Terrorism on The Huffington Post

No Good Osama bin Laden Intelligence In Years, Says Robert Gates

2009-12-06T04:16:02Z

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the United States has not had good intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorist Osama bin Laden in years.

Gates made the comment in an interview to be aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Thomson Prison Will Likely Be Next Stop For Gitmo Detainees, Says Obama Administration

2009-12-06T01:52:10Z

CHICAGO -- Despite opposition from congressional Republicans, the Obama administration is signaling that a state prison in rural Thomson, Ill., will probably become the new home for scores of terrorism suspects now housed at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Al Qaeda In The Islamic Maghreb: Kidnappings Rife Across North Africa

2009-12-04T11:56:01Z

RABAT, Morocco -- They called it a "solidarity caravan" -- a group of Spanish volunteers delivering truckloads of donated computers, wheelchairs and other gifts for Africa's poor.

Jamal Dajani: Obama's Surge: The Real Reason

2009-12-04T10:07:11Z

Every year on the anniversary of September 11, the same question pops up: where is Osama bin Laden? And for eight years various pundits, who hardly speak a word of Pashto, Dari, Urdu or any other language spoken in the region, play the guessing game, placing him somewhere along the Pakistani-Afghan border.

This week, President Obama took Gen. Stanley McChrystal's advice and ordered a surge in the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 more American troops there to help battle the Taliban insurgency. In a speech at the US Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, the President set out what he said was a new strategy to bring the war to a "successful conclusion" and reverse the momentum of Taliban gains.

The president did not mention Osama bin Laden, a frequent target of his criticism during the campaign when he criticized President Bush.

"We will kill bin Laden, we will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority," then candidate Barack Obama said during an October 2008 debate.

If the U.S. goal remains to "crush" al Qaeda, then perhaps many Americans would not be as upset with Obama's Afghan surge; however, this is not the case.

As it stands, there will be nearly 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, along with about 47,000 from allies. This is not to mention contractors, who already outnumber U.S. forces in the war-ravaged country. According to credible intelligence estimates, 100 al Qaeda operatives are in Afghanistan, and 300 more have fled to Pakistan. As for the Taliban, conflicting estimates put their numbers anywhere between 7,000 to 25,000. Therefore, this build up does not make sense, and the numbers do not add up.

Also, why do the United States and its allies need close to 150,000 troops if they can negotiate with the Taliban? Mr. Karzai does!

"We must talk to the Taliban as an Afghan necessity. The fight against terrorism and extremism cannot be won by fighting alone," Karzai said. "Personally, I would definitely talk to Mullah Omar. Whatever it takes to bring peace to Afghanistan, I, as the Afghan president, will do it."

Meanwhile, President Obama has increased U.S. pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban in its territories. As an inducement, and a measure of heightened American concern for Pakistan, he has also helped bring a big increase in aid to the country, including $7.5 billion of non-military aid over five years, approved recently by Congress. The problem is that there is no certainty or confidence that the current Pakistani regime is going to last; Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari is one of the country's most discredited politicians and linked to corruption. There is a major question mark on who will be replacing him or what sort of a government Pakistan will have after his imminent fall.

President Obama has not been forthcoming with the American people. He should come clean and explain the real reason behind the surge. It's not because of bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban. The real reason is Pakistan, a failed state with nuclear warheads!

Watch Video

Ahmed Rehab: Swiss Radicalization: A Sign of Things to Come?

2009-12-04T00:05:00Z

Nestle. The United Nations. Rolex. Secure Banking. Toblerone. Yodeling. William Tell. Cowbells. Neutrality. Rousseau. Alpine Skiing. Heidi.

These are a few of the things -- mostly pretty -- that come to mind when you say "Switzerland."

But now thanks to a recent popular vote on a controversial referendum, things like "intolerance," "paranoia," and "limitations on freedom of religion" have joined the merry list.

In case you have not heard already, 57% of Swiss voters approved a proposal Sunday to ban mosque minarets in a nationwide referendum sponsored by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), a right-wing group long known for its anti-immigration campaigns. A complacent Swiss government subsequently stated that it will "respect the decision" of the people and will affect the ban on all new minarets in the country.

The SVP flooded the tiny landlocked Alpine state with posters in which minarets appeared as missiles rising from the Swiss flag. They told voters that "the minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls." This is not true of course.

Most Muslims accept the minaret as an architectural conduit for the call to prayer, but most do not seek political power, subscribe to the burqa, tolerate forced marriages, or accept genital mutilation of girls. Forced marriages and female circumcision happen mostly in poor, uneducated parts of the world and have no foundation in Islam. The burqa is worn by less than 1% of Muslim women. How these three things are "comparable" with a minaret must be Switzerland's dirty little secret because I cannot figure it out.

Yet by casting the minaret, a mainstream symbol of normative Islam, as some kind of Trojan horse bearing the Achilles heel that will vanquish Swiss political and cultural hegemony, the SVP seems to have petrified people into a knee-jerk acceptance of a draconian ban that amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

While the ban has dismayed Muslims, it should also embarrass Switzerland whose polished image will likely take a major beating. The Swiss logic here is as arbitrary and nonsensical as if Dubai were to ban skyscrapers because they "represent American corporate greed which is partially to blame for the misguided war in Iraq." Imagine the scornful reaction around the world then.

Personally, I have vacationed in Switzerland many times. I have taken the famed glacier express from St. Moritz in the West to Zermatt in the East, climbed the Matterhorn in the Alps, enjoyed promenades in the Boulevards of Geneva, and walked among the rooftops of Zurich and Neuchatel. I found the Swiss to be generally pleasant (though somewhat aloof). It is beyond me why such a beautiful country would choose to take a turn for the ugly. Swiss Muslim Professor Tariq Ramadan says it is fear. Perhaps, but it is more than that. It is also cluelessness. Fear is not always such a bad thing; the Swiss had every right to fear the Nazis. But to ban an architectural form that scares you is a thing of prehistoric naiveté. Worse still, to be ignorant of what a minaret truly symbolizes -- to the tune of some 57% of voters -- signals that the wrong people are talking and a clueless majority are listening and following.

The minaret has been around, appropriated in the unique architectural traditions of every culture, for 14 centuries. Sure there are minarets that surround the Taliban, but minarets also surrounded the scholars, philosophers and scientists of Baghdad, Damascus, Tashkent, Seville, Toledo, and Cordoba whose body of work helped jumpstart Europe out of its dark age and into its renaissance. They surrounded and still surround the students of the oldest surviving university in the world, Al-Azhar of Cairo. They dot the skylines of cities from Casablanca to Brunei, and Istanbul to the Zanzibar, calling their peaceful residents only to God-consciousness. They adorn the four corners of what is widely considered to be the most beautiful man-made structure on earth, the Taj Mahal of India.

The shortsightedness of the anti-minaret campaign is fueled by more than fear. It is fueled by hate.

For as long as most people living today have been around, Europe has enjoyed a stint as a tolerant, liberal hub of multiculturalism, personal freedoms, and all-around prosperity. But suffer from historical amnesia at your own risk, for history has a ruthless tendency to repeat itself. Before we get too comfortable and fully let our guard down, we may do well to remember that it was not so long ago that the tame territory of delectable delights, chocolate, wine, and cheese was engulfed by fascist ideologies that were anything but. Indeed, it was only as recent as two generations ago that those nations, who today fancy themselves as the defenders of freedoms around the world, were the purveyors of extreme brands of racism, uber-nationalism, and imperialism that launched the world into two destructive global wars and history's most egregious genocide.

Given the burden of Europe's recent past, it is astonishing to note how readily Switzerland, itself a long-time haven of neutrality even during World War II (not exactly a great thing when you consider that human beings were being huddled into gas chambers North, West, and East), could teeter at the precipice of an eerily familiar abyss wherein citizens of a hapless religious minority are demonized and their rights freely limited.

