said it was concerned ' negative public attitudes towards Muslim members of society' continued to develop in Britain. ...

1 in 3 Muslim students approve killing for Islam

If ignorance and poverty are responsible for the growth of extremist views in the Islamic world, someone needs ask Muslim students, privileged enough and bright enough to attend some of the United Kingdom's best universities, why one-in-three of them endorses killing in the name of Islam.

The report of this finding, based on a poll of 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at 12 universities in the UK, and conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Center for Social Cohesion, will be released tomorrow as "Islam on Campus."

Among its findings of Muslim beliefs:

• 40 per cent support introduction of sharia into British law for Muslims
• One-third back the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia law
• 40 per believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely
• 24 per cent do not think men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah
• 25 percent have little or no respect for homosexuals.
• 53 per cent believe killing in the name of religion is never justified (compared with 94 per cent of non-Muslims), while 32 per cent say it is
• 57 percent believe Muslim soldiers serving in the UK military should be able to refuse duty in Muslim countries
• More than half favor an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament
• One-third don't think or don't know if Islam is compatible with Western views of democracy

"Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values," Hannah Stuart, one of the report's authors, told the London Times. "These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities."

The report echoes one released last year by the Policy Exchange which found 37% of all Muslims aged 16-24 would prefer to live under a sharia system.

In addition to polling of 1,400 students, the researchers visited more than 20 universities to interview students and listen to guest speakers brought on campus. The report notes radical Islamic preachers regularly deliver inflammatory speeches that target homosexuals and border on anti-Semitism.

Report: Iran now has 6,000 centrifuges for uranium

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in the number of uranium-enriching machines in its nuclear program, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

The new figure is double the 3,000 centrifuges Iran had previously said it was operating in its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

"Islamic Iran today possesses 6,000 centrifuges," Ahmadinejad told university professors in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

In April, Ahmadinejad said Iran had begun installing 6,000 centrifuges at Natanz. His reported comments Saturday provided the first public assertion that Iran has reached that goal. ...

In its negotiation with Iran, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany have offered a package of technological, economic and political incentives in return for Iran's cooperation.

A report by the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency delivered to the Security Council in May said Iran had 3,500 centrifuges, although a senior U.N. official said at the time that Iran's goal of 6,000 machines running by the summer was "pretty much plausible."

Uranium can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or as the core for atomic warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment. Iran says it is interested in enrichment only for its nuclear power program.

The workhorse of Iran's enrichment program is the P-1 centrifuge, which is run in cascades of 164 machines. But Iranian officials confirmed in February that they had started using the IR-2 centrifuge that can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate.

A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that surpasses the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Congressional Pressure to Pursue Terror Arms Dealer’s Extradition

By Douglas Farah

A bipartisan group is urging that an arms dealer with strong terrorist connections be extradited quickly to the United States to stand trial…

Welcome Surprises Mingle with Disturbing Questions

By Col. Ken Allard (US Army, ret.)

The thing to remember about values is that their importance seems over-rated until you really need them.

The ‘Fairness’ Doctrine: America in the Balance

Christopher G. Adamo

Forces are at work striving to achieve nothing less than a repeal of free speech - the cornerstone of American greatness - at the discretion of those in power...

Exclusive: What War of Ideas?

M. Zuhdi Jasser

As a Muslim, I am continually mystified by our nation’s inability to foster an environment conducive to a real “contest of ideas” between Muslims. This ‘”intra-Muslim contest” is arguably the linchpin of an effective counterterrorism strategy and possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. The infamous January 2008 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum, “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations of American Muslims” only stifles progress in this debate. It absurdly admonishes government employees and thought leaders to avoid terms like Jihadist, Islamist, and Salafist.

More recently, buried in media coverage last week over the debate concerning the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2009 (H.R. 5959) was discussion over the Hoekstra Amendment (A004) which simply “barred the use of funds to prohibit or discourage the use of the phrases “jihadist’, ‘jihad’ ‘Islamo-fascism’, ‘Caliphate’ ,”Islamist’ or “Islamic terrorist” within the Intelligence Community or the Federal Government.” “Mainstream media” who did mention the amendment spun it in ways which only catered to the Islamist mindset, stating that these terms are felt by so-called experts to cause “religious offense” and “are frequently applied incorrectly.” So who is to determine their ‘correctness’ – a small group of Islamist advisors? Where does that leave the war of ideas?

Thanks to Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Muslims who believe in the need for Muslims to engage one another in a contest of ideas will go on another day with hope that these terms can be debated on our terms and inside the United States and not on the Islamist terms in foreign Islamist media alone.

No thanks to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslims are again perceived as being unwilling to engage in any contest of ideas and would rather remain oblivious to the root causes of the ideologies of militants. Rather than engage the militants in a real war of ideas over what is and what is not “Islamic,” American Islamists would rather coerce the language of non-Muslim governmental leaders. ...

Report: Surviving EMP to depend on preparation

'Many people may die for lack of basic elements necessary'

A report from the federal Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack has painted a bleak picture for America under such attack: Electricity grids down, uncontrolled fires from exploding gas transport systems, no communication to summon firefighters and if they could come, no water to battle fires. All in city after city after city.

The 200-page report says Americans should look to past incidents, then multiply those impacts by the number of cities that could be hit by such an attack. For example:

San Diego County Water Authority and San Diego County Gas and Electric companies experienced severe electromagnetic interference. … Both companies found themselves unable to actuate critical valve openings and closings. This inability necessitated sending technicians to remote locations to manually open and close water and gas valves, averting, in the words of a subsequent letter of complaint by the San Diego County Water Authority to the Federal Communications Commission, a potential 'catastrophic failure' of the aqueduct system.

