Showing posts with label Pentagon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pentagon. Show all posts

Friday, July 15, 2011

"Digital Sabre-Rattling," "Complex Legal and Cultural Issues," and Heat-Related Deaths

Part of the first paragraph in an op-ed makes my point pretty well:
"...The Pentagon revealed an unclassified version of its 'Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.' And despite a drumbeat of scare talk and digital sabre-rattling in Washington, the document takes a measured, reasonable approach - focusing on good network hygiene and data-sharing, rather than bombing hackers into submission...."
(Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, Wired (July 14, 2011)
I've put longer excerpts at the end of this post.1

I've also archived a copy of that unclassified document ("DoD Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace (DSOC)" (Department of Defense (July 14, 2011)), along with the text of their news release.2

"Digital Sabre-Rattling?"

I'm not sure if what the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say is part of that "drumbeat of scare talk and digital sabre-rattling in Washington" cited by Mr. Shachtman. General Cartwright's attitude certainly isn't a sort of nice, deferential, conciliatory posture toward folks who want to kill Americans.
"...'For the Department of Defense, our networks are really our lifeblood,' Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in an interview prior to Lynn's release of the new strategy....

"...'If it's OK to attack me and I'm not going to do anything other than improve my defenses every time you attack me, it's difficult' to stop that cycle, Cartwright said. 'There is no penalty for attacking (the U.S.) right now.' He added that a number of complex legal and cultural issues need to be sorted out before the Pentagon can devise a comprehensive offensive strategy.

"In response to an audience member's question after his speech, Lynn the White House could be expected to consider using military force in response to a cyberattack 'if there is massive damage, massive human losses, significant economic damage.'..."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com).3

Hack Attack: What's the Big Deal?

So far, major hack attacks on American targets have been - rather intellectual. Information has been stolen, folks have found it difficult to use a few online resources, and that's about it.

Even the personal data that's been stolen hasn't been all that serious. Sure, credit card numbers, email addresses, and financial records that were supposed to be personal, private, and not in the hands of whoever some anonymous hacker sold them to, went missing. But we're told that it's okay.

Since there apparently hasn't been a massive wave of identify theft, maybe those reassurances are true.

I certainly hope that's the case.

Sooner or later, though, someone's likely to try taking down the North American power grid. Some folks in China did a serious study of how that could be accomplished. Last year we were told that it's okay, though: the study was purely theoretical. Or maybe a big misunderstanding. Or something. That may be true. (March 20, 2010)

Major Blackout: What to Expect

Let's see what would happen if someone did decide to pull the plug on large parts of North America. Here's a sample of what we could expect:
"Stay safe during West Mich.'s heat wave"
Kyle Underwood, WOOD TV8 (July 15, 2011)

"...More Americans suffer heat-related deaths each year than from any other weather disaster. Many heat-caused fatalities are elderly folks who do not have access to air conditioning or a cooling center. Heat stroke and dehydration are also far more likely during heat waves...."
"Memphis man, 72, becomes third victim of summer heat"
Jody Callahan, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tennessee) (July 14, 2011)

"A 72-year-old man succumbed to the high temperatures Wednesday, becoming the third heat-related death so far this summer in the Memphis area, officials said today...."
"Heat blamed in five Alabama deaths since May"
Associated Press, via The Gadsden Times (July 14, 2011

"At least five deaths are being blamed on the hot weather in Alabama, and health officials said Thursday they fear the number could climb as temperatures soar...."
"Second heat-related death in St. Louis"
STLtoday.com (July 14, 2011)

"An 80-year-old woman whose air conditioner wasn't working properly became the city's second heat-related death this year, officials said Thursday...."
"With many hot days to come, suspected heat deaths hit nine"
Alan Bavley, The Kansas City Star (July 13, 2011 )

"With most of the summer still ahead, and a dangerously hot weekend in the forecast, the Kansas City area on Wednesday added another possible heat-related death, bringing the year's total to nine...."

"A Drumbeat of Scare Talk?"

I don't think that some nation, or terrorist group, will hack into the systems that maintain North America's electrical power supply: Almost certainly not today. Or even this weekend. Probably not this month. Or even this year.

Besides, six months from now, we wouldn't have to worry about not having power for air conditioners. Here in Minnesota, at least, it'd be power for heating systems that I'd be concerned about.

Maybe the power would come back on in a little less than 24 hours, like it did in the part of town where I live, after a storm went through recently. If that was the case, not many folks would die. Probably.

On the other hand, no power for days, weeks, maybe a month? During summer? Or winter? I'm pretty sure that quite a few folks would survive. Particularly those of us who are comparatively young, and healthy, and don't live in cities, and have access to basements. Or caves.

The rest of you? Well, maybe you'd survive. Or, maybe not.

Is recognizing that folks die when it gets too hot - or too cold - "a drumbeat of scare talk?" I'd say it depends on how the ideas are presented.

