Myth and Reality After 9/11

From Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review:

Why did radical Islamic terrorists kill almost 3,000 Americans a decade ago?

Few still believe the old myth that U.S. foreign policy or support for Israel logically earned us Osama bin Laden’s wrath. After all, the U.S. throughout the 1990s had saved Islamic peoples from Bosnia and Kosovo to Somalia and Kuwait. Russia and China, in contrast, had oppressed or killed tens of thousands of their own Muslims without much fear of provoking al-Qaeda.

Moreover, thousands of Arabs have been killed recently, but by their own Libyan and Syrian governments, not Israeli Defense Forces. Al-Qaeda still issues death threats to Americans even though its original pretexts for going to war — such as U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia — have long been irrelevant.

On this ten-year anniversary of 9/11, no one has yet refuted the general truth that bin Laden tried to hijack popular Arab discontent over endemic poverty and self-induced misery. In cynical Hitlerian fashion, al-Qaeda’s propagandists sought to blame the mess of the Arab Middle East on Jews and foreigners, rather than seeking to address homegrown corrupt kleptocracies, inefficient statism, indigenous tribalism, gender apartheid, and religious fundamentalism and intolerance ...

More at that link.

VIDEO: 'Remembering 9/11 – Never Quit'

From the Hertiage Foundation:

Egyptian Protesters Tear Down Israeli Embassy Security Wall

This video c/o Ahram Online, "VIDEO: Protesters take down Israeli embassy flag."

And at Weasel Zippers, "Arab Spring: Hundreds of Rampaging Egyptians Tear Down Concrete Wall Protecting Israeli Embassy…"

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "EGYPT: Thousands in Tahrir Square angry at slow pace of reforms."

No doubt.

TSA Agent Threatens Amy Alkon with Defamation Suit!

Oh my goodness, this is lovely.

From Kash Hill, "Female Blogger Threatened With Defamation Suit For Writing About TSA 'Rape'." (Via Instapundit.)

Go read it all.

And at Amy's blog: "Breaking News: The TSA Agent Who Visited My Vagina."

RELATED: I was searching for Amy's post on Google, and punching in "Amy Alkon Libel Suit" you never know who's name will pop up in the results. Man, that's gotta be a bitch.

Deterring Enemies in a Shaken World

Daniel Byman reviews Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda, by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, at New York Times:

As they relate this new direction [in counter-terrorism after 9/11], Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Shanker put flesh on approaches and operations that in the past were largely in the realm of specialists. The book is sprinkled with small, vivid anecdotes that bring day-to-day counterterrorism work to life. Take the Horse Blanket, a “graduating series of contingencies that each federal agency could take in response to a potential or actual terrorist attack” beginning in 2007.

Much like a playbook, the Horse Blanket (whose intriguing name goes unexplained here) detailed the cost of each option, its level of disruption and its impact on foreign policy. A report of terrorist efforts to cross from Canada might lead to an increase in border security. Should intelligence agencies gather credible reports of the ultimate nightmare, a nuclear weapon being moved to attack an American city, the border would be shut. Policy makers can now ratchet counterterrorism up or down to match the perceived threat.

Technology has made a revolutionary difference. The authors explain how the contents of cellphones belonging to captured terrorists are cloned in seconds, with computers scanning the numbers to match those of other known terrorists. Such information can tie a suspect to an enemy network and its locations, which in turn helps interrogators ask smarter questions and enables them to direct military forces better. More bad guys die or are taken off the streets, and fewer innocents suffer.

Other efforts are aimed at the hearts and minds of those who have not yet taken sides. To discredit Al Qaeda with the Muslim public, officials sought “to create a constant drumbeat of anti-Al Qaeda information that was factual, directly quoted and heavily sourced,” as one White House official described it. So when the Taliban kill a schoolteacher or terrorists blind schoolgirls in an acid attack, the horrors are trumpeted in local and international media, countering Al Qaeda’s narrative that its fearless warriors fight only heavily armed United States soldiers.

