Good summary Larry!  I would add to it that, unlike the military threats from the former USSR, terrorism is a criminal justice matter, not a military defense matter.  We need to beef up the international police forces and the coordination among them, not our military forces.  We need to use good police tactics to arrest and bring to trial as many terrorists as is possible, not try to wage a military war against them.

Bush's successful conflation of anti-terrorism with an offensive against Iraq is possibly the biggest flim flam con game ever perpetrated.  His attempts and successes in restricting civil rights and consolidating all governmental power in his office, using this flim flam con game are a reflection of our citzens lack of education and interest, and the willing conspiracy of the news media. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I completely agree Hoppy. Not a few have suggested that today's terrorism can be compared to yesterday's piracy on the high seas in that combatting either requires similar tactics. I continue to believe that without 9/11 even our uneducated and disinterested citizenry would not have fallen for the big flim flam.

Thanks Lar ...

As per usual, you just make too much damn sense. Reason is harder to come by than a gallon of gas @ $2.25...

Now I breathlessly await the circling elucidations from the Norwegian nut-knocker of what you were really trying to say and why what you've said isn't really what you meant ...

"Blue is Yellow like Black is White, it's as clear as Day in the middle of Night..."

~OGD~

ps: Larry -- I'm sure you caught the Waas piece... Surprised... Eh?

Most "terrorists" are concerned with local issues in their home countries. This can be seen in the strife which extends from Indonesia to Columbia and all points in between.

9/11 was unusual in that Bin Laden had a beef with Saudi Arabia and attacked the US, since he had decided that only an action of this magnitude would get the world notice that he felt his cause required.

It was also unusual in that, in general, it is hard for foreign nationals to get into a country unobserved and then to secure the necessary materiel to conduct an action. Notice, for example, that the London underground bombers were UK residents.

As others have hinted at above, the "war on terror" is a metaphorical war, like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" and should be handled by use of police, not military, powers. Conflating the two allows for the abuse of civil liberties by the military.

The question is, is the overreach by the Cheney administration caused by paranoia, panic, or a real desire for undemocratic power? Many people in positions of power become deluded and construct an alternate reality for themselves. Examples have included Stalin, Hitler and even Saddam. By misjudging their own strength and the strength of their enemies they lead their countries into disasterous confrontations. Our most recent examples included in LBJ and McNamara.

Since we know that Bush is only minimally aware of operational details the blame for misjudging conditions falls to Cheney, Rumsfeld and their inner circle.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

The Russians didn't destroy the world trade center, damage the pentagon, and threaten the white house. Something to think about when accusing people of irrational paranoia, don't you think?

Al Queda is no longer much of a threat because it has been marginalized to remote places and many of its people killed, you say. Who did that? Something to think about, no?

Remember the alien and sedition laws of Jefferson's time, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the red scares following wwi and ii, the interment of the japanese, the turmoil of vietnam? there's nothing unprecedented about the escalating tensions between security and personal freedom in times of trial...

...and you're full of shit.

Suskind's book shows Bush as an engaged president -- in a discernably adolescent way. He likes action, likes attacks, news from the front, limbs flying, bombs dropping, "terrorists" cowering -- all that neat stuff. Bush's official disengagement is a deliberate Cheney construct in aid of plausible deniability . If Waas's account of Bush's connection to the Plame leak is true (and I tend to think it is), then it's a perfect example of Cheney's construct in action.

Interestingly, Bush 1 refused to stay away from the details. Presumably this is why his son so hastily extended the period in which Poppy's papers are unavailable. Poppy's got no plausible deniability and has Iran/Contra hanging like a noose over his head.

I don't think it's an either/or when it comes to the reason why Cheney has been such an autocrat. I think he's a presidential powers ideologue; I think he's a greedy, amoral bastard who wants more for us and less for them; I think he's guilty of having known about 9/11 and doing nothing about it -- I'd say on purpose but who knows... -- and that has made him a security zealot. But then security makes him a rich man. All of these things play into what he's done and probably many more. The "one percent doctrine" is a useful guarantee of arbitrary power.

The Russians didn't destroy the world trade center, damage the pentagon, and threaten the white house. Something to think about when accusing people of irrational paranoia, don't you think? Al Queda is no longer much of a threat because it has been marginalized to remote places and many of its people killed, you say. Who did that? Something to think about, no?

Al Queda is making a come back. But the better question would be who took down the towers on 9/11?

Iraqis?

Oh right, they were Saudis. Pakistanis. But no Iraqis. My bad.

Remember the alien and sedition laws of Jefferson's time, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the red scares following wwi and ii, the interment of the japanese, the turmoil of vietnam? there's nothing unprecedented about the escalating tensions between security and personal freedom in times of trial...

Are you really Michelle Malkin?

And how long is this Looooong War going to take? How long will the executive have these special war time powers? Bush himself said it would take decades. Seems rightwingers just want to suspend all law, constitutionally protected rights, anything it takes, just to cover their monumental failure. (as well as their crimes).

The Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted during the Presidency of John Adams.

That is "Jefferson's time" (surely you don't think I used that phrase accidentally?) and it doesn't affect the argument - which is that these things have been ongoing since the founding of the Republic. I hope you're capable of something better than nit-picking, irrelevant pedantry.

Not a few have suggested that today's terrorism can be compared to yesterday's piracy on the high seas in that combatting either requires similar tactics.

You mean like the Barbary wars of Jefferson's Presidency?

Idiot.

Still at it I see.

For a rating system to be believeable it has to have some independence and some standards. Yours has neither.

The first condition is very difficult, I admit...but not impossible.