Me? I'm trying to point out that there really is a threat. And that some folks, like the lot that run Al Qaeda and the Taliban, don't seem to respond all that well to polite requests.

Related posts:
News and views:
1Excerpts from yesterday's news and views:
"Pentagon Makes Love, Not Cyber War, in New Strategy"
Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, Wired (July 14, 2011)

"For one day, at least, you can call off the cyberwar. The Pentagon revealed an unclassified version of its 'Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.' And despite a drumbeat of scare talk and digital sabre-rattling in Washington, the document takes a measured, reasonable approach - focusing on good network hygiene and data-sharing, rather than bombing hackers into submission.

"The question is whether this public summary conveys what's actually in the classified strategy, or reflects the real mood of the Department of Defense.

" 'DoD would like to be much more aggressive in what it says and how it acts,' says a source familiar with the development of the strategy. 'But that tendency to be aggressive has been reined in by the State Department, Treasury, and the White House, and not in an unreasonable way.'

"Listen to the talk inside the Washington Beltway - and especially within the Pentagon — and you'd think hackers were about to reach their hands through our computers, and strangle us all in our sleep....
"Pentagon Discloses Largest-Ever Cyber Theft"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (July 14, 2011)

"The Pentagon on Thursday revealed that in the spring it suffered one of its largest losses ever of sensitive data in a cyberattack by a foreign government. It's a dramatic example of why the military is pursuing a new strategy emphasizing deeper defenses of its computer networks, collaboration with private industry and new steps to stop "malicious insiders."

William Lynn, the deputy secretary of defense, said in a speech outlining the strategy that 24,000 files containing Pentagon data were stolen from a defense industry computer network in a single intrusion in March. He offered no details about what was taken but in an interview before the speech he said the Pentagon believes the attacker was a foreign government. He didn't say which nation.

"We have a pretty good idea" who did it, Lynn said the interview. He would not elaborate.

Many cyberattacks in the past have been blamed on China or Russia. One of the Pentagon's fears is that eventually a terrorist group, with less at stake than a foreign government, will acquire the ability to not only penetrate U.S. computer networks to steal data but to attack them in ways that damage U.S. defenses or even cause deaths...."
2Department of Defense News Release
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
No. 608-11
July 14, 2011

"DOD Announces First Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace

"The Department of Defense released today the DoD Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace (DSOC). It is the first DoD unified strategy for cyberspace and officially encapsulates a new way forward for DoD's military, intelligence and business operations.

"'It is critical to strengthen our cyber capabilities to address the cyber threats we're facing,' said Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta. 'I view this as an area in which we're going to confront increasing threats in the future and think we have to be better prepared to deal with the growing cyber challenges that will face the nation.'

"Reliable access to cyberspace is critical to U.S. national security, public safety and economic well-being. Cyber threats continue to grow in scope and severity on a daily basis. More than 60,000 new malicious software programs or variations are identified every day threatening our security, our economy and our citizens.

"“The cyber threats we face are urgent, sometimes uncertain and potentially devastating as adversaries constantly search for vulnerabilities,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III. 'Our infrastructure, logistics network and business systems are heavily computerized. With 15,000 networks and more than seven million computing devices, DoD continues to be a target in cyberspace for malicious activity.'

"The DoD and other governmental agencies have taken steps to anticipate, mitigate and deter these threats. Last year, DoD established U.S. Cyber Command to direct the day-to-day activities that operate and defend DoD information networks. DoD also deepened and strengthened coordination with the Department of Homeland Security to secure critical networks as evidenced by the recent DoD-DHS Memorandum of Agreement.

" 'Strong partnerships with other U.S. government departments and agencies, the private sector and foreign nations are crucial,' said Lynn. 'Our success in cyberspace depends on a robust public/private partnership. The defense of the military will matter little unless our civilian critical infrastructure is also able to withstand attacks.' "
3Longer excerpt:
"...'For the Department of Defense, our networks are really our lifeblood,' Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in an interview prior to Lynn's release of the new strategy....

"...Lynn said intrusions in the last few years have compromised some of the Pentagon's most sensitive systems, including surveillance technologies and satellite communications systems. Penetrations of defense industry networks have targeted a wide swath of military hardware, including missile tracking systems and drone aircraft, he said.

"In Cartwright's view, a largely defensive approach to the problem is inadequate. He said the Pentagon currently is focused 90 percent on defensive measures and 10 percent on offense; the balance should be the reverse, he said. For the federal government as a whole, a 50-50 split would be about right, Cartwright argued.

" 'If it's OK to attack me and I'm not going to do anything other than improve my defenses every time you attack me, it's difficult' to stop that cycle, Cartwright said. 'There is no penalty for attacking (the U.S.) right now.' He added that a number of complex legal and cultural issues need to be sorted out before the Pentagon can devise a comprehensive offensive strategy.