Sadly Switzerland's minaret vote is not the only troubling omen facing Europeans today.
While the winds of fascism are not exactly sweeping over Europe as I write, a few unwelcome breezes seem to be intensifying and cannot be ignored. The other Semites, Muslims, are in the eye of the storm this time around -- Jews having borne the brunt of the last tempest. For Europe, "Never Again" seems to be a slogan for one religious minority at a time.

Let me be clear, the situation of Muslims in Europe today cannot be analogized to that of Jews 70 years ago. But those familiar with European history know that the zenith of 20th Century anti-Semitism was not born overnight. It evolved over time eventually reaching grotesque proportions. At first, a vanguard of voices claiming unique insight and expertise on Jewish affairs sought to "wake society up" to "know" and "confront" the nature of the threat festering in their midst. This involved columnists, preachers, politicians, and yes cartoonists. Jews were caste as the other, foreign implants who can never be fully European regardless of whether or not they were citizens working and living side by side with everyone else. Their religion was judged as too exotic, too sinister, an anti-European ideology that could not be trusted. Their history was recast into a carefully crafted narrative of perpetual anti-Christian mischief. At first, their religious rights were curbed, and then they were rendered second class citizens. Things quickly dwindled thereafter.

Today, I cannot help but wonder: had it not been for Germany's tolerance of the demonization of Jews in the early decades when it then seemed mundane and uneventful, would a crime as outlandish as the "final solution" ever have found the mass acceptance that it did further down the line?

Worth mentioning is that despite the lessons learned from the Holocaust, Europe's only indigenous Muslim minority could not itself escape genocide a few decades later -- the first and only genocide to occur on European soil since World War II.

So what about today's breezes of intolerance whisking through the continent?

In the United Kingdom, the far-right British Nationalist Party (BNP), a splinter group of the Whites-only British National Front (BNF) is experiencing a new surge. The far-right Dutch Party for Freedom, whose leader Geert Wilders advocates banning the Quran and curbing Muslim religious freedom, placed second in a recent election in the Netherlands. In France and Austria, far-right political groups spouting anti-Muslim rhetoric are also gaining ground. The SVP, the group behind the minaret ban and a poster campaign depicting white sheep kicking black sheep out of Switzerland, is now Switzerland's biggest political party. Reports show that racism is on the rise in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe. Astroturf groups that openly call for the demonization for Muslims such as ACT! for America, SANE, SIOA, and SIOE are becoming a dime a dozen. Vandalism of Muslim cemeteries and mosques and hate crimes are happening more frequently. In Germany, a Hijab-wearing woman was stabbed to death in front of her three-year-old child while seeking justice in a German court against the perpetrator who had hurled racist slurs at her in a public playground a few days earlier. Stephan Kramer, General Secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany subsequently deplored the "largely unchecked hate propaganda against Muslims." Throughout Europe, anti-Muslim rhetoric expressed in editorials, columns, campaign ads, hate blogs, and political cartoons is on the rise.

European leaders and intellectuals are rightly concerned about Muslim extremism and radicalization, but what are they doing to fight anti-Muslim extremism and radicalization? Is it even duly acknowledged?

Cynics often deflect attention by pointing out human rights abuses in the Middle East or Asia. The West is right to call out abuses of freedoms in the Muslim-majority world, but it is wrong to pursue a campaign of reciprocity that betrays its own principles as a response. Western Intellectuals are wrong to turn a blind eye to such a farce when it occurs.

The Swiss referendum raises an important question about the great conundrum of democracy: if a majority of voters opt for dictatorship, is the result a democracy or a dictatorship?

The answer lies in a simple concept: the constitution. The constitutions of democratic nations enshrine the principles of freedom and democracy and act as the final say on what future action can and cannot be done. A vote that betrays those principles is a vote that ought not to take place. In other words, a referendum that seeks to curb religious freedoms presumably protected by Swiss high law is itself unconstitutional and should not have been allowed in the first place.

Should the West choose to remain reactionary in how it deals with Muslim extremism -- real or perceived -- then it unwisely relinquishes its fate to the hands of terrorists who know that it would only then take a few more attacks to sink Western societies into self-defeating frenzy. Make no mistake about it, merely inflicting explosions that tear down towers of steel and glass is not terrorism's ultimate goal or greatest threat, being a catalyst for Western self-implosion is. While the West needs to remain vigilant against physical threats, it needs to know that its greatest weapon against ultimate defeat is holding steadfastly unto its principles of democracy, freedoms and equal citizenship.

Protecting and strengthening those traditions, integrating minorities as equals in society, and working academically to fight extremism, both Muslim and anti-Muslim, is our best assurance for future security and prosperity. Failing to do so spells the beginning of the end.

Damascus Bus Bomb: 'Up To 12' Killed In Syria Explosion

2009-12-03T03:51:33Z

DAMASCUS, Syria — A blast at a gas station in a Damascus suburb killed three people Thursday, gutting the back of an empty bus and blowing out nearby windows, officials said.

Syria's interior minister, Said Mohammad Sammour, ruled out a terrorist attack.

USDA Classifies PETA As A Terrorist Threat

2009-12-02T12:58:45Z

PETA is one of the most controversial activist groups operating today. The group's contentious media campaigns, undercover operations, infamous advertising, and high profile demonstrations have made them perhaps the most infamous--and most polarizing--nonprofit organization there is. But are they terrorists? According to the US Department of Agriculture, they are now.

Magda Abu-Fadil: Vienna Declaration: Press Freedom and Security Compatible in Fight Against Terrorism

2009-12-02T07:35:00Z

Security and press freedom can coexist, with the free flow of information recognized as the best weapon against terrorism, international media experts argued in a final declaration published this week.

"Everyone has the right to access diverse, uncensored sources of information. States should create an environment that encourages the development of a diverse, pluralistic media sector," said the Vienna Declaration culminating from a two-day conference on media and terrorism in October.

It said editorial independence should be respected by states and inter-governmental organizations and that specific obligations should not be imposed on media outlets in the pursuit of counter-terrorism.

"The Vienna Declaration recognizes that a free and unfettered flow of information and ideas is an important antidote to terrorist ideologies and that a free media is indispensable in achieving this," said David Dadge, director of the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI) that organized the event with the Salzburg-based Center for International Legal Studies (CILS).

Journalists, legal, security and anti-terrorism experts from around the world hammered out the declaration after heated discussions at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna during a two-day conference entitled "The War on Words - Terrorism, Media and the Law."

Participants reiterated that freedom of expression and of the media were fundamental human rights, enshrined in Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to Manfred Nowak, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and a professor of constitutional law and human rights at the University of Vienna, every act of terrorism is a very serious crime.

But treaties on human rights stipulate that torture is unacceptable, he said, adding that fighting terrorism must be through the rule of law.

"Certain laws restrict civil liberties," he said.

Participants noted that by establishing secret places of detention post-9/11, the United States had violated all human rights conventions, despite former president George W. Bush's contention he was conducting a war on terror and that human rights were no longer applicable.

"If you didn't like what happened to civil liberties, watch what would happen if it happens again," warned Philip Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States who teaches history at the University of Virginia.

"War on Words" panel (Abu-Fadil)

Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of the Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said except in most extreme circumstances, there was no restraint on journalists thanks to the First Amendment, but that there was also no special protection for reporters.

Media in the U.S. were timid post-9/11 "but have staged something of a comeback," she said.

Riem Higazi, a talk radio host on Austria's ORF FM4, had an interesting take on the conference (http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1629100).

She was flabbergasted by stereotypical and racist remarks from some members of the audience. Her show's podcast is available for download.

N. S. Mueen, author of downloadable "Working with the Media: A Guide for Local Muslim Groups," demonstrated in a video clip the pitfalls of blaming entire ethnic communities in the U.K. for the sins of the few.

Mueen, who works with The Muslim Council of Britain, showed a segment from the British comedy TV show Exposé where a reporter insists on tarring an Asian Muslim teenager, who is unveiled in the clip, as a captive of traditional parents "who treat her like a piece of property."