Today, the authors write, American counterterrorism policy embraces “the new deterrence.” By imposing costs on terrorists’ reputations, chances for success, material assets — whatever they hold dear — you “alter the behavior and thinking of your adversary.” In contrast to deterrence strategies during the cold war, deterrence today does not involve a state actor, like the Soviet Union, with nuclear-tipped missiles but rather more nebulous networks that include not only fanatic suicide bombers but also more rational financiers, recruiters, arms runners and others who can be dissuaded by the threat of death or arrest. The new deterrence involves “kinetic” instruments, to use the military parlance for killing people, but also innovative information operations that might discredit a cause and scare away providers of funds.

Sounds like a great book.

The Battle for Sirte

At Telegraph UK, "Libya: Over 800 killed in battle for Gaddafi's home town of Sirte."

Libya's transitional leaders believe hundreds of their supporters have been gunned down in Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte by desperate regime loyalists, even as they try to negotiate its surrender.



The town is Gaddafi's biggest remaining Libya stronghold and rebel commanders know his forces are dug in for a bloody battle.



For now opposition forces have held their positions to the east and west as they wait for tribal elders to negotiate with Gaddafi fighters.



But Shamsiddin Ben-Ali, a spokesman in the rebel city of Benghazi, said 800 people had been killed in the past three days.



"Many of the people of Sirte are on our side now and want to be part of the revolution," he said. "The people with guns though are still resisting."



The death toll raises a bloody conundrum for the country's new leaders: rushing in could spell a military disaster but waiting is costing a very high price in civilian casualties.

Also at Telegraph, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Pamela Geller on 9/11: A Day of Mourning, Grieving and Remembering

I so much wish I could be in New York for 9/11, but it's not happening this year. Ten years is a long time, but decades from now I'm confident that Pamela Geller will be remembered as one of the brightest lights commemorating the fallen. She'll also be remembered for sounding the tocsin of "Never Again." And for that, she takes a lot of grief for all of us who live in dignity and work to preserve our cherished freedoms against the forces of modern totalitarianism.



Here she's interviewed by Ezra Levant, via Blazing Cat Fur:

And see Pamela's post, "PAMELA GELLER ON SUN TV WITH EZRA LEVANT: 911 FREEDOM RALLY."

September 11 Attacks Spurred Expansion of Homeland Security Programs at America's Colleges and Universities

Continuing coverage of the series at Los Angeles Times, "9/11, Ten Years After."



Here's a report from Wednesday, "9/11 spawned big changes on campus."



Check the whole thing. It's fascinating. But, while it's great that more and more students have cultivated a deeper sense of civic duty following September 11, the idea that increasing numbers of students are turning to the public sector for government jobs is a little dismaying. In a time of deep economic stagnation, the nation should be churning out enterprisers and inventers. Instead, we churn out bureaucrats and regulators. There's certainly a place for each in a $15 trillion economy, but the pace of government growth relative to the private sector has not declined. Strange. But then again, this is exactly the stuff that Mark Steyn's been warning about, so ain't that the darnedest?

NATO is No Go Without American Power

At Wall Street Journal, "NATO Strikes Show Europe Defense Dilemma":

The military campaign over Libya has delivered a serious blow to a project long nurtured at the heart of the European Union: a European military capability independent of the U.S., defense analysts and officials say.



For years, the EU sought to build what came to be called its Common Security and Defense Policy as some nations, led by France, wanted the freedom to act militarily without Washington's interference.



For Paris, this meant creating a military command structure and forces separate from the U.S.-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This vision has never come close to fruition, not least because the U.S. and U.K. saw it as duplicating NATO's role.



Ironically, it was the first-ever NATO military operation to be led by Europeans, with the U.S. deciding to take a back seat, that suggests that ambition may never be fulfilled.



