Thoughts on Paris - From Someone Who Remembers Pearl Harbor

My Dad was old enough to remember Pearl Harbor and its effect on this nation.  After the Paris atrocities, he said some things that seem like such common sense, but in an age of uncommon stupidity, they need to be said.

From Pops:

My wife had just read The Fall of Japan and we were having a discussion with Dean about our feeling over the dropping of the bomb.  I told him that the number of people killed at Hiroshima meant nothing to us [Americans].  Our only thoughts were a giant sigh of relief and “its over, we won’t be getting any more telegrams.”  Those telegrams always started, “We regret to inform you that your son has been killed ...”  Each telegram sent a shock wave of grief through our community. 

Pearl Harbor was vivid in our memories and I think there was a feeling of “you finally got what you asked for,” though I never heard it expressed exactly that way.  The remembrance of the announcement of Pearl Harbor is still vivid in my mind 76 years later.  On that day, our family was going to a funeral in Fremont and the newsboys on the corners were shouting the news.  As a boy, I didn’t really know what it was all about but there was still a feeling in my mind of “We’ll get you guys for this.” 

Several years ago I heard a commentator pontificating on the use of the atom bomb on the Japanese.  It may have been Mike Wallace.  He said that the number killed at Hiroshima shocked the American consciences and is etched on our psyche to this day.  I could only think, “Fella, you weren’t there for Pearl Harbor or the telegrams.  You never felt the pain.” 

What brings this up now is that the attacks on Paris is their Pearl Harbor.  Their feeling and those of much of the rest of the world must be no different from ours on that Sunday in December.  I don’t think the number of ISIS killed in retaliation will grieve any Frenchman or leave a mark on their psyche.  I was glad to see our president declare war on Japan.  I wonder how long it will be before our media and our leaders realize that we are in a war and it must be treated as such.  Will it take a Paris in America to wake them up?

Killng Americans Overseas in The War on Terror

The drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, U.S. citizen and likely traitor, caused me concern due to the legal issues involved. I believe there are circumstances under which U.S. citizens may legally be killed in combat operations. But just as I criticized Bush for asserting executive authority for wiretapping and Gitmo trials; I don't give this administration a free pass on killing Americans just because it's part of the war on terror.

The probable legal justification for the killing is that it is part of the war on terror and these Americans had participated in armed conflict against the United States. I say probable, because the administration isn't saying. The use of force appears to be authorized as part of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq section 3.b.2:

acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

I quote this section because it was passed after the initial joint resolution regarding the war on terror. So is this the justification the White House is using to authorize the killing al-Awlaki?

No, because perhaps more problematic than the killings themselves, is the lack of transparency over the legal reasoning behind the decision. Supposedly a secret DOJ memo exists that provides legal cover for the decision, but no one is releasing it. Imagine that, Eric Holder not being forthcoming. Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic makes a good case that the lack of transparency is unacceptable in a constitutional republic.

What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

In a nation dedicated to the rule of law, a discussion of the legal issues are needed. There are some questions about whether al-Awlaki was a combatant, does merely encouraging others count? Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason after World War II, but there was a trial. I also question the use of CIA operated drones to prosecute the war on terror. How are they different from unlawful combatants, as we termed the al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan? They are not members of the military, customary international law forbids the use of civilians in armed conflict, so that they may be protected. A real discussion of these issues is needed, because we need to actually conduct combat operations within the Law of Armed Conflict and appear to do so as well. It is in our national interest that we be the strongest upholders of the rule of law in the world.

Ultimately, I think the Congress erred in giving the President open ended war powers to prosecute a world wide war on terror. In effect, the President can authorize drone strikes anywhere in the world if he "determines" that the target was involved in terror attacks directed against the United States. The only check on this power is that of public opinion and the Congress' eventually getting around to de-funding the operation. That is a pretty weak check in our constitutional republic. I think the President is narrowly within the letter of the law, here, but the law is a poor one. The Congress needs to declare the war on terror to be limited both in time and location to check the power of the Presidency to wage war. Further, a full legal debate about the means of prosecuting the war on terror is needed. Strong support for the rule of law is a conservative principle, but I don't see many conservatives asking these kinds of questions.

Meanwhile we continue with the irony of Obama looking very Bush-like in the use of state secrecy laws to shield inquiry into the legality of the administration's actions in the war on terror. What incongruity will we next face, perhaps anti-Wall Street protests supporting an administration filled with bankers and financiers?

War of Terror Continues - Even if Some Are In Denial

The attempted bombing of a Northwest flight bound for Detroit reminds us that even if we are no longer pursuing a "war on terror," that war is pursuing us. The terrorists are going to look for ever more ingenious methods to attack civilian targets with suicide bombers, that much is clear. But it is disturbing that the attacker was on a known terror suspect watch list for two years. I suppose the airlines will step up their efforts to further humiliate the traveling public in the name of security, when in fact the suspected terrorist was already a suspected terrorist.