The dialogue between the reporter and parents brings out the journalist's biases, ignorance and arrogance by insisting the girl is deprived of her basic human rights, only to be told by her parents -- the mother is also unveiled -- that their daughter goes to the movies and leads a "normal" life.

Gudrun Harrer, senior editor at Austrian daily Der Standard, in a session on how the media reported on terrorism and torture, said consensus post-9/11 broke following the Iraq war, with the jury still out on how news organizations had handled the matter.

"We used to talk about pressure on media from governments, she said," adding that pressure also came from consumers. "It's easier to take sides."

Raphael Perl, who heads the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Action against Terrorism Unit, said media had immense potential as a counter-terrorism resource.

"Accurate and rapid dissemination of information to the public during terrorist incidents can prevent panic, reduce confusion, streamline response efforts and save lives," he argued.

But he admitted communication between the media and counter-terrorism officials was often hampered by lack of cooperation and trust, stemming from various legitimate concerns as well as from mutual lack of understanding of the respective goals and responsibilities of each group.

"It's important for the media to report stories, not create them," said Al Jazeera International's (English) chief Ibrahim Helal.

He defended his network against claims it fanned the fires by inciting violence with its coverage of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its focus on Israel's wars on the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

IPI (www.freemedia.at) plans to promote the Vienna Declaration as a worldwide tool to rally support for freedom of expression.

It will also use it to highlight press freedom, and help legislators, policy and decision makers, and the public at large balance the right to freedom of expression with the need to address the serious threat of terrorism.

Signatories to the Vienna Declaration:
The following organizations, all members of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) network, have endorsed the Vienna Declaration on Terrorism, Media and the Law:
Adil Soz - International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech, Kazakhstan
Association of Caribbean Media Workers (ACM)
Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), Serbia
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippines
Center for Media Studies and Peace Building, Liberia
Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Exiled Journalists Network, UK
Human Rights Watch
Inter American Press Association (IAPA)
Independent Journalism Center, Moldova
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad de Venezuela (IPYS Venezuela)
Maharat Foundation, Lebanon
Media Foundation for West Africa
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria
Media Watch, Bangladesh
Pacific Freedom Forum
Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF)
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
Privacy International
Public Association "Journalists", Kyrgyzstan
Southeast Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC)

Oliver Willis: 9/11? Yes, 9/11.

2009-12-02T03:05:19Z

One of the more troubling reactions from the left that I saw during President Obama's speech about our Afghanistan policy was this utter and absolute nonsense that Obama was somehow invoking the spirit of George W. Bush by discussing our Afghan strategy and 9/11.

I dunno, maybe its due to years and years of Rudy Giuliani's noun-verb construction or the simplistic, numb language of George W. Bush beating the common sense out of our ears, but it is as clear as can be that the reason we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11. The connection of Afghanistan to 9/11 is legions away from the made-up Iraq to 9/11 connection. Afghanistan and 9/11 are as linked for all time as closely as Tokyo is connected to December 7, 1941.

We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.

Again, these things are clear. Not a single characterization of them by President Obama deviated from what we all saw.

I supported Obama for many reasons, but for me, personally, the primary reason was that George W. Bush failed to fight the war against terrorism -- specifically the Al Qaeda network -- in any competent manner. Al Qaeda's stated desire to hurt and cripple the country -- stated time and again by Bin Laden and his lieutenants -- demands a strong and clear response from us. Basically from the standoff at Tora Bora until now, the response to this challenge has been mush.

It makes me feel weird, but in this instance I see many on the left absolutely playing to the stereotypes of the right. If we simply withdraw, this does not keep us safer. Just because George W. Bush royally screwed up as commander-in-chief, it doesn't mean that America never fights again. Afghanistan isn't Iraq. This isn't about imaginary weapons of mass destruction, or a terror "connection" that's the fevered dream of a hack Weekly Standard writer. Suicide bombers hit in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania directly based on the orders and finances of the people we're after in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border region.

I am not someone who is a kneejerk supporter of war and military action, but I feel that when we or our allies are under threat or have been attacked, we often need to respond militarily with a clear set of stated goals and an exit plan. The whole reason I didn't support the war in Iraq but support the war in Afghanistan is based on how each conflict meets the test.

Obama made great pains to point out that for the war party on the right that this was not a blank check, this would not be an echo of that ridiculous Iraq plan Bush put out that just said "Victory!" on every page. In order to fight war, Obama has made clear that he seeks to emulate the successful strategies of Presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt. We aren't increasing troop strength in Afghanistan to satisfy John McCain or Charles Krauthammer. We're doing it in order to finish the crap job of the President they supported for almost a decade.

If you don't support increasing the amount of troops, that is a fine and patriotic position to have -- though I vehemently disagree with it -- but folks on the left have got to quit rewriting history by pretending Obama is somehow suddenly a hawk on the Afghanistan situation. Similarly, the connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan isn't simply the rhetorical flourish of a leader, but stuff that actually exists. Those making honest arguments in opposition to the President's policy should adhere to the reality-based school of argument.

I think the President spoke to us as adults about the single biggest security threat to the country, an issue on par with the economy in relation to its importance (an economic recovery is no good if we don't have our way of life). I think he made, finally, a clear case about this threat and our solution to it that he plans to implement. I think at the end of the day this is how to clean up the mess left for us by the previous administration, while also doing what is in our power to defend ourselves and our allies.

Oliver Willis blogs daily at OliverWillis.com

Washington Post: 9,000 Troops Will Deploy To Afghanistan Soon After Obama's Speech

2009-11-28T19:50:53Z

KABUL -- Days after President Obama outlines his new war strategy in a speech Tuesday, as many as 9,000 Marines will begin deploying to southern Afghanistan to renew an assault on a Taliban stronghold that stalled earlier this year amid a troop shortage and political pressure from the Afghan government, senior U.S. officials said.

U.S. Still Running Secret Prison In Afghanistan

2009-11-28T13:04:45Z

KABUL, Afghanistan -- An American military detention camp in Afghanistan is still holding inmates for sometimes weeks at a time and without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to human rights researchers and former detainees held at the site on the Bagram Air Base.

Russia Train Crash: Bomb Caused Wreck That Killed 26

2009-11-28T09:08:11Z

UGLOVKA, Russia — A powerful homemade bomb sent a high-speed Moscow-to-St. Petersburg train careening off its tracks, Russian officials said Saturday, killing at least 26 people in what officials consider an act of terrorism.

The head of Russia's Federal Security Service, Alexander Bortnikov, said experts found pieces of an explosive device that detonated around 9:30 Friday night as the train raced over it, gouging a five-foot (1.5 meter) crater and strewing smoking wreckage over a rural stretch of track. He said a terrorism inquiry had been opened.

Norm Stamper: Lieberman's Right on Fort Hood

2009-11-26T16:04:19Z

I have a hard time looking at or listening to Joe Lieberman.

I know this is my problem. If I agreed with the man's politics, I'd likely view his smirking mien, his habit of droning and whining, even that occasional Alfred E. Newman grin with something resembling affection. But Lieberman's behavior from after the 2000 presidential campaign to the present is riddled with hypocrisy, and defiance of his own much-vaunted "conscience." In 2006, for example, he advocated a "MediChoice" system that would "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national health-insurance pool like...members of Congress have." What is that, if not a public option? So bitter is Lieberman at Democrats, and disrespectful of the American people, that when campaigning for John McCain he actually declared Sarah Palin fit to be president.

Yet, when it comes to the Fort Hood slayings, Joe Lieberman is spot on.

The murderous outburst of Major Nidal Hasan was an unambiguous act of terrorism. It's appropriate and necessary for Lieberman as chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee (please deal with that, Harry Reid) to find out why this particular terrorist was tolerated within the ranks of the U.S. Army. Hasan had for some time exchanged e-mails with the extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, prescribed violent medicine for "infidels," and been found guilty by his peers and superiors of poor judgment and incompetence. And, possibly, mental illness.