The second? Well, there are two aspects to discourse - manners and substance. If you insist on both, if you insist that everyone be like Daniel Patrick Moynihan - always the gentlemen while at the same time refusing to tolerate fools - no one will be able to post. If you go the other way - no standards such as at DU - you have no manners and no substance but anyone can post (as long as his views are orthodox). You've chosen some sort of middle-ground.

But what is it exactly? I know you don't like my manners. I don't intend you to. But where are the substantive responses? If you don't like the substance but can't refute it, or if you don't like it but find it challanging, how can you rate it zero?

What makes you think the law is such a great way of resolving disputes? We have the law and the left still advocates revolution. You can't have it both ways you know.

Law is as flawed as any other human system, and lawyers have all the usual human failings (maybe more some would argue).

People have not abandoned war and force because only a fool equates law with justice. Nor does a legal system, if it is honest, claim that equality. It's just a system for resolving disputes and depends upon the application of force to make it work.

All public posts have a "look at me" aspect to them...and all ratings the same. On this site the latter are little more than old boys patting each other on the rump.

Truculance? Flow? Rudeness? Step back a bit and read some of the posts which receive high ratings. How many characterize our leaders and their supporters as raving madmen, deluded war criminals - even Nazis, and lazy, insensitive louts? If I don't agree, if I think the opinions and their advocates are entirely without merit, why should I be polite?

Meanwhile, where are the substantive responses? Did not Jefferson respond to piracy with the Barbary wars - the same Jefferson celebrated as the father of liberal democracy? Has this country not experienced repeated conflicts between security and personal freedom in times of conflict? Does the Left not advocate revolution even though we have one of the best legal systems in the world? Does it not blame us for most of the world's ills even though we have one of the best legal systems in the world? Don't these questions have merit and deserve an honest response? And if they do how can you rate my posts zero?

Frankly, you puzzle me. You generalize about the "Left" when not all TPMC subscribers consider themselves leftists.

Bluntly, you should be polite unless you wish to be ostracized. There is a huge difference between one who argues vehemently, and one that has to be impolite in doing so. I'm afraid your defense of rudeness reminds me of Lady Astor saying to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea!"

"Madam, if I was married to you, I'd drink it!"

A system of law does not preclude the use of military operations to enforce it. With all due regard to the historical background of the Posse Comitatus Act, I rather respect the British approach, when faced with a situation such as the Iranian Embassy occupation, to call in SAS assistance when the Metropolitan Police was no longer able to deal with the situation. The proliferation of poorly trained (in comparison to military) special operations units in the United States is a matter of concern. At Waco, for example, there was first a problem in unity of command among ATF, DEA and FBI, to say nothing of local units. The assault on the compound was not just a nuanced variation of classified Delta Force techniques, but violated virtually every doctrine in the Army field manuals on civil disturbances and military operations in urban terrain.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

On a public site especially, but even in private, we are all proxies to some extent for larger entities. It's not fair or accurate but it can't be helped.

I'm saying that treating modern terrorism as a criminal offense is mindlessly stupid and self-defeating...and implying that those who support such a policy want to see us defeated.

The law is incredibly slow, and even slower across international boundaries, and how would we enforce our law in foreign countries with inept, corrupt, and antagonistic judiciaries and constabularies...among people who hate us?

I also noted that Jefferson used military force to deal with piracy, right at the beginning of our history when we were small and poor and fought in wooden sail boats.

Incidentally, which of your questions are substantive rather than rhetorical?

Why don't you start with my first post, addressed to Larry Johnson, before I got really rude?

He says our response to terrorism is paranoid and irrational, that the Russians were a much bigger threat. I respond that the Russians didn't attack us on our own soil, kill 3000 citizens, and seriously threaten our economy.

He says Al Queda is no longer much of a threat. I point out that it was the Bush administration which was responsible.

He says the Administration is unprecedently threatening our liberties under the pretext of preserving our security. I respond that there's nothing unprecedented about the administration's action in the historical context, that they're quite normal.

You find my post rhetorical? How? How can I take you seriously if that's your reading?

If you can't take me seriously because I raised some points about rhetoric, I might suggest that no one is forcing you to be here, and I might conclude you are trolling.

Let's deal with the issue of the Cold War. You are correct that there were fewer casualties in the continental United States. On several occasions, there was a potential for nuclear exchange that would have resulted in orders of magnitude more casualties, but we'll put that aside.

Instead, let's look at Soviet sources such as Soviet Military Strategy by Marshal Rodion Malinovsky, Defense Minister (RAND Corporation translation), or the declassified IRONBARK papers giving doctrinal material from the classified Soviet journal Military Thought, available at the CIA FOIA Reading Room. All clearly identify proxy war being a Soviet doctrine.

I will not fall into the trap of the brothers Dulles, as they proceeded to pervert the containment doctrine expounded by George Kennan, that Communism was monolithic or the US always conducted optimal diplomacy. Nevertheless, the Viet Nam and Korean conflicts certainly involved active Soviet participation, and caused just a few more than 3000 deaths.

Ignore, for the moment, the issue of whether precedents truly make Presidential decisions on surveillance legal. Ignore the passage of specific legislation since the precedents. Instead, deal with the pure lack of oversight for billion-dollar programs. Treating the NSA traffic analysis program as something that can be briefed only to 8 members of Congress, none of whom have a technical background in communications intelligence or network engineering, and are not allowed to consult cleared staff or retain notes, is a craven abandonment of responsibility.

The most recent major encryption system approved by the US, AES, uses an algorithm developed by Dutch researchers and validated by extensive public analysis from the large worldwide cryptology community. NSA is no longer the only fount of such information.