"In response to an audience member's question after his speech, Lynn the White House could be expected to consider using military force in response to a cyberattack 'if there is massive damage, massive human losses, significant economic damage.'..."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Pentagon's New(ish) Policy About Hack Attacks

First, the bad news: The United States is vulnerable to an attack on our information technology.

Now, the good news: It's possible to defend against a 'cyberattack.' And the American military has been working on ways of dealing with threats to our info tech.

Welcome to the 21st Century

That good news/bad news thing is from my point of view, of course.

I live in this country. I like being able to run a furnace during winter, get air conditioning now and then in the summer, and use the telephone year-round. All of which depend on a power grid and telecommunications system that rely on software and computers.

I think that the Pentagon isn't anywhere near as big a threat to me as, say, Al Qaeda. Which isn't the same as assuming brass hats can do no wrong. (June 18, 2009) The American military isn't perfect. I don't expect that of any human institution. What's remarkable about the people who defend this country is that they routinely and objectively review what's been done - then learn from their mistakes - and successes. (June 30, 2008)

Military Minds, Hackers, and Obligatory Hand-Wringing

News that an attack on America's information technology will be treated as an act of war, like any other attack, will almost certainly hit old-school news media this June.

The Wall Street Journal has already published an article about the report.1 That paper has been around since the late 19th century, so in a sense it's 'old school,' but their editors seem to have noticed that class struggles and Yankee imperialism are a trifle dated as relevant topics go. So is "relevance," for that matter - and that's another topic.

In a perfect world, the Pentagon would have noticed America's reliance on information technology - and how an attack could target that technology - years ago. For that matter, in a perfect world we wouldn't need armed forces: and nobody would have decided to fly airliners into New York City's World Trade Center.

I'd like to be wrong about this, but my guess is that we'll read some of the usual complaints:
  • Paranoid generals
  • Threats to our privacy
  • American
    • Arrogance
    • Insensitivity
    • Whatever
And, of course, how any attack on American information technology is our fault. That's probably when Stuxnet will be displayed as an example of American indifference. Or something else that's pretty much icky.

Maybe that sort of knee-jerk response has gone out of fashion. Things change, including biases among the powers that be. Sometimes change comes when the powers that be themselves get swapped out. And that's yet another topic. (May 26, 2011, March 18, 2011)

Dealing With Uncertainty

A concern that's already been raised is, I think, more reasonable: how to tell where an attack on an American information system came from.

Anything involving the Internet will be easy enough to track, in a way. A few years ago, a series of such attacks came from China. Or, rather, servers in China. March 20, 2010, February 22, 2010, October 10, 2008) The Chinese government's official line is that it wasn't them.

They could be right. I don't necessarily think so - but it is possible that whoever planned the various attacks lived in and operated out of, say, Liechtenstein. Or Kenya. Or Paraguay. Or anywhere else in the world with modestly-adequate Internet connections. Trojan horse viruses are nothing new: and a government-run server could be hijacked by one. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 3, 2010))

One thing I'm not particularly worried about is a Dr. Strangelove scenario where one (1) lunatic general - American, of course - decides to make it look like China launched yet one more hack attack on America. It could happen, of course: but I'm pretty sure that this country, at least, has learned to be a little more careful than we were back in the "remember the Maine" days.

Perfect, no. But we do, I think, learn.

Why I Believe What I Believe

As I said earlier, I like living in America.

I was born here, so there's a sort of 'this is my home' feeling involved. I've also known folks who weren't born here, and decided to pull up roots and become Americans. I know that this country isn't perfect: but it's one of the nations folks are trying to break into.

I've discussed some of the reasons I think the way I do in another blog: including posts listed in the last quintet of links under "Related posts."

Related posts:
In the news:
1 Excerpt from today's news:
"The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

"In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. 'If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,' said a military official.

"Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems - as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm-have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. ... This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.

"The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war....

"...One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of 'equivalence.' If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a 'use of force' consideration, which could merit retaliation.

"The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict - derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response - apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare.... The document goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.

"The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to 'consult together' on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to help each other respond....

"...Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.

"The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military established a new command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.

"The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack.... At the time, Pentagon officials said they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government. Russia has denied involvement.

"The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a consensus among allies about how to proceed.

" 'Act of war' is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke University law school....
(The Wall Street Journal)
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 8, 2009

Shape-Shifting Technologies: Canned Universal Spare Parts

There's some remarkable R & D going on, which could (probably will, I think) result in uniforms - and street wear - that changes with the weather, morphing robots like the shiny guy in Terminator II, and cans of goop that become whatever's needed.

More, at:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, September 11, 2008

9/11 Memorials: 2008

Seven years ago today, an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Another two hit New York City's World Trade Center towers, and a fourth dove into a