Consider this simple Dashboard definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Whether Major Hasan was in need of the very services he was trained by his employer (us) to provide, or simply had his eye on avoiding service in Iraq there can be little doubt about his motive to hurt and frighten for political purpose.

Violent criminals are often driven by multiple motives: to exact revenge, rub out one's competition, gain notoriety, send a message of dominance (all motives, incidentally, of narco-terrorists).

We'll learn more about Major Hasan in the coming weeks and months, but it's entirely possible he killed (1) to avenge the religiously offensive treatment he claims to have suffered at the hands of the military; (2) to promote a radical religious agenda; (3) to keep himself from being shipped off to the Middle East, whether as a political statement or an act of cowardice. What difference does it make? His implicit goal was to harm and intimidate in furtherance of a political agenda.

And so what if that agenda was more personal than political? Think of a suicide bomber whose motive is not so much in service to Allah but rather to prove himself to his family, or to gain sympathy from a love interest who's spurned his advances. Think of a homegrown murderer whose anger at his boss or coworkers leads to mass killings. The ultimate goal, twisted and nuanced as it may be, is to call attention to perceived workplace injustices, in part by scaring the hell out of people.

"Political aims" need not be confined to broad or grand domestic or international or religious themes. Indeed, we're taught to think global, act local as a form of pragmatic politics. Violence aimed at perceived workplace inequities is terrorism, a label I'd also stretch to fit the act of a murderous husband who opens fire at his estranged partner's downtown law firm. Likewise, more transparently, the killing of an abortion doctor.

Lieberman is right to question how Major Nidal Hasan's threats, reflecting a radical and violent interpretation of the Qur'an, were tolerated for years by the Army, and perhaps by the FBI. He's right to demand answers to why the copious collection of dots in this case were never connected.

Abu Ibrahim, 'Bomb Man' Terror Suspect: US Offers $5 Million Reward For Palestinian

2009-11-25T09:41:08Z

NEW YORK — The U.S. State Department announced Tuesday that it is now offering a reward of up to $5 million for a Palestinian bomb-maker suspected of once targeting commercial airliners and of aiding the Iraq insurgency.

Abu Ibrahim, whose real name is Husayn Muhammed al-Umari, stands accused of a spate of bombings in the 1980s. He was indicted in the 1982 bombing of Pan Am Flight 830 that killed a 16-year-old boy and wounded more than a dozen passengers as the plane headed to Honolulu from Tokyo.

Lincoln Mitchell: The KSM Trial And Republican Attacks

2009-11-25T09:12:09Z

The recent attacks on the decision by President Obama and Attorney General Holder to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), one of the masterminds of the September 11th terrorist attacks, constitute one of those political moments where partisan sniping dominates everything else. For many Americans where KSM is tried is something of a non-issue a technicality that has little bearing on their lives, so long as justice is served. However, for many Republicans, none more so than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani it is an opportunity to get some media attention and take a cheap shot at the president.

Giuliani has gotten more publicity in the last six weeks or so than he has since his ill-fated presidential campaign collapsed more than a year and a half ago. Most of that publicity was not due to his doing but to those of Giuliani's New York Yankees as they won their 27th World Championship. The former mayor was present at almost every home game sitting in seats in the new Yankee Stadium that most Yankee fans would love to have, even if it meant spending nine innings with America's erstwhile mayor. By vociferously attacking the Obama administration, Giuliani briefly made himself relevant again, albeit in a transparently silly and partisan way, accusing Holder and Obama of not taking the threat of terrorism seriously because they want to try KSM in a civilian court.

If it had been a Republican president who had called for KSM to be tried in New York, Giuliani almost certainly would have applauded the decision as giving New Yorkers a chance to host the trial of the man who sought to destroy their city. Moreover, if Obama had moved the trial out of New York on the grounds that a New York trial would give KSM a platform for his anti-American rhetoric, Giuliani and other Republicans would, not without reason, be lining up to accuse that president of cowardice and of lacking faith in America.

Other Republicans, most notably John Ashcroft, have suggested that trying KSM in New York is a security threat and that New Yorkers will fear another attack if KSM is tried in their city. This assertion is even more transparently a case of partisan sniping than Giuliani's comments. Imagine if a former Democratic Attorney General suggested that the trial should be moved because otherwise New Yorkers would fear another terrorist attack. Giuliani would almost certainly be the first, and loudest, to yell that New Yorkers are afraid of nobody and demand the opportunity to sentence KSM in New York. Comments like those of Giuliani and Ashcroft amount to little more than partisan bickering, but the more serious attacks on Holder's decision have been based on his choice of locale for the trial, but for his decision to try KSM in a civilian court.

The president's critics argue that if the War on Terrorism is truly a war, than people like KSM who are captured overseas should be tried in military tribunals rather than civilian courts. This argument is not altogether unreasonable, as a strong case can be made that people like KSM are enemy soldiers and should be tried as such. It is, however, worth remembering that the debate about the status of captured terrorist suspects did not begin with Obama. It was the Bush administration, specifically former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted that people like KSM were, in Rumsfeld's words, "(N)ot PoWs. They will not be determined to be PoWs." This decision was made so that the U.S. would not have to apply the rules laid out in the Geneva Conventions about the treatment of POWs to these terrorist suspects. Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, settled on the awkward and legally ambiguous term "unlawful combatants" to describe the status of these people.

The Bush administration did not set a very good or clear precedent regarding treatment of captured terrorists like KSM; and the Obama administration has certainly not yet come up with a comprehensive solution to this dilemma. Holder's decision may be the best that can be done at this time, or it may be a mistake and a bad precedent. It is not, however, as Holder's critics suggest, a politically motivated move by the Attorney General or the administration. On the contrary, Holder has boxed himself into a no win situation here. If, for some reason, KSM is acquitted, many Americans will feel that justice was not served at that our government let a dangerous, and murderous, terrorist go free. If Holder, as is likely, gets a conviction and KSM receives either the death penalty or a very long prison sentence, the world will not, as some in the administration have suggested, look admiringly at the U.S. criminal justice system, but will assume that the fix was in before the trial even started.

9/11 Text Messages Released: Wikileaks Publishes Intercepted Government Pager Texts As They Were Sent

2009-11-25T00:13:59Z

Government employees sent more than 500,000 text pager messages In the hours before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At 3 a.m. (EST) Wednesday, November 25, those intercepted messages will be published online at Wikileaks. The messages will be published at the same times that they were originally sent on 9/11.

Wikileaks, a journalistic endeavor that promotes better government through transparency , says that the messages were intercepted by a organization that has been archiving US telecommunications prior to 9/11. Wikileaks says that the sources of the messages range from Pentagon employees to messages sent by the NYPD, and even automated messages relayed by computers to their operators.

Below are examples of what Wikileaks will publish. Visit their site for more information.