Further, al-Qaeda at its greatest point did not have the intelligence resources of the fUSSR, and to assume that equal secrecy is needed against it is dubious -- when the historical record shows many examples of when excessive secrecy caused military opeational disasters, such as Pearl Harbor.

I do find a simple response of activities being described as "quite normal", without citing the precedents and the subsequent legislative and judicial histories, to be a bit rhetorical. Should you wish to get specific, fine.

Indeed, should you wish to be specific, you might comment on the ultimate value of past, supersecret operations with no oversight, such as SHAMROCK and MINARET.

As to the potential of terrorists getting WMD, the problem is poorly stated. I much prefer the British term, "Weapons of Mass Effect." To take a specific example of casualties, examine the industrial accident at Bhopal, India, which caused on the order of 3000 deaths and 100,000 lasting casualties, far more lasting injury than 9/11. Why should terrorists bother to take the risk of importing WME when systematic attacks on industrial chemicals in manufacturing, transit, and storage would exceed, by far, the largest chemical attacks of World War I? I'd rather see a bit more priority on strengthening national infrastructure in areas including chemical manufacturing and the electrical grid, which would simultaneously help protect against major accidents.

The Ohio Valley electrical blackout of 2003 was a quasi-accident, starting with an accident but escalating due to poor computer security (against a worm) and a grid not designed for the interconnect loads being put on it. An unintended consequence of electrical deregulation was a disincentive to utilities' capital improvements, especially in the interconnect grid. It is notable, among qualified engineers, that the Texas grid, the major one built to modern standards, has suffered barely a hiccup.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

*sigh* and you complain that I am not reading what you are saying.

The Administration is using the military to fight terrorism abroad. I'm not talking about different military tactics or strategy. Presumably, you use the military less and legal systems (which ones?) more. Which and how?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You are truly verbose.

spare me the caveats about ordinary Muslims. There were plenty of ordinary Russians...and ordinary Germans during Hitler's time). They don't have the same strengths, weaknesses, ideology, tactics, strategies? Well, what a surpise!

I also never argued that government actions restricting or attempting to restrict personal freedoms in times of foreign threat were legal. I said they were normal, meaning they always occured ...and had since the founding of the Republic.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I'm for police action. I'd like it to start right here, at this thread.

You seem to want to dictate the rules of discussion

What strikes you as precision strikes me as irrelevant pomposity. Telling you is part of the discussion. I'm not trying to dictate anything.

And did you have reason to believe I had, or would, give you any?

Yes. Your verbosity and general approach, based on my experience.

By that logic, rape is normal. Doesn't mean it should continue.

That's not the logic at all. I was telling Johnson that the Administration's action were normal, not unprecedented.

As to whether they'll continue. They will until someone finds a way of reconciling wartime threat with personal liberty which is satisfactory to everyone. So far, that hasn't happened.

Specifically, I want to know that invasions of privacy and political freedom are reasonable and likely to have results that overwhelm their illegality...were the invasions of privacy justified by results, or is it possible that past Administrations zeal exceeded their common sense?

Speaking of rhetorical! ROFLOL! Are human actions in stressful times likely to be mistake free? Will armies of second-guessers and armchair generals appear, as if by magic, to criticize? Will historians and partisans endlessly debate the original actions as well as the words of the 2nd guessers and armchair geniuses?

I'm amused that you call yourself a serious student of politics. Serious students of most disciplines don't go out of their way to alienate people with whom they claim to want discussion.

Speaking of rhetorical! ROFLOL! Are human actions in stressful times likely to be mistake free? Will armies of second-guessers and armchair generals appear, as if by magic, to criticize? Will historians and partisans endlessly debate the original actions as well as the words of the 2nd guessers and armchair geniuses?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

As I said, it is a troll that continues to wave his hands and give only vague examples, dripping in sarcasm and condescension. When he himself claims that militaries do not review past actions in the interest of improvement, he dismisses the point made that there's 600+ years of Western military history that supports the argument they do exactly that.

Who cares that the Prussian general staff appointed a non- court historian in 1345? Most people who are serious students of military history, and have read such things as Goerlitz's The History of the German General Staff, 1345-1945.

Actually, the example here is of the witchee-watchee bird from the legendary Wild West Show, who always flew backwards to see where he had been. One sad day, he injured one wing, so he flew in ever-decreasing circles, casting scorn and derision on all, until, shrieking imprecations at all, flew up his own cloaca and disappeared.

Troll? Quod erat demonstratum. I believe, after a fair hearing, that ratings are indeed appropriate.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When he himself claims that militaries do not review past actions in the interest of improvement

Where did I claim that? Quote me.

Interestingly, 3-4 new names popped up in the last 5 days and started using similar inflamatory tactics.

sPh

Well, this was a waste of reading time.

First, Larry posts a long diatribe about something we all know is true - terrorists (at least of the ilk of the Islamists) are hardly comparable to the threat of an advanced, militarized state such as the former Soviet Union. (Today, of course, Russia is FAR weaker than it was then, and China is twenty years away from becoming an issue at all. Yet the Pentagon is banging the drums about China in order to get more money for pointless weapons systems.)

Then it became a hair-pulling contest between "selfinterest" and Berkowitz.

Here's the bottom line: Al Qaeda is a joke. They only pulled off 9/11 because they were ALLOWED to. Whether that allowance was by design or incompetence may be up to debate, but there's no doubt that's what happened.