The report explained the potential impact could have included an "aqueduct rupture" with disruption of service, severe flooding and related damage to private and public property. The source of the 1999 problem? Errant radar on a ship 25 miles off the coast of San Diego, the report said.

The report, published on the commission website, cited other scenarios that should be expected to develop subsequent to an EMP attack on the U.S.

On Aug. 19, 2000, an explosion occurred on one of three adjacent large natural gas pipelines near Carlsbad, N.M., … Twelve people, including five children, died. The explosion left an 86-foot-long crater. … The explosion happened because of failures in maintenance and loss of situational awareness, conditions that would be replicated by data acquisition disruptions caused by an EMP event.

The report also cited a 1994 refinery disaster in the United Kingdom in which lightning strikes resulted in a half-second power loss.

"Consequently, numerous pumps and overhead fin-fan coolers tripped repeatedly, resulting in the main crude column pressure safety valves lifting and major upsets in the process units in other refinery units … There was an explosion in the FCC unit and a number of isolated fires. … As a result of this incident, an estimated 10 percent of the total refining capacity in the United Kingdom was lost until this complex was returned to service."

WND has reported several times on the threat of EMP attacks, including just two weeks ago when William R. Graham, chairman of the commission, told the House Armed Services Committee an EMP attack is "one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences."

Not taking the steps necessary to reduce the threat in the next three to five years "can both invite and reward attack," Graham told the committee.

The scariest and most threatening kind of EMP attack is initiated by the detonation of a nuclear weapon at high altitude in the range of 25 to 250 miles above the Earth's surface. The immediate effects of EMP are disruption of, and damage to, electronic systems and electrical infrastructure. Such a detonation over the middle of the continental U.S. "has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures that support the fabric of U.S. society and the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power," said Graham.

"Several potential adversaries have the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse, and others appear to be pursuing efforts to obtain that capability," said Graham. "A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication. For example, an adversary would not have to have long-range ballistic missiles to conduct an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack could be launched from a freighter off the U.S. coast using a short- or medium-range missile to loft a nuclear warhead to high altitude. Terrorists sponsored by a rogue state could attempt to execute such an attack without revealing the identity of the perpetrators. Iran, the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism, has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of the Shahab-III, a test mode consistent with EMP attack, and described the tests as successful. Iranian military writings explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States. While the commission does not know the intention of Iran in conducting these activities, we are disturbed by the capability that emerges when we connect the dots."

The committee's report analyzes the impact of an attack on electrical supplies, telecommunications, banking and finance, petroleum and natural gas, transportation, food, water, emergency services, space systems and government.

The news was dire throughout. The electrical grid, for example, is needed to distribute water, food, fuel, communications, transport, financial transactions, emergency services and government services.

"Should significant parts of the electrical power infrastructure be lost for any substantial period of time, the commission believes that the consequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities," the report said.

"In fact, the commission is deeply concerned that such impacts are likely in the event of an EMP attack unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and for rapid restoration of electric power, particular to essential services," the report said.

Current disaster preparedness and recovery plans "may be of little or no value" under an EMP attack because of the length of time it would take to obtain and install replacement parts or repair other damage.

The cascade of trouble would be significant. No electricity would mean out-of-control water, natural gas or fuel flows through distribution systems. Some explosions likely would happen, fires could ignite. But no emergency services could be contacted for help, and if they already were on scene, it's unlikely water would be ready. Even worse, when such fires burn themselves out, and repairs are begun, supplies could neither be ordered nor delivered because of communications and fuel disruptions, and the critical workers needed for repairs might not be able to get to the location.

At some point, repair and recovery simply become impossible, the report said.

"There is a point in time at which the shortage or exhaustion of critical items like emergency power supply, batteries, standby fuel supplies, replacement parts, and manpower resources which can be coordinated and dispatched, together with the degradation of all other infrastructures and their systemic impact, all lead toward a collapse of restoration capability.

"Society will transition into a situation where restoration needs increase with time as resources degrade and disappear," the report warned.

It is the first report from the commission since 2004 and identifies vulnerabilities in the nation's critical infrastructures, "which are essential to both our civilian and military capabilities."

Graham also had warned Congress such an attack could come without the backing of an international power, such as China or Russia.

William R. Graham

Theoretically, an EMP attack is devastating because of the unprecedented cascading failures of major infrastructures that could result. Because of America's heavy reliance on electricity and electronics, the impact would be far worse than on a country less advanced technologically

Graham took the EMP debate out of the realm of science fiction by reminding the committee that as recently as May 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Russian leaders threatened a U.S. congressional delegation with the specter of an attack that would paralyze the U.S.

He also quoted James J. Shinn, assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific Security, who several weeks ago told the same House committee that China's arms buildup includes exotic experiments with electromagnetic weapons that can devastate electronics with bursts of energy similar to those produced by a nuclear blast.

"The consequence of EMP is that you destroy the communications network," Shinn said. "And we are, as you know, and as the Chinese know, heavily dependent on sophisticated communications, satellite communications, in the conduct of our forces. And so, whether it's from an EMP or it's some kind of a coordinated [anti-satellite] effort, we could be in a very bad place if the Chinese enhanced their capability in this area."

Graham says terrorists who get their hands on one or a few unsophisticated nuclear weapons might well calculate they could get the most bang for their buck from attempting an EMP attack.

Ultimate recovery from an EMP attack could end up taking years, during which time America very well may have to exist without many high-tech services, from cell phones inoperable due to damaged towers unrepaired because of parts shortages to a disruption in the food supply path because of fuel shortages.

"A serious national commitment to address the threat of an EMP attack can lead to a national posture that would significantly reduce the payoff for such an attack and allow the United States to recover from EMP, and from other threats, man-made and natural, to the critical infrastructures," Graham told the committee.