8:36:03 AM
IRAQ SAYS IT SHOOTS DOWN U.S. RECONNAISSANCE PLANE
8:51:31 AM
Andrew.Terzakis@pentagon.af.mil|Please call Pentagon Weather|UNCLASSIFIED Please call Pentagon Weather.......reference 1030 Meeting.....703-695-0406 ANDREW J. TERZAKIS, Lt Col, USAF D
8:53:44 AM
"NYPD Ops Div" <|1 PCT WORLD TRADE CENTER|--- 1 PCT - WORLD TRADE CENTER - POSSIBLE EXPLOSION WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING. LEVEL 3 MOBILIZATION TO CHURCH AND VESSY.
9:24:48 AM
DOLLAR TUMBLES VS EURO, YEN AFTER WTC EXPLOSION
9:24:59 AM
NYC WTC'S: WMS TKT 191100495. SWITCHES SEEM TO BE OKAY . OVERLOADS IN SM 9 OF SOUTH TOWER FROM HIGH
9:31:51 AM
N.Y.C. TKT#191100488 - WTC HAS BEEN HIT BY AN AIRPLANE AND A BOMB. CURRENTLY B6 IS BEING EVACUATED. NCC HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE ALARMS OPTICAL / ENVIORNMENTAL. UPDATES WILL FOLLOW. RYAN P/L NCC 800-824-8049
9:32:52 AM
FANNIE MAE DELAYS BENCHMARK BILL,CALLABLE NOTE ANNOUNCEMENT DUE TO WTC BLASTS
9:50:03 AM
it's reported that a US military helicopter circled the building then crashed into or next to the Pentagon - it's not clear to whether it was the White House or the Pentagon - they are being evacuated
7:05:57 AM
Please don't leave the building. One of the towers just collapsed! PLease, please be careful. Repeat,
11:00:30 AM
BOMB SQUAD PLS REPORT TO EDIC..PER T913..OPS/JL
11:13:04 AM
Lines to Washington & Saudi are blocked or jammed. Couldn't get thru. Jim at the FBI had no info - he suggested we watch Fox or CNN. Chris.
11:20:52 AM
Eddie and Paul are okay. Paul is still trapped in his building which is next to the WTC.
11:29:13 AM
pewells|I'm OK. I saw the whole thing. Was on the roof looking at the first fire when I saw the second plane plow into the second tower. Unbelievable, literally...I was inside when they collapsed. Still in my apt, nowhere to go...This is the end of the world as we know it...
11:39:47 AM
jtamer|You are needed in the WAR room asap.
3:25:54 PM
im not dealing with this shit today....i will call johnston in early......ford shut down there plants and im not answering why we are still working....fuck this. FROM: RYDER LITTLEJOHN (x18914) (3
5:20:30 PM
Honey wanted to tell you how much i love you. I was alittle worried.I Don't want to lose you now that I got you back. You mean everything to me. You have my whole heart and life. Ilove you so much,
6:05:05 PM
We are bombing Afganistan. Pene
6:58:58 PM
1) my nephew's ok, 2) there's a dead body at the main gate, 3) US denies responsibility for bombing in Afghanistan. Over and out.

Eric Trager: Obama's "Dangerous" Mideast Analysis

2009-11-24T07:49:53Z

Last week during a press conference in Beijing, President Barack Obama endorsed one of the most propagandized of pop theories regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked about Israel's plan to build 900 apartment units in Gilo - a Jewish neighborhood of southwest Jerusalem beyond the Green Line - Obama remarked:

I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.

In other words, Israeli settlement-building causes Palestinian terrorism.

It is worth pointing out that this idea is so widely discredited that even Jimmy Carter - after initially including it in his controversial book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - has rejected it. Of course, the main problem with this theory is that it is morally outrageous: the notion that anything justifies targeting and killing innocent civilians is repugnant to decent people.

But more importantly, the theory is flat out wrong. After all, terrorism is typically an organizationally coordinated activity, in which the costs associated with attacks (acquiring materials, building a bomb, arranging transportation, etc.) are often too high for any individual - no matter how "embittered" he might be - to bear. Moreover, terrorist organizations - like other political players - are strategic actors: they strike when the strategic environment permits them to do maximal damage, and not merely when developments on the ground make them angry.

Recent developments reinforce the extent to which strategic realities - and not Israeli construction - determine Palestinian terrorists' decision-making. This past weekend, Hamas announced that it would halt rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, with one Hamas official acknowledging that the group wanted to prevent another round of Israeli retaliation. Indeed, given the strategic environment, Hamas fears further destruction in Gaza much more than it wishes to avenge new apartment units in Gilo.

None of this should be surprising to President Obama, whose supposedly "realist" outlook should give him an appreciation for the precedence that strategic interests take over emotional ones. On the other hand, a strange pattern seems to be emerging in the President's foreign policy prescriptions: realist principles take a hiatus whenever he is dealing with the Middle East.

Rahim Kanani: Breaking the Silence on America's Third War

2009-11-23T14:42:33Z

President Barack Obama was elected to the White House to put an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as they have endlessly maimed and killed countless Americans overseas. The dirty little secret, however, is that the United States has been engaged in a much longer and much bloodier conflict right here at home -- a war aimed at its women -- to which the outrage is abysmal. Running through the terms of many presidents, this is a war that has devastated lives and livelihoods for decades, tearing at the very moral fiber we seek to strengthen as a nation. It is yet another conflict we have failed to devise a true "exit strategy." While such a phrase is foolishly devoid of the human cost of inaction, it may be our only hope to ending America's Third War.

According to the most recent report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes each year. That's more than 13,000 attacks per day, and nearly 550 attacks per hour. As a result of such egregious violence, roughly 1200 women are murdered every year by their current spouse, former spouse, or dating partner -- that's three women, murdered, every single day. Adding to the horror, every couple of minutes, a woman is forcibly raped in this country. If you find yourself outraged, you ought to be. This is a national emergency. Each and every day, America's women are being sexually violated, attacked, and killed. It is time to end America's War on Women.

On September 11th 2001, nearly 3,000 people were murdered in an act of terrorism, upon which America went to war. Since that time, nearly 10,000 women were murdered by their intimate partners -- more than three times the number of lives lost on 9/11. Where is the outrage? With the U.S. still spending a combined $3B per week in Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of allocating proportionate resources to address the killing of innocent Americans, we should be spending more than $9B per week on ending violence against women right here at home. Of course, that is simply not the case. But again, where is the outrage? The moral sponge of this country has been soaking in misogyny for far too long, and thus, while scathing statistics elicit temporary anger, tackling violence against women has turned into a mere talking point -- so much so that arguments of liberating women were even used to generate support for 'staying the course' in Iraq and 'changing the mission' in Afghanistan. It's time for America to liberate its own women from misogynistic structures that are, at best, indifferent to the plight of women, and at worst, complicit in their suffering. We cannot afford either of those extremes, for even the best case is no cause for celebration.

On November 25th, we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It is a time for both reflection, and for action. If the United States is truly interested in protecting innocent Americans from being killed, a national discussion about the nation's treatment toward its women should be a top priority for the country moving forward. The Third War has steadily bled the healthy moral organs underpinning America's being. It is time to call the surgeons, rather than reach for a band-aid. How many more women must be abused, violated, and murdered before the American public becomes relentless in their pursuit for justice?

9/11 Defendants Will Plead Not Guilty, Will Explain 'What Happened And Why They Did It: Lawyer

2009-11-23T09:00:25Z

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said Sunday the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

Jeff Schweitzer: Tomares, Typhoons and Terrorism

2009-11-23T01:55:59Z

Blind determinism is humankind’s greatest disease. The first and most dangerous symptom of the malady is religion, which began by confusing correlation with causation as first-order determinism. Doing a dance in hopes of rain just prior to a deluge convinced primitives that dancing caused the precipitation. A Cro-Magnon mind would believe that human action led to the outcome by asking the gods to intervene, which resulted in rain as an answered prayer. Sadly, we have learned little in the past 100,000 years, for we are as easily fooled today as were in the Stone Age.

Like our ancestors anxious for a drought to end, people today are readily persuaded that the cause of any event can be traced back through an unbroken series of antecedents. The fallacy is embedded in the false distinction between theory and practice. We know that a butterfly in the genus Tomares beating his wings in southern France could cause a typhoon in the Philippines two years later. The microscopic eddies caused by the insect’s delicate flight could indeed initiate a chain of meteorological events that conclude with a monster storm in the Pacific. But determinism fails retrospectively and prospectively in this example, and every other except in the simplest of systems. An entomologist observing our butterfly could never predict the storm two years hence. Likewise, in witnessing the storm we could never trace back through the trillions of possible paths to the original causative puff of air in southern Europe. The storm is deterministic in that the winds really were caused by a butterfly wing, but indeterminable because in practice the cause can never be discerned. The fact of determinism is made irrelevant by the reality of nearly infinite possibilities.