There have been very few occasions when terrorism threatened the existence of any more or less Western state: Italy during the Red Brigades, and perhaps Turkey in the Seventies. The Irish troubles perhaps. That any significant amount of terrorism - at least as done by "conventional" terrorists - could significantly threaten the existence of the United States government - or even significant numbers of casualties, i.e., in excess of several thousand, let alone tens of thousands - let alone the existence of the country or society itself - is laughable. Only the use of a full-scale nuclear weapon by terrorists could even begin to approach that capability (although Berkowitz may be correct that industrial chemical terrorism could be effective to a lesser degree.)

And I say this as someone who intended to be a terrorist and do exactly that - bring down the US government and society. It could be done. It would take far more than the characters currently involved in terrorism anywhere in the world. That is why it is laughable.

The ONLY thing terrorism can do to the US is serve as an EXCUSE for the STATE to destroy the civil liberties of the population.

Which is exactly what is happening. And that is not the fault of the terrorists, but of the people YOU people elected to power in this country.

I saw the movie "V for Vendetta" again last night. People need to see that movie. They need to get past the terrorist actions of "V" and understand Evey's transformation which is the point of the movie: abandon fear and there will be no state and no terrorism.

Just noticed this

Only the use of a full-scale nuclear weapon by terrorists could even begin to approach that capability [threaten the existance of our government and society]...And I say this as someone who intended to be a terrorist and do exactly that - bring down the US government and society. It could be done.

Is that what you intended to do...detonate nuclear weapons in our cities?

In the '60s I knew many people who demonstrated against the war, resisted the draft, fought the police, went to jail, fled the country, destroyed a few things.

But I didn't know the bombers and killers, never even heard of any American who seriously wanted to nuke our cities (at least I don't remember any).

If you really did want to be a terrorist, and took some real actions, then you have a great deal to tell us...or at least me.

So speak up.

The fear of terrorism is understandable, but completely irrational

Well, then, it's not just an American or even Cheney irrationality, according to what I read today in the paper:

6 Former Guantánamo Detainees on Trial in Paris by CRAIG S. SMITH

....If found guilty, they face up to 20 years in jail under a French antiterrorism law that makes "associating with criminals in relation to a terrorist enterprise" a crime.

....Félix de Belloy, the attorney for Mr. Kanouni, said France was taking an inconsistent position in its prosecution of the men. France has been as critical as any nation of the United States' policy of sending detainees to Guantánamo Bay for years without trial, but the current trial is, in a way, a validation of those detentions, he said.....

....Mourad Benchellali's older brother, Menad, 32, was even more militant than the father.

Within days after sending Mourad to Afghanistan, he left on a failed effort to fight in Chechnya and after his return spent weeks experimenting with bomb-making chemicals in the family's home in a suburb of Lyon, France.

Menad Benchellali was arrested in December 2002 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison last month. In the same case, 24 other people were convicted of plotting terrorist attacks in France. Mourad and Menad's father, mother and another brother, Hafed, were given shorter terms for associating with a terrorist enterprise, and are now out of jail....

Britain Grapples With Terror Challenges" By ALAN COWELL:

....With the July 7 anniversary approaching, the police and lawmakers have taken to warning that the threat of terror attacks has not been reduced. Mr. Clarke, the London counterterrorism chief, said three, and possibly four, attack plans had been thwarted in the past year. "There are some 60 individuals awaiting trial in the U.K. for terrorist-related offenses," he said. "This is unprecedented, and the flow of new cases shows no sign of abating. If anything it is accelerating."

Such arguments have been used by the police and the government to support their demand to increase the period allowed for detention without charge. It had earlier been increased from 14 days.

A report published Monday by Parliament's influential Home Affairs Committee revived the argument. "The growing number of cases and the increase in suspects monitored by the police and security services make it entirely possible, and perhaps increasingly likely, that there will be cases that do provide that justification," it said. "We believe, therefore, that the 28-day limit may well prove inadequate."

Indeed, Mr. Clarke said, the counterterrorism officer, the police need to "intervene at earlier stages — to attack the fund-raising, to disrupt the logistics, to detect hostile reconnaissance — because when we get to the point of attack the options are too limited and too dangerous."

Or what I read in recent Canadian news.

I also think you err a bit in stressing "radical Islam." I am surprised that you still do. I would think someone like you would see beyond that, that the danger has moved beyond the control of any "war of civilizations" in the minds of charismatic leaders, and more towards the copycat, dreams of glory of any "homegrown" group with humiliation issues and access to ammonium nitrate in mass quantities or similar.

Or think about what your average citizen in Iraq means when they complain about "the terrorists"....

Really, it's not an issue to be properly understood through an American political filter, whatever your final opinion ends up doing. If you do that, your sort of doing what the Bushies are doing, or, in fact, most politicians. Not exactly what I expect from a former C.I.A. man, though.

I'm a history teacher. I thought you might be interested - obviously you're not

Quite the contrary...but we were discussing Larry Johnson's post, not your profession.

Self-absorbed said:

I'm not a new name and my posts have been consistent in tone and substance for a long time. I quit for awhile because I so despise the positions I encounter here...

By gawd you're right. Your tone hasn't changed one iota. And speaking of substance: Who was it that said this -- January 22, 2006 -- very first comment??

At that point you must decide whether you are with them or against them. VietNam or no Vietnam, lies or no lies you must decide. No government is perfect, no policy can please everyone. But taking a stand against your country in time of war is treason.

You refer to anyone you deem out of step with your ideas of an administration that has illegally misrepresented facts so as to invade, occupy and subjugate others, and you consider that as committing the act of treason? You wouldn't know treason if it bit ya' on your pampered ass.

You've been here 23 weeks and 2 days too damn long -- Now go stick both your middle-fingers up your asteroid-orifice and run along out here on your elbows freeeeeeper ...

~OGD~

ps: Anyone wishing to attempt to carry on a civil discourse with an illogical, unreasonable confrotantionalist is doing little more that continuing to feed the troll. Good luck!