Central to this has been the move in 2009 by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to reverse the 1966 decision of President Charles de Gaulle and reintegrate France into NATO's military command.



On Wednesday evening, Mr. Sarkozy told assembled diplomats in Paris that NATO "has shown itself to be an indispensable tool in the service of our military operations." The success of military operations over Libya was possible because France had reassumed its position in NATO's military command, he said.

More at that top link.



Madeleine Albright once called the U.S. the "indispensable nation", and for all of our difficulties, world events keep proving it over and over.

Libertarians and Democrats

I saw this Will Wilkinson piece earlier and read it all: "A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed." I didn't bother commenting on it because Wilkinson's not worth it. He's a drug-addled leftist, IMHO, and a pretty much typical libertarian. So, what do you know, but American Glob has picked up the slack, "In Which I Respectfully Disagree With Will Wilkinson" (via Glenn Reynolds):

I don’t know Will Wilkinson personally but I know he’s a Libertarian writer who has worked for the highly regarded Cato Institute.



Wilkinson wrote an article for The New Republic today in which he calls Ron Paul an “embarrassment” to the creed of Libertarianism.



I like many of Ron Paul’s ideas and disagree with others, specifically his approach to foreign policy but my objection to Wilkinson’s article has nothing to do with Ron Paul.



It’s based on the first half of his second sentence…

In 2006, I tossed a few dollars at the Democrat running for Senate against the loathsome Rick Santorum. It could have been a three-headed goat, for all I cared, but Wikipedia says it was Bob Casey.

Before you jump to conclusions, let me state for the record that I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Rick Santorum. I don’t believe he is a “loathsome” person as Wilkinson characterized him, I think he is probably a decent man despite our political differences.



My problem with Wilkinson’s article is simply this:



I don’t believe it’s possible to be a Libertarian and support Democrats. Ever.

Keep reading.



Actually, I doubt it would take long, but you could probably find lots of libertarians who supported Democrats in California last year, when Proposition 19 was on the ballot. Both Democrats and Libertarians endorsed the measure, which placed them in a de facto political alliance. Indeed, there's also a "progressive-libertarian coalition" that joined forces on the initiative. So, while in theory it may be impossible to be a libertarian and support Democrats, in fact those two ideologies generally have just as much in common as do libertarians and conservatives on support for free markets. Indeed, if you look at criminal justice and civil liberties you're more likely to see Democrats (progressives) allied with libertarians. Frankly, when it comes to a robust foreign policy and a defense of social conservatism, I make little distinction between leftists and libertarians. Throw in gay marriage (libertarians back it), and really, what's left for libertarians to be associated with that is generally referred to as right wing? Ron Paul is loathsome to me on foreign policy, but even more we learn over and over again that's he's anti-Semitic, and even Will Wilkinson attacks him as racist. I just can't stand people like that. A foreign policy that excoriates U.S. support for Israel turns quickly into a crude copy of neo-communist Jew-bashing eliminationism. So with all due respect, I'd think American Glob might want to rethink his partiality to Ron Paul in a hypothetical match up between Paul and Obama. They're both disasters, and a pox on both of their houses.

To the Shores of Tripoli

From Robert Kagan, at Weekly Standard:

... the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally. It is a shame that some administration officials are trying to downplay the role of the United States in this whole affair, absurdly trying to turn the “leading from behind” gaffe into a kind of Obama doctrine. In fact, the United States was not “leading from behind.” By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Ben ghazi massacred.



That American choice was the turning point. All praise to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron for being ahead of the president in seeing the need for armed action—just as Margaret Thatcher was ahead of George H.W. Bush in seeing the need for action against Saddam Hussein in 1990. But here is the plain and critical truth of the matter: None of this could have been done without the United States leading the way.