This butterfly effect is cited so frequently that the example has become trite, which is too bad because society still behaves as if the phenomenon does not exist. The lessons from our butterfly are profound, but ignored. Our personal behavior, all of our financial institutions and all governments operate on the assumption of predictive determinism. We pretend we live in a Gaussian world of norms in which we can predict the future based on averages. We delude ourselves into thinking that past trends will continue, giving us a little glimpse ahead. We ignore outliers that swamp and invalidate all that has come before. And therefore we pretend we can predict the future. We cannot.

These considerations of blind determinism are not some academic exercise but the real reason why we remain vulnerable to terrorist attack, why we ignore climate change and why Wall Street remains incapable of stable growth without cyclical crashes. Let’s see why.

We first must understand the fallacy of averages. By focusing on averages, we ignore improbable events that overwhelm our assumptions and invalidate our predictions. In our peek to the future we exclude from our analysis for example an asteroid impact or a monster tsunami on the eastern seaboard. If an asteroid hits, our predictions about the housing market and projected federal deficit will be invalid, widely off the mark. But events need not be so extreme. The attack on 9/11 rendered moot every economic forecast made prior to that day. The collapse of banks in the 1980s created losses that exceeded the sum of all prior earnings, invalidating all projections of growth no matter how sophisticated the models. Nobody predicted the impact of the Internet on commerce, social networking or globalization. These events are not “exceptions” but in fact the driving forces in our lives; and they are inherently and deeply unpredictable in both time and magnitude. Meaning the future is inherently unpredictable since these outliers drive events. The “average” is the exception, an illusion that should be ignored.

This conclusion that unpredictable outliers drive our future has real impact. Everything you think you know about Wall Street is wrong. Everything. The only valid statement is: buying U.S. Treasury bonds is relatively safer than any other financial instrument on earth. Anything else you hear from Wall Street is a blatant lie. All the sophisticated models, statistics, performance predictions, fundamentals, research, analysis, charts, strategies, risk assessments, pro forma statements, and annual report projections are complete, utter, absolute nonsense with no value except to make you feel good. Wall Street is a massive fraud sanctioned by a society deluded into the false idea of a predictable future based on Gaussian norms that do not exist in the real world.

We next must understand the problem of obsessive focus, another symptom of blind determinism. Following the World Trade Center attack, we reasonably diverted our collective attention to the issue of terrorism. But we soon unreasonably went too far. The event was beforehand an outlier beyond our comfortable norm, and therefore ignored in our predictions of the future. But soon afterward we fell into the trap of shifting to the opposite extreme, making terrorism the new average, the new norm, when it is nothing of the sort. We quickly lost all perspective, and therefore lost sight of where we remain most vulnerable to future attacks. An outlier remains so even when it happens; it does not define a new set point; it was always there. We just made the mistake of pretending otherwise. Blind to the possibilities of the unknown, we react in panic when something outside our comfortable norm hits. As a consequence we divert resources from threats of greater dimension. We have spent $1 trillion in Iraq, a country not even remotely involved with the 9/11 attacks, yet we spend almost nothing on protecting our ports. We still only inspect 10% of cargo entering the country. Our food and water remain largely unprotected and vulnerable to terrorism. We have underfunded efforts to control loose nukes. Pathetically, we take our shoes off in the airport security line. The evil act taking 3,000 lives on that terrible day in New York represents a threat to society no greater than that from smoking, obesity, train crossings, or H1N1.

Finally, we must understand the consequences of deterministic obstructionism. We just saw how we set ourselves up to overreact when an outlier occasionally but significantly impacts our lives: we create a false new average instead of understanding the unanticipated event for what it really is – an outlier that was always present as a threat. But we also do damage by appealing to blind determinism in the other direction as well: demanding incontrovertible proof of an outlier’s impact before we take any ameliorating action. This is the untenable position of those who oppose actions to address climate change. These folks are so convinced of our ability to predict the future, on the basis of determinism, that they demand precision in those predictions. (But fail to demand that same predictive precision before supporting missile defense systems or invading Iraq). The problem is that in disparaging uncertainty, they ironically willingly ignore the uncertain and potentially disproportionate consequences of inaction. We can, after all, reasonably anticipate that something will be bad without knowing the details. When I go to a poor foreign country, I know that eating uncooked food from street vendors would likely make me sick. I do not know what vendors would cause me harm, or how sick I would become, or exactly what form the illness would take on, but I know enough even with that uncertainty to avoid certain foods.

Nobody exemplifies the dark side of determinism demanding precise predictions of the future before taking any preventative action better than Sen. James Inhofe. "I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard.” He is celebrating the apparent demise of any global climate change treaty this year. (I hope he lives long enough to see the destruction wrought by his irresponsibility. I wonder if he will say he is sorry to his grandchildren).

So with leaders like Inhofe, we as a society recognize the existence of the outlier of climate change, but take no action because we cannot precisely predict the timing or magnitude of its consequences. But as with 9/11, when the impact of climate change is felt, when the seas rise, weather patterns change and millions are displaced in wars for retreating resources, the same people who now deny the problem will react in panic, diverting resources away from areas of greatest need. We expose our stocking feet at the airport to thwart a shoe bomber, but do nothing as we fundamentally alter our atmospheric chemistry -- because terrorism has become the false new normal even as we ignore the next outlier staring us in the face.

Perhaps the human brain is simply incapable of accounting for the fact that our future results primarily as a consequence of improbable but high impact events that are largely unpredictable. Our descendants, if we have any, will find out soon enough.

Nidal Hasan Emails Could Indicate Fort Hood Shooting Was A Terrorist Plot

2009-11-21T08:50:20Z

WASHINGTON – The government intercepted at least 18 e-mails between the alleged Fort Hood gunman and a radical Muslim cleric, and a key senator says there could be more communications that might have tipped off law enforcement or military officials.

Federal investigators say they intercepted the messages between the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric. They were passed along to two Joint Terrorism Task Force cells led by the FBI, but a senior defense official said no one at the Defense Department knew about the messages until after the shootings. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence procedures.

Small Town To Liz Cheney: We Want Gitmo Detainees, Not Your Fearmongering

2009-11-20T15:24:49Z

Officials in a small Michigan town featured in a new video about Guantanamo by Liz Cheney's national security group want her to know that they're not falling for her "fearmongering" -- and say they want Gitmo detainees in their town.

Jim Wallis: Build, Don't Destroy in Afghanistan: An Open Letter to President Obama

2009-11-19T15:20:37Z

Already, thousands of our readers have signed a letter and contacted the White House urging a new way forward in Afghanistan. Today, Sojourners staff will be meeting with White House officials to hand-deliver the following letter. I encourage you to read it and to endorse this message if you have not done so already. Support for a new way forward is growing. InterAction, a coalition of 187 non-governmental relief and development organizations focused on the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, has now issued a letter of support for this new approach that you can read here. As the President's decision draws near, please, as always, pray for peace.

Dear Mr. President,

In your speech to the United Nations General Assembly this fall, you eloquently stated one of your core beliefs, that while too often peace remains a distant dream:

We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict, or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world. ... For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

We share that belief, and urge you to make it your guiding principle in Afghanistan. We speak not as military or political strategists, but as religious leaders seeking to faithfully apply our moral values to this most crucial issue. We have been watching, listening, and praying as the political arguments and counter-arguments about what to do in Afghanistan fill the air. We commend you for taking time to make your decisions in such an important matter which will affect the lives of so many.

We believe that after eight years of war we need a whole new approach in Afghanistan. And we respectfully and prayerfully suggest to you a different strategy that we would name: the humanitarian and development surge.

First, lead with what we know works -- massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable development. We know that what can re-build a broken nation; inspire confidence, trust, and hope among its people; and undermine the appeal of terrorism is massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development. And it costs less -- far less -- than continued war.

Many of us as religious leaders are deeply involved with the people and organizations who know places like Afghanistan the best; and they are neither the military nor the private contractors who increasingly dominate U.S. foreign policy in war-torn regions. Rather they are the NGOs, both faith-based and secular, doing relief and development work which have been there for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of the country than are the U.S. military. We've also learned that it is vitally important that humanitarian and development assistance should be provided, as much as possible, by independent civilian and non-governmental organizations, both international and local-- rather than using aid as a government adjunct to military operations. Another way to say it is that the best face of America to the world is a baseball hat and not a helmet.