Although you have noticed the same situation that I have over the past few days, I must still point this out.

So please beg my pardon Healy, but I'm sure you'll understand. If I am to rate Self-absorbed for irrelevant and unproductive content, then I have to rate you also, due to the fact that Self-absorbed's head might implode... Please bear with me.

Please take this in the vein of humor I intend it to be. /wink wink\

~OGD~

ps: Please feel free to rate me any way you wish. I'll fully bear the burden.

Rated a one (1) for irrelevant and unproductive commentary.

~OGD~

Well, actually, you're the one who brought up the topic of the Alien and Sedition Acts in your discussion of Larry Johnson's post.

Tom

You shouldn't be a teacher. You can't focus well enough to follow a simple argument.

Standing up for your positions. What a man. Vulgar and stupid...but that's a lot better than the smarmy politeness which smothers most "thinking" around here.

By gawd you're right.

I am right. I was pointing out I'm not a new name and I'm not. I was pointing out that my opinions have been consistant for as long as I've been posting and they have been.

You refer to anyone you deem out of step with your ideas of an administration that has illegally misrepresented facts so as to invade, occupy and subjugate others, and you consider that as committing the act of treason? You wouldn't know treason if it bit ya' on your pampered ass.

Yeah? Well, then you tell me what it is.

And tell me how any government is supposed to function in time of crisis when dealing with a numerous and varied electorate - many or most of whom are "paranoid, uninformed, disinterested, etc" (summing up the characterizations of various posters who received ratings of 4 for their brilliant observations). Why do you think Machiavelli's observations are regarded as timeless and universal, you fucking illiterate moron?

Through the jingoism and false binaries of self interest, one thing is glaring that selfinterest ignores: the methods employed by the current administration to fight terrorism are consistantly making the situation worse, so much so that it's no longer inconceivable that this is the actual goal.

The threat that Al Qaeda posed was one that Republicans downplayed, not Democrats. It was the GOP-held congress that hampered efforts to capture Bin Laden after the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. It was Republican privatisation and lack of interest that allowed the fluke of the 11 September attacks.

What Republicans can't grasp is that terrorist networks can't be fought with armies. You may as well try to shoot mosquitos with a pistol. Sadly, the response from this administration has been to claim with every sting and every insect they aggravate that they just need more guns to shoot off.

Terrorism isn't a military threat. Europeans learned that in the Seventies and Eighties. Americans, sadly, still need to learn that.

LOL sphealey. You are one of the trolls that have shown up in the TPM Cafe lately.

Thanks for one of the my first two "0"s ever in the TPM Cafe - no on else has ever deemed any of my posts to deserve a "0". You, however, think I deserved a string of them. Even when I paid you a compliment, you gave me a "0".

Am I a troll? Hardly. I don't think anyone who took the time to track down information about Rush Limbaugh's "charitable" foundation qualifies as a troll in the TPM Cafe.

It seems like you have endless amounts of time to ramble on elsewhere about absolutley nothing worthwhile but you do not have the two minutes it would have taken you to tell me what is exactly you objected to in my post about Hillary Clinton's unseemly relationship with Alphonse D'Amato.

Again, you owe me an apology or, at the very least, an explanation as to your unwarranted attack on my political views.

Tolerance is a virtue, sphealey. The last I heard, we are permitted to express ourselves openly in the TPM Cafe. Apparently, you decided to create your own rules without informing anyone else.

Whew! This fight turned hot quickly.

Term clarification, for what it's worth:

Threat: Let's distinguish between 1)those to life and property and 2)those to national interest, including existential. Al Qaeda is in the first category, which is rather like criminal activity in general.

Policing vs. military force: Police activity may be either preventive or punitive, the latter meaning catching and prosecuting. Either version may involve military or like force, but when directed against individuals would be called policing. When directed against a state or similar organization it is war.

The Barbary campaign was in a gray area, against a somewhat organized criminal activity. The justification for a warlike response was that national interest (shipping) was being attacked.

Islamic jihadism just barely threatens national interest when it attacks oil infrastrucure in Saudi Arabia, or pipeline construction in central Asia. 9/11 was a horrific mass crime, that is, it attacked life and property. It only incidentally attacked national interest by hurting the economy temporarily.

Therefore, this kind of terrorism is properly countered through police-like activity, (which may involve military force), since the target is more individuals than a location-specific organization like the Barbary Coast pirates. It is most definitely NOT best countered with a proper war against a state.

Terrorism does not compare with the threat from Soviet Russia.

Well, here's my first response to Golden Oldie. How come it ended up here? My mistake? Possibly...but lots of things seem to happen on this site for mysterious reasons.

Hope he finds it. A shame to waste my initial passion.

Tom,

I'd be delighted to discuss the substance of this with you, but there is an active troll that needs not to be fed. By his own words, he is here to be confrontational. He lumps all here into a stereotype and than says he hates it, and is doing his best to be disruptive. When anyone tries to respond seriously to him, he avoids answering in like manner, apparently arrogating to himself the sole authority to set rules.

As best as I can tell, his knowledge and ability to converse are limited to rhetorical questions. I don't plan to attempt to engage him and would suggest the same treat the sorry little boy in the same way, with ostracism until he gets bored and leaves.

Now to your post. I suggest that your first point on threat is a first-cut distinction on when something can be dealt with by law enforcement or military means. Unfortunately, there are gray areas here, from the increasing paramilitary capabilities of police departments, to the problem of even criminal-class terrorists that operate either through border-crossing or from foreign soil.