Only the United States has the military capacity, the weaponry, the surveillance technology, and the skill to open a safe path for the air and ground war against Qaddafi’s forces. France and Britain alone would not and probably could not have done the job without unacceptable risk to their forces, which were very thin to begin with. In the early days, especially, American A-10 and AC-130 ground attack aircraft were critical in pummeling Qaddafi’s armored vehicles and forcing them to halt offensives against rebel positions. In the last days of the conflict, American high-tech surveillance allowed the rebels to pinpoint the positions of Qaddafi forces in and around Tripoli. Throughout months of fighting, prowling American Predator drones forced Qaddafi and his men to keep their heads down.



The president and his secretary of state also carried out an adept diplomacy that eventually garnered not only European but, remarkably, Arab support as well. This in turn forced both Russia and China—fearful of Arab wrath—to acquiesce. There were costs, of course: a U.N. resolution inadequate to the task at hand and the usual problem of trying to keep many players on board during a mission. On balance, however, it was worth it. The administration was surely right that the intervention would be more effective if it did not appear to be exclusively an American operation and that the combination of European and Arab support for removing Qaddafi was enough of a prize to warrant some compromises.



But the larger point is that, again, only the United States could have pulled all these disparate political and regional forces together. No other nation, not France, not Great Britain, not even a united EU (which German opposition prevented) could have managed this global diplomatic task. In this allegedly “post-American” world, the United States remains both indispensable and irreplaceable.

That's a dramatically different take than Max Boot's, "Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?" Boot doesn't love America's reserve role in these interventions, especially since success requires American military power to begin with. Why shrug off our leadership role and argue "we've got your back"? Kagan just calls it an American victory no matter how you slice it. But all along I've found Victor Davis Hanson's arguments to be the most compelling, which hold, for example, that the Obama administration hadn't the slightest clue about toppling Gaddafi, as evidenced by the administration's pathetic flip-flopping on the goal of regime change or not.



In any case, Kagan and Boot agree on one thing: The war's not over yet.

Libya War Not Yet Over

Well, I need to start watching MSNBC more often. I just love Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis at STRATFOR:

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi releases new audio message," and "Gaddafi vows to 'let Libya burn' as he defies calls for surrender."



Plus, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?

Max Boot gives Obama the boot on Libya, at WSJ and RCP. Boot's normally pretty gung ho on foreign military intervention, so I'm sensing a little disappointment overall. That is, more forward deployed U.S. power earlier in Libya would have not only shortened the war, but made for a stronger precedent in future crises. See Boot's earlier piece, "It's Not Too Late to Save Libya."

Ethical Oil

Via The Blog Prof:

Libyan National Transitional Council

That's the first I've seen of that term, at the description from this video at Telegraph UK:

Also, "Libya: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi vows to continue the war and retake Tripoli."



See also New York Times, "Son Denies Rebels’ Claim That Qaddafi Is Cornered":

TRIPOLI, Libya — A top official of Libya’s transitional government said Wednesday that its fighters had cornered Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in a desert redoubt 150 miles from the capital and were exhorting him to give up, in what would bring a sense of finality to the prolonged uprising that routed him and his family from Tripoli a week ago.



But one of Colonel Qaddafi’s fugitive sons, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, threw a new if improbable taunt at the rebels even as they said they had closed in on his father, vowing in an audio statement that loyalists would never surrender and insisting that “victory will be near.”



“Our leadership is fine,” he said in the statement broadcast on the Al Rai television channel of Syria and other Arab broadcasting outlets. “We are drinking tea and coffee.”



Seif al-Islam gave no indication in the statement of his precise whereabouts except that he was in a Tripoli suburb, and it was not clear if his remarks had been prerecorded. But the statement itself raised the possibility of more fighting and underscored the ability of the Qaddafis to frustrate the alliance of rebel forces that has become the effective government of Libya.

Maybe folks should hold off on this talk of a "transitional council." You gotta get that old council out before you can transition a new one.

9/11, Ten Years After: The Costs of Security — More Domestic Surveillance

Continuing my blogging on the Los Angeles Times' September 11 series, see: "A key Sept. 11 legacy: more domestic surveillance."