Of course, we recognize that effective development needs security, and when we have massively intervened in a country as much as the U.S. has in Afghanistan, we can't responsibly just walk away -- as has tragically happened to that country in the past. But we should lead with economic development now, starting in areas that are secure with the plan of growing the transformation from there and providing only the security necessary to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country. That kind of peacekeeping security might better attract the international involvement we so desperately need in Afghanistan, both from Europe and even from Arab and Muslim countries. Let the non-military strategies lead the way, rather than the other way around. Let us not make aid and development another weapon of war, by tying it so closely to the military; but rather provide the security support needed for the development work to succeed--led by both respected and well-established international organizations with strong local connections.

Second, we feel deeply about the ethical and moral issues that are at stake in our decisions about future policy in Afghanistan --legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism, protecting the lives of American servicemen and women, protecting the Afghan people from the collateral damage of war, defending women from the Taliban, genuinely supporting democracy and, of course, saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war -- to name a few.

We also strongly recommend a diplomatic surge. We urge you to continue pursuing political and diplomatic solutions to these complicated issues, promoting stable governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, seeking political integration of those elements of the Taliban that are willing to cooperate in preventing the use of their territory for launching terrorist strikes, engaging with the United Nations and other states in the region to build diplomatic and economic support for regional stabilization and economic development, as well as international policing to prevent the spread of extremists and the use of terror.

But Mr. President, as you deliberate on these momentous decisions, we are concerned that the discussion in Washington, D.C. is far too narrow, with only two points of view being seriously considered.

One strategy supports a robust strategy of counter-insurgency, requiring a substantial escalation of troops that would bring the total number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to as many as 100,000. Yet, this only increases the massive American footprint in that volatile country; which is now one of the primary causes of our problems there, and is clearly helping to fuel the insurgency. Add in a corrupt Afghan government, a highly decentralized society, and a physical terrain that has confounded every other occupier in history; and we find little reason to be hopeful about the prospects of military success through more escalation.

The other prefers counter-terrorism, relying on precision targeting technology to apply military pressure on the most dangerous and extreme operatives who are the greatest threat to us. Our counter-terrorist missiles and unmanned drones may cost less in American lives and treasure, but they have very significant political and moral costs. In war, a laser-like focus is seldom possible, often leading to tragic results in untended consequences and innocent casualties. The collateral damage of our technological war has already been great, resulting in many civilian deaths, further alienating the populace and, inadvertently, producing even more angry young recruits for terrorism.

And we fear the solution that may be emerging in Washington could be a confused combination of the two strategies, bringing us the worst of both worlds.

We humbly suggest it is time for a meeting at the White House with both American religious leaders and the heads of the leading international development agencies, some of whom have been in Afghanistan for years, with many indigenous employees and partners, who are trusted by the people of the country. These organizations can contribute their experience and wisdom on what U.S. policy would best work, and what kind of security they would need to really do the kind of development in Afghanistan that is most needed. Along with the military and political advice you are receiving, this input is crucial to your decision. And it is time, perhaps for the first time, for an on-going moral and ethical conversation between government and the faith community about the moral implications of our policy decisions.

Mr. President, we assure you that in taking the approach of effective aid and development, and real engagement with the moral issues that confront us in Afghanistan, you will have our support. As always, you are in our prayers as you seek the right decisions to these most difficult questions and choices. We look forward to hearing from you.

Blessings,

Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Sojourners

Noel Castellanos, President, Christian Community Development Association

Rev. William J. Shaw, Pastor, White Rock Baptist Church, Philadelphia, PA

Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, President, Skinner Leadership Institute

Rev. Rich Nathan, Pastor, Vineyard Church of Columbus

Thomas L. Jones, former chair, Social Justice and Peacemaking, Presbyterian Church USA

The Honorable Douglas W. Kmiec

Arturo Chavez, Ph.D., President and CEO, Mexican American Catholic College

Ingrid Mattson, President, The Islamic Society of North America

Dr. Anthony Campolo, President and Founder, Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education

Fred Davie, The Arcus Foundation

Diana Butler Bass, Author and Educator

Harry Knox, Silver Spring, Maryland

Brian D. McLaren, author, speaker, activist

Rev. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Rev. Alexia Salvatierra

Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, Reformed Church in America

Thomas and Karen Getman, The Getman Group

Mubarak Awad, American University

Robin and Nancy Wainwright, Middle East Fellowship

Norm Nelson, Compassion Radio

Susheilla Mehta

+Click here to add your signature to this message to President Obama
+Tell your friends about this petition

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Adam Hanft: Quakers and Shakers: Giuliani and Paterson Unlikely Bedfellows in the Axis of Anxiety

2009-11-19T14:50:35Z

Tough-guy enforcer Rudy Giuliani, and touchy-feely David Paterson are in unlikely and violent agreement: making Manhattan Ground Zero for the Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial is a very bad idea.

As the Times put it, "Giuliani said the trial would give 'an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists' and pose risks to New York. 'Anyone that tells you this doesn't create additional security problems, of course, isn't telling you the truth.'"

Now wait a minute. Wasn't it Giuliani and President Bush who encouraged us to go shopping on September 12th, who said that if we live our lives in fear, it will mean the terrorists have won? Didn't he argue that any fundamental change in our behavior would be nothing less than a wimpy concession to our fierce enemies?

Is it merely that the ex-mayor is looking to make political hay out of this, or is he honestly convinced that trying the "acknowledged mastermind" of September 11th less than a mile from the scene of the tragedy will widen our exposure? I'm no expert on the psychological motivations of terrorists, but I find it hard to believe that there's a guy in an Al Qaeda training camp in Waziristan saying "Well, if they tried the guy in Gitmo I wouldn't even consider blowing myself up on the V train, but now that the trial is in New York, I'm going to take out 14th Street."

New York City is already so much the locus of evil -- with streets overrun by Zionists, gays and women in cleavage-baring garb -- that no further damnation is required to make us destruction-worthy.

And here's the other intellectually unsustainable part of the Giuliani argument. If he is so concerned with not pissing off terrorists, then why doesn't he support the plan to try Sheik Mohammed as a civilian? After all, a military trial mitigates the defendant's rights, and gives the prosecution advantages it doesn't have in a civilian court. So if Giuliani's mission is to make New York safer, he should be supporting Eric Holder's decision to bring this trial to the Southern District where the Sheik Mohammed will have a "fairer" trial before the world.

Governor Paterson's argument appears to be less about the trial putting New York City in the global terrorism crosshairs, and more about the emotional consequences. He sounded less like a chief executive and more like chief shrink earlier this week:

"This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country."

Thomas Kean, who was chairman of the 9/11 Commission, objects for a different reason.

"I worry a little bit about the decision, because it's what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants... he wants to be a martyr, so I think he's going to use the trial as propaganda ... and I think he wants to be Che Guevara or something like that. He's going to try to be a hero to the Muslim world."

This doesn't make any sense to me. It's going to be a sensational trial, with unprecedented media attention no matter where in the world it's held. Mohammed will become a martyr because he's likely to get the death penalty; the venue for that sentence is incidental to his execution.

What does the public think? Well, in reporting on a recent poll the Times headlined their story "Many New Yorkers say 9/11 Trial A Security Risk" and began the article "Forty percent of New Yorkers believe the trial of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed makes an attack on the city more likely ... "

That headline and lede combination are misleading; they could have headlined the story "Majority of New Yorkers Believe the 9/11 Trial Will Not Put City In Danger," which would have triggered a completely different reaction among readers.

I think the Obama administration made an appropriate and gutsy choice. Sure there will be security burdens on the city, but both Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are supportive of the decision. And I can actually imagine a scenario where we'll be safer than we would have been if the trial were held elsewhere. In that case, our exposure as a symbolic target would still be enormous, but we would be in the same amped-up state of vigilance.