Apropos of that last point, one important economic and privacy issue is often forgotten in overemphasizing al-Qaeda and similar groups. Malicious hackers are literally costing billions (i.e., that is with a b, not an m. 10 to the 9th) in the cost of patching disabled commercial & government systems, loss of revenue, needs for extra staff to recover, lawsuits, etc. Yes, some of this wouldn't be as easy if Microsoft were more serious about security rather than work-out-of-the-box.

If I may continue with the malicious hacker threat, it already has started causing situations where we were lucky to avoid loss of life. The best public example is the Ohio Valley electrical blackout of 2003, which triggered from a combination of mechanical damage and slow response by obsolescent interconnect gear. Unfortunately, poor security had allowed the Slammer worm to get into the utterly critical System Control And Data Acquisition network, which never should be exposed to the internet. The worm in the SCADA system slowed SCADA to a point at which utility company engineers couldn't isolate failing segments fast enough to keep them from bringing down other segments.

Fortunately, this took place in mild weather. The same SCADA control problem, during the ice storm that took out a good deal of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the Northeast, could easily have caused deaths from heating failures, traffic light outages, etc.

While it really isn't necessary to drop bombs on malicious hackers, the problem can't be handled by police limited in jurisdiction, and the FBI is not doing terribly well, even before dealing with the law enforcement systems of countries that do not have strong laws in this area.

I think it's a case-by-case decision on when a police versus a military control model is appropriate. Your point that law enforcement may need military resources is well taken, but that increasingly blurs the line. Again, let's stay away from the most controversial area of jihad, and stay with the real -- and often analogous -- problem of piracy at sea.

Piracy is an industry in the Straits of Malacca. I applaud a Japanese ship reported yesterday to have beaten off pirates, but the reality is that this infestation is large enough to require flying sensors and command, and, quite probably, engaging pirates with maritime patrol aircraft. Ships and speedboats, unless in the right area, can't get there fast enough.

We have had recent examples of piracy suppression by US Navy ships off the coast of Somalia, a failed state with no law enforcement. IIRC, some pirates, who were apparently going for Darwin awards by shooting at major warships, were killed. The problem is that international law tried to come up with piracy codes in the mid 19th century, but there wasn't widespread acceptance, and ad hoc operations by navies diminished threats until fairly recently. Hanging at the yardarm was 19th century tradition, but, aside from the legalities and public opinion, what do you do when ships don't have yardarms any more?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I'll make it easier for you.

There are a fair number of people on this site who "hate" my guts...and all I've done is disagree with and/or ridicule them. Is it so hard to extrapolate from that to imagine the feelings of those whose livelihoods have been damaged, relatives and friends killed, cultures damaged, religious beliefs challanged?

Are you so afraid of conflict that you'll go to any lengths to deny reality?

Maybe it's the heat of the summer, but this place is going to the shitter.

I suggest to all involved that ignoring someone is much better than getting into a ratings pissing war.

Now that I've completed today's quota of bodily function metaphors, I'll go back to what I was doing.

 Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

No argument that there was no strong linkage between terrorism in the US and Iraq. Nevertheless, if there was to be military action, I consider Congress and the Administration craven for not taking the dramatic step of declaring war. Lives, fortunes, sacred honor, that sort of thing.

There is a significant problem in existing international law that war could not be declared on non-state actors. Piracy does provide some historical starting points -- and do remember some classical pirate vessels, or even groups of vessels, were comparable to contemporary naval vessels.

Your comment about police bringing heavy firepower to bear but holding out the possibility of leniency brings up several concerns, particularly in the domestic context. In 1967, there were many urban riots after the King assassination, but only Detroit was so out of control that the governor, after supplementing the police with National Guardsmen, requested Federal armed assistance.

A combat-experienced brigade of the 82nd Airborne went into action, with surprising results. They captured more shooters than the entire local and state presence, with less expenditure of ammunition and less collateral damage. Prior to their taking command, there were appalling practices, such as the Michigan National Guard turning quad-.50 caliber antiaircraft machine guns on apartment buildings from which shots allegedly had been fired.

Until seeing them, it's hard to understand the destructive power of the .50, much less the quad .50. Suffice it to say that this use caused brick apartment buildings to collapse.

At the Waco fiasco, the law enforcement units went into the compound in a consistent way -- they violated about every tactical rule in military manuals on urban combat. Again, it really should be seen to be understood, but the speed and control of a military special operations takedown is amazing. Other than possibly the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, and perhaps a few big-city police special operations units, no law enforcement units approach the ability to apply force selectively, in an extreme situation.

Where non-state terrorists do have actual training or staging facilities, especially in other countries, I cannot come up with a rationale for using a law enforcement model once the decision is made to go after those facilities.

Even in pure law enforcement, there is sometimes a rational decision not to offer leniency, or, at least, to take a lethal shot if it is offered. The classic examples are situations where a hostage taker is holding a weapon on a hostage, or where someone may trigger explosives or incendiaries. Unfortunately, it's not feasible to shoot to wound someone who may press a switch even as a dying act.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

sphealey, Please elucidate as to how an unanswerable demand and a formal declaration of war by the US Congress on a terrorist organization would have eliminated future criticism of US actions in Afghanistan.

From what I remember, the US had the full support of most of the western world when it first took action in Afghanistan. How would a bill of somewhat, imo, silly particulars enhanced that support?

Assuming the ultimatum was to the Taliban, and, more specifically, Congress had to use those nasty words it's avoided for years, "declaration of war", legislators might have to take a bit more responsibility. Once, we had people that swore their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Now, we seem to have legislators that don't want to upset the electorate by indicating there might well be consequences to the electorate, based on decisions made by the legislators. Perhaps roll call votes on declarations of war, rather than vague AUMFs, might make oversight, and the Congressional responsibility, a bit heavier.