PREVIOUSLY: "9/11, Ten Years After: The Costs of Security — Has All the Spending Paid Off?"

Gaddafi Family Members in Algeria

At Los Angeles Times, "Members of Kadafi family flee to Algeria":

Members of Moammar Kadafi's family, including his wife, daughter and two of his sons, have fled to Algeria, the government of the neighboring country said Monday.



Algerian state television reported that Kadafi relatives who arrived Monday through a border crossing included the deposed Libyan leader's wife, Safiya, his daughter, Aisha, and two of his sons, Hannibal and Mohammed. The group also included an undisclosed number of Kadafi's grandchildren, Algeria said.



The Algerian government said it had informed both the United Nations and the Libyan rebels' Transitional National Council that the group had arrived.



But there was no answer to a much bigger question: Where was Moammar Kadafi himself?

Also at NYT, "Qaddafi’s Wife and 3 of His Children Flee to Algeria."

Libya Vindicates Obama? And Humanitarian Intervention?

I don't think the administration had a clue, but President Obama will get a lot of credit for toppling Gaddafi.



And this will generate a big debate among specialists in international relations. See Anne Marie Slaughter's piece, at Financial Times, "Why Libya sceptics were proved badly wrong":

Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine the UN did not vote to authorise the use of force in Libya in March. Nato did nothing; Colonel Muammer Gaddafi over-ran Benghazi; the US stood by; the Libyan opposition was reduced to sporadic uprisings, quickly crushed. The regimes in Yemen and Syria took note, and put down their own uprisings with greater vigour. The west let brutality and oppression triumph again in the Middle East.



This is the scenario many wise heads were effectively arguing for with their strong stands against intervention to stop Col Gaddafi. Over the months those analysts have reminded us of their views, calling Libya a quagmire. This week one of the leading proponents of that position, my friend and colleague Richard Haass, shifted gears – but only to remind us just how hard the road ahead in Libya is likely to be.



I do not know anyone, regardless of the side they took in the initial debate, who thinks this task will be easy; indeed, the battle against Col Gaddafi is not yet won. But not so fast. Before we focus on what must happen next, let us pause for a minute and reflect on that initial debate and the lessons to be learnt.

Keep reading.



Dr. Slaugther omits mention that Islamists could come to power in Libya, which in the end might not be much better than having Gaddafi. True, Muammar is about as bad as they come, and as I said all along in the case of Mubarak's Egypt, there's little satisfaction in standing up for a dictator. But the euphoria of the Arab Spring has long evaporated and a real security dilemma is emerging in the region that's forcing folks to reckon with change. Israel, of course, comes to mind, but a larger systemic transformation toward more widespread Islamism won't be good. It's already bad enough as it is.



More on this at Foreign Affairs, from Stewart Patrick, "Libya and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention: How Qaddafi's Fall Vindicated Obama and RtoP."

9/11, Ten Years After: The Costs of Security — Has All the Spending Paid Off?

At LAT, "Is Homeland Security spending paying off?":

A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.



But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?



"The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It's basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year," said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.



"So if your chance of being killed by a terrorist in the United States is 1 in 3.5 million, the question is, how much do you want to spend to get that down to 1 in 4.5 million?" he said.

More at that top link.



John Mueller's a progressive who basically opposed the Iraq war, and was wrong about public support for the deployment. I don't trust him on homeland security issues and the war on terror.



Anyway, the Times is running a series on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. I'll have more, with some of my own commentary and analysis.

Rebels Bust Gaddafi's Bunker

A huge report at London's Daily Mail, "Missed him by minutes: How rebels and special forces came close to snaring Gaddafi." Also at Telegraph UK, "Libya: rebels surround apartment block 'hiding' Col Gaddafi."



Plus, at LAT, "Eww! Moammar Kadafi (hearts) Condoleezza Rice." And Memeorandum.