Yes, the trial will be traumatic to some and cathartic to others. That's why news interviews with families of the victims show a wide range of opinion; it's impossible to secure moral and emotional unanimity on a decision that will blast open deep wounds and activate the irremediable pain of loss.

And yes, there's a risk that the trial will deteriorate into a more circusy spectacle in New York than it would otherwise devolve. But for me, this is the right place, the best place, and in a real way the only place for the government to make its case. To show the world that we are capable of justice and fairness in the most emotionally-charged location the trial could possibly be held in.

It takes a kind of courage to hold the proceedings here, a courage drawn from the same deep well of toughness and resiliency that New Yorkers showed the world during those dark days themselves.

And bringing back those horrific memories has its heuristic benefits. New York is a city that forgets fast and remembers forward. Already, we've stopped wondering if Wall Street can survive and started wondering how much this year's bonuses will plump up the co-op market. Stopping us in our tracks is a lesson that our hard hearts need.

Ryan McDermott: Afghanistan: No Good Alternatives

2009-11-19T14:04:49Z

We have been at war for eight years and the pace of military action has yet to decrease. How long can it go on? Clearly, the troops are worn and our children's future is at stake.

This past week, I marched with my seven year old son Brandon in the NYC Veteran's day parade along with a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. I brought Brandon along for the march because combat is a journey that is made by troops and their families alike. It was special to march with my son, because it reminded me of the time I spent away from him in 2003. I was also reminded of the troops now deployed away from their families and the President's upcoming strategic decision on the war in Afghanistan.

As I watched Brandon march down Fifth Avenue by my side, I considered whether he might ever choose to serve in the military. He would be a good soldier, I think. Brandon is a good team player and is full of determination. It is a scary thought, but I would be proud if he served our country one day. Hopefully, we'll have capable leaders who understand the nature of war and do everything to avoid it. This assumes that we will have ended this war which after eight years seems no closer to resolution than when it began.

The President's decision on Afghanistan could determine whether children born after September 11th are sent to this war. It might have seemed unfathomable back in 2001 to think that this war would have gone on so long, but here we are eight years in and no end in sight.

The President is about to face his biggest test in office -- answering a call from his Generals to escalate an already unpopular war. There are no good alternatives in war, only lesser evils. As much as President Obama might try to build consensus, accountability for the decision will be his and his alone.

Certainly, history will judge President Obama's decision with caveats -- that he inherited a war put on the backburner and an economy on the brink of collapse. However, at this point in history the President has the opportunity to reaffirm a previously chosen path, or to choose a new one. History will judge him on this point.

However, historians will not judge President Obama for decades to come, most likely. In the meantime, he has plenty of skeptics and political rivals to deal with. Although I concede that Bob Woodward will probably have a play-by-play analysis of the decision making process in an upcoming book, the long-term implications of the actual decision will not be known for decades. The outcome rests with our troops overseas and the viability of the strategy employed.

Most, if not all, politicians will hedge their support one way or another. Those who support counter-insurgency will say they think we should send more troops faster, while those opposed will say that we shouldn't send any. Again, it is easy to be a skeptic -- history does not judge them.

There will always be hawks that believe we should do more and doves who think no wars are worth fighting. However, the strategy not selected will always look better as time wears on because alternative histories never have to deal with the realities of the unknown. The narratives scripted by skeptics are never soundly tested, nor can they be refuted with evidence.

This is one reason why the "go big or go home" rationale might make sense if it were possible to take either course. It is irrefutable that we cannot "go big" enough to satisfy the extreme on that end. We don't have the resources.

On the other side, the "go home" option is also impossible; at least in the immediate term. The question is 'how to do it responsibly?' It is impossible to please anyone. No one is content when troops are dying and nor should they. That's the bottom line.

To stave off the effects of criticism the President will be required to continue to make his case to the American people until we begin to realize success. That may be impossible in light of the challenging economy we currently face.

So far, the President has handled criticism well from my perspective. Getting the decision right for the long-term is infinitely more important than satisfying any constituency in the short-term.

I appreciate that the President has taken time to deliberate this decision. Stepping back for a moment, it seems clear to me that a decision to send such large numbers of troops overseas could not be made with any less deliberation without jeopardizing the mission going forward. The President is right to take time. We needed time to test our assumptions. Still, I imagine that the troops are getting restless. It is difficult being on the front lines and not knowing how things might change. I've been there and sympathize with those troops in that position.

I am undecided on which direction we should take in Afghanistan because potential success largely rests in the convictions of our President and the will of the American people. It is important to understand that there is no silver bullet strategy. I believe several strategies could be successful if properly resourced and implemented -- including the 'going home' option. Execution is far more important and requires leadership full of conviction.

The complexity of the issue is important to note, however. Taking the wrong approach might lead to short-term gains while ensuring a more dramatic long-term failure. Pragmatism is required.

The most coherent rationale for being in Afghanistan relates to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Our assumption is that extremists could take over the Pakistani government if we were to leave Afghanistan. I believe this assumption, whether true or faulty, should be the key point tested in determining our mission in the region and whether we should have one there at all.

How does this end? Or, better yet, how can this end?

Buried within the central question of "how can it end" are numerous issues that make the situation much more complex than Iraq was in 2006. Most obvious of all, in my mind, is that Iraq possesses oil that it can sell to fund its budget requirements. Afghanistan lacks the same natural resources and economic potential. Furthermore, the enemy we have been fighting, the Taliban, is indigenous to Afghanistan.

One question we have to ask is, should we try to destroy the Taliban, or is there another strategy to achieve our original goal? -- denying sanctuary to Al Qaeda.

We are now poised to help the Afghans further grow their military to provide security for their people. If this mission is reinforced as a key component of the President's new strategy, then it might offer us a way out of Afghanistan while denying Al Qaeda sanctuary.

We should closely examine the long-term implications of this approach, however.

Our Generals have been clear -- Afghanistan will likely require a similar commitment to execute a successful counter-insurgency as we conducted in Iraq. Yet, I believe the challenge in Afghanistan is greater than it was in Iraq. For one, how can Afghanistan's economy sustain the military force that we are about to arm, equip and train with limited tax revenues?

In considering strategy, the President should weigh Afghanistan's economic potential in determining the long-term viability of their government in addition to the credibility of Afghani leadership.

Iraq's economy was a strategic focus in the counter-insurgency effort, as coalition forces sought ways to facilitate the repair of its oil industry. If we don't address the economic question in Afghanistan, then we could end up building a house of cards ready to collapse when we eventually leave.

If we are to proceed with any portion of a counter-insurgency option, then I'd propose that we be prepared to invest a significant amount into developing Afghanistan's infrastructure. We should also consider investing in building more schools as some have suggested. Investing in Afghanistan's infrastructure might allow their government to become self-sustaining within the intermediate-term. Infrastructure is the catalyst for long-term growth. Failing to facilitate economic growth will only deepen Afghanistan's dependence on our presence as they grow their government and security forces.

The President is certainly aware the potential backlash here in the U.S. of investing in another country's economy while ours still struggles. Can we invest the necessary amount in Afghanistan to promote success while also living up to our obligations at home? That is an enormous challenge, but not necessarily impossible.

The economic question is pivotal in my mind because growing the Afghan Army to combat insurgent forces could backfire as did our support of the mujahedeen years ago. At some point, the American people will probably demand our leaders to get out of Afghanistan either in polling or at the voting booth. At that point, will we have left Afghanistan in a self-sustaining position, or will we risk ending right back where we started?

We should not forget our original intent -- denying sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Balancing this need with our economic security must be a strategic priority. At some point, too, we must bring the troops home.

I pray that this war is over by the time my son Brandon is of age to enlist in the military. Children born after the start of this war should not be put in a position to play a role in ending it. Some of the options being considered make that a possibility. Already, their generation will help to pay for it.

Unfortunately, our President has no good alternatives in Afghanistan, only the necessary decision.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ryan McDermott.