There is a time to "cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war," but when that time comes, let the politicians take at least the political equivalent of the risks taken by the dogs.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I don't propose to participate in alternate realities of the Administration, but to stay, when possible, within the constraints of generally accepted international law and the Constitution. International law assumes there is, as much as possible, a record that an ultimatum has been delivered to a responsible official of the receiving organization, normally assumed to be a government. There are special circumstances for recognized civil wars. al-Qaeda fits none of these.

From the standpoint of international law, none of your proposals fit realities other than that of the Administration. Having Congress pass a declaration at least has relevance under the Constitution, which does not specify the form or, presumably, targets of declarations of war.

Even if bin Laden did hear it, why do you think he would care?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You know, berkowitz, you're last few posts have been pretty good, so

You are concerned with lack of oversight and propose additional layers and controls. Maybe they're good but each one adds a new voice, a new delay, a new expenditure. Robert D. Kaplan, in "Imperial Grunts", deals with those costs as they affect the conduct of an actual war. He is not kind to them. I have not seen you address that issue. Have I been unfair?

Your focus seems to be on updating law to meet modern conditions, a worthy undertaking. But meanwhile, enemy threats have to be countered under modern conditions but constrained by antiquated, confusing, inefficient laws and bureaucratic categories. You're sympathetic to that plight...but are you sympathetic enough?

You and Tom Wright have engaged in a lot of talk about what is the most effective way to counter modern terrorism and modern crime. You are aware that the old distinctions between civilian policing and military actions, between state and non-state, between civilian and military justice systems are breaking down because they are no longer applicable and effective. That being the case why are you so unwilling to grant the present administration the same insights, give them the same leeway you allow yourselves to experiment? Robert D. Kaplan is certainly aware of all this...and Bush sought an interview with him almost immediately after assuming office. The neocons have been talking about the need to make drastic changes to adjust to modern realities since the late '90s, at least. Maybe their solutions have been wrong, maybe not. But I see absolutely no reason why yours should be considered better.

Yes, of course, sphealey, the answer as to how to issue an ultimatum is so obvious, I am surprised Howard even posed that question (btw, HB, I mistakenly thought you were posing the question as to how to issue an ultimatum to me - sorry!).

And include an ultimatum giving them 14 days to publish a description of their uniform and identification tags, and to turn over a list of their fighters to the International Red Cross.

I hardly think that the terms of your ultimatum are fair to Al Quida (sic). Suppose Al Quida (sic) genuinely wanted to respond to it? Fourteen days is not enough time to allow Al Quida (sic) to make such monumental decisions such as what their uniforms would look like. One wants to look smart on the battlefield, don't you agree?

Suppose Al Quida (sic) requested additional time to respond to your ultimatum? Would you have allowed Al Quida (sic) any "wiggle room " and, if so, how much?

Your recommendation certainly has merit and, in hindsight, it is unfortunate that it is only being made now. Imagine how much more manageable the Global War on Terror would be if Al Quida (sic) had acceded to Congress's demands!

But, alas, we will never know, will we?

From what I read in memri, aljazeera, alahram, and imra, hatred of america is extremely wide-spread in the Muslim world...and from what I read on DU, Kos, and this site, it is in america as well.

You hurl the same dishonest talking points which were designed to create pavlovian salivating in the Rigth-sided base of the Rank and Defiled on this site? You cite Memri, and expect me not to laugh derisively at you for using a discredited source?

Are you claiming that resisting the extra Constitutional actions of the Bush Administration, or believing that implicit within any ideation of justice lies at its foundatation, equal applicability, is a sign of hatred for America? It is you that seems to seethe in spitting hatred at the the American Dream, believing it is instead a nightmare.

Explain to me, how it could be in the face of our country's grave threat, that the membership in the nation's Chapters of College Republicans seems to be fat with grade A prime rifleman material? Why aren't they rushing down to the recruiters' offices to sign up for Mr. Bush's GWOT like the good respectful patriots you claim the left is not? Are they physically impaired in a manner that precludes their ability to fight for their country? It is a genetic affliction, and just like their daddies, they suffer from weak knees, alabaster-hued livers, jaundiced midsections, incontinence, and uncontrollable bowels?

I said there was a lot of hatred of America in this country. You dispute that - but you are certainly willing to admit that there's a huge amount of hatred for the government of this country, that you hate it. Your post is proof.

Starting with that, how far are you willing to go with that hatred? How much does it blind you to the sins of our enemies? There's an old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So how willing are you to make common cause with the foreign enemies of this country? To what extent do you even recognize them, focus on them?

The government of this country is elected by the majority of voters. Even if you dispute the last election you cannot deny that the electorate was very closely split. Does your hatred of the government extend to its supporters, the 50% of Americans who voted for it and, for the most part, continue to support it? Logically, I think it would have to. The only alternative is to conclude they were a bunch of dumb asses who didn't know what they were getting. But that won't wash. Go to the conservative sites. They support all the positions you hate, dispute all your allegations, think you and your supporters are the ignorant, deluded fools. So I have to conclude that you not only hate our government but a significant percentage of your countrymen, maybe 50% of them, and that those like you are like-minded.

I stand by my original contention.

As to your specific points.

Some think Memri has been discredited. I'm not one of them. But go to al-Jazeeri, to al-ahram, to IMRA (or is it IRNA), to a thousand Internet sites where Muslims post their views. You'll find plenty of hatred.

You claim the actions of the Bush administration which you don't like are extra-Constitutional. So what? Who are you? So far, that case hasn't been made before the Courts and Congress which is where it counts if you care about legality. But, of course, you don't. You only care about legality if it supports your positions.