My utmost sincere admiration goes out to Jasper Schuringa who reacted quickly to put out the fire and subdue the suspect which prevented an explosion. The last three attempts at terrorism on U.S. airline flights have been thwarted by passengers, not law enforcement. How and why this is true eludes me, but I welcome your suggestions. Here is the list with links:

• United Flight 93.
• American Airlines Flight 63.
• Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

I heard on the news that new rules will be imposed restricting passengers from leaving their seats the last hour of the flight, but given that passengers are the one's preventing terrorist attacks, is that wise?

Evidence That We Are Winning...

...against the al-Qaeda brand of Islamofascism, at least.

I have so jumped the shark... Hey, is this mic live?

First, we have Osama bin Laden's annual diatribe timed to be released around 9-11. Some things to note; bin Laden is starting to seem like those 60's radicals "always reliving the day" (think Al Sharpton) because he hasn't really done much since. Also notable, Osama makes no threats of impending attacks, unlike past years. I believe this is because his threats are no longer viewed as credible. He spends considerable time justifying the 9-11 attacks, an odd choice of emphasis, unless, he is no longer relevant and wishes to remind the world of his one great triumph. (Yes I am aware of the Madrid and London attacks, but they were an order of magnitude smaller.) There are no new images of bin Laden either, evidence of technical or security difficulties.

Suspect in 2002 Kenya Hotel Truck Bombing

Next, from the WSJ:

A U.S. official said forces from the Joint Special Operations Command were involved in the attack on Kenyan-born Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who is suspected of building the truck bomb that killed 15 people at a Kenyan hotel in 2002, as well as involvement in a simultaneous, botched missile launch at an Israeli airliner.

The operation was far too sophisticated for the Somalis to have carried out, but no official confirmation that it was a U.S. effort. The part I liked best? After the attack, the helicopter circles back to retrieve the body for positive identification.


Finally, closer to home, in Queens:

New York City police and the FBI raided homes in the borough of Queens early on Monday as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism, focusing on one man who has been under surveillance, officials said.

Glad to see law enforcement on the job taking things seriously, even if no one else seems to be. The raid occurred after a known al Qaedas were seen visiting the two apartments, one of which was occupied by five Afghan men. Although there appears to have been no imminent danger, that's the way I like it. Find them before they can even start to carry out their evil plans.

I have criticized the Bush administration for some of the extra-legal methods it chose to use in prosecuting the fight against Islamofascism, but I never doubted the professionalism of those on the front lines of law enforcement and the military, just trying to get the job done.

The "War on Terror" 8 Years On

It has been 8 years since America was attacked by al-Qaeda. So how goes the war on terror? I never liked the term, but not necessarily for the reasons put forward by the Obama administration. When the government starts a war on some nebulous enemy, it is always interminable and we never seem to win. Think "war on drugs" or "war on poverty." Let me be clear, to borrow a phrase, I want America to win, because our enemies embody the very antithesis what our masthead states. They seek to impose tyranny and injustice around the world.

The war on terror is actually a war against a particular brand of Islamic extremism. Because it is characterized by paranoia, unreasonging hatred of Jews and a disdain for democracy, combined with a faux religiosity, I see no better term than Islamofascism. The main fronts in this war are Iraq and Afghanistan, but the war is world wide, because al Qaeda and its ilk operate through out the world.

In Afghanistan, it is a hard slog. I am not so expert as to say whether we are winning or losing. Afghanistan has never had a strong central government, but it has had periods of peace where the tribal leaders held the country together under a loose monarchy. I say this because some Democrats are calling for us to quit Afghanistan, including chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin. Many parallels to Vietnam certainly exist, but Afghanistan is no Vietnam. The problem of course is the haven it provided and still provides to al Qaeda. My real concern would be the dropping support for the war would lead to withdrawal of troops. I think Afghanistan can be won, but we must help the central government put together tribal alliances that will hold and thus isolate the Taliban. Carl von Clausewitz once famously wrote "War is the continuation of politics by other means." The question was rhetorical, and he did not fully believe it, but made the point that war and political ends are inextricably linked. In Afghanistan, both are necessary for victory, and the same can be said of Iraq.

In Iraq, the Americans, after creating pre-conditions for stability, have seemingly quit the battlefield. This probably serves the interests of the Iraqi central government for the moment. However, it remains to be seen if the uptick in violence, including the August 19 truck bombing, that seemed partly the work of traitors, is related to the reduced presence of U.S. troops. Continued violence will prevent the building of a civic society in Iraq that is needed to make it a model for that part of the world. Obama seems intent on withdrawing from Iraq, but again, we have not been able to get politics and war fighting to operate together effectively. I fear that the good work of the surge will be undone by Iraqi politics, allowing extremism to continue wreak havoc.

Obama seems not very concerned about all of this, preferring to concentrate on his health care debacle. He seems to be voting "present" as commander-in-chief, not articulating a clear strategy to deal with deteriorating situations. He better start paying attention, Americans seldom elect Presidents primarily because of foreign policy, but foreign affairs can undo the Presidency.