As a matter of fact, the armed forces of this country are overwhelmingly Republican - and that includes the officer corp which consists primarily of decendants of well-off, southern, religious military families. Sure, there are plenty of Republicans who don't volunteer, don't fight. But the overwhelming majority of people who defend your pampered ass (as Golden Oldie decoy would charaterize it) are part of that class of Americans whom you hate.

You may be a person who can rationally answer a question that contiinues to nag at my consciousnees.

Why the hell is critical infrastructure in the USA still mainlined into the net in a manner that opens up their bellies for a hacker's blunt knife? It seems that simple discretion would predicate that the ability to access critical systems in power plants be completely removed from the net. At the very least, use leased private pipes.

This is insanity. I have visions of Homer Simpsons thorughout America alseep on the couch with a bobbing bird toy set up to peck the keyboard of their home PCs.

Do they even force commands to be encrypted?

It must be less than two decades since these plants were wired, in many cases less than one for the critical systems. They should take a step backwards until effective protections are designed. Hire a few extra engieneers and techs to to the necessary scut work in house. Beancounter stupidities, overworked sysadmin, and worse, I wonder if there are assinine underlying compatibility rules which greatly favor deploying an MS server posssessing a slatternly predilection to drop its trousers and bend over at the first cute scriptkiddie buffer overrun to come sniffing at an open port, hoping to cop an exposed raw socket feel, and tease it up to admin at root.

I may be able to be rational in the form of my answer, but there is a great deal of irrationality in national critical infrastructure protection. A few bits of background here -- I was the network architecture consultant for the Federal Y2K Information Center, which, at the time, contained the Critical Infrastructure Protection Center. Other involvement has been with the National Communications System, North American Network Operators' Group, and I was originally a chemistry major, later doing some CBW work.

There are two stories of how Slammer got into the Ohio Valley SCADA network in 2003. One was that a workstation had an interface to an internal corporate network, which was supposedly secure but far too trusted. The other is that a bored worker in a control center brought in a personal modem and started Intenet surfing from a SCADA workstation.

Actually, a lot of the infrastructure is older than you might think. With specific reference to electrical grids, a large part of the unreliability is due to unintended consequences of deregulation. With deregulation, short-term stock price became critical, so if it was cheaper to buy power than to generate it, utilities did so. There was no motivation for investment in generating capacity, or grid improvement not clearly resulting in short-term profit.

Unfortunately, the grid really was never intended to deal with massive interconnection. I'll have to go a bit technical. It's absolutely rational to use alternating current (AC) inside utilities, because its voltage can easily be stepped down to user levels from that appropriate for long-haul transmission. Unfortunately, the AC frequency and phase tends to be standardized inside individual utilities. Unless the frequency and phase are perfectly matched across an interconnection, there can be reactive surges that start blowing things -- unless SCADA quickly contains the fault.

We now have the technology to use direct current (DC), which has no frequency or phase, on superhighvoltage transmission lines, and solid state switches that can work at these power levels. A DC grid, such as the Texas state system, is remarkably resilient for interconnection.

It's estimated that it would cost $20 to 30 billion to make interconnects DC and modernize switching and SCADA. In the competitive environment, management that authorized such expenditures, just their utility's parts, would soon be looking for work and for defense against shareholder suits.

During the Cold War, when the AT&T Long Lines Department was the long-distance monopoly, AT&T had no particular internal motivation to harden its networks against near-miss nuclear attack. The Federal government subsidized construction to make the national network more survivable. That may be a precedent.

Interestingly, the national ballistic missile defense system, and electrical infrastructure hardening, cost about the same amount. Which protects against a more likely threat?

No, most SCADA systems aren't Microsoft, except perhaps workstations. Still, there's no authority to require encryption, separation, etc.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

A bit pretentious,no, sphealey? Succinctly, there is no financial incentive in a deregulated market for the owners to provide adequate safeguards against intended or unintended service disruption.

Many of us here in the TPM Cafe have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through excess verbiage.

Rated an additional zero for trolling...

~OGD~

Robert D. Kaplan has spent the last two or more years in the field with our troops all over the world. He's written about it, "Imperial Grunts". It's not terrifically well-written but it's a terrific book. Before that he wrote about his multi-year travels in obscure parts of the Muslim world, "The Ends of the Earth". Much better written and equally terrific. I recommend them strongly to you. He wrote other books as well but I haven't read them.

I'm sure a case can be made for oversight and for delays. I'm not familiar with MINARET, SHAMROCK, the Huston Plan. I don't see any reason to become familiar with them since I'm willing to accept your characterization of them as failures, even disasters.

But a case can be made for less oversight, less delay and Kaplan does make it. It's not easy to summarize; soldiers in the field are in terrific danger and under terrific stress. Often they must make snap decisions if they are to be effective. The more they are prevented from doing so by directives and controls coming from far away and made by people who don't know what's going on, may not even have a clue, or ever had a clue, the harder it is to do the right thing (no pun). Something like that. Anyone who's tried to do something under a government grant is pretty familiar with what I'm talking about.

When you say the heart of the oversight problem is Congress' abdication of its war-making powers what do you mean? Do you mean that oversight would be better if Congress did actually declare war? How and why? That aside, I'm sure you know that there are good political reasons why Congress doesn't declare war - I raise one in a later post to you; the draft.

In my last paragraph I was making a very general observation. You say it doesn't apply to you - that you have no general objections to the Administration attempt to adjust to modern realities, only objections to specific actions. Fair enough. It's been 45 years since I worked for RAND am completely out of touch with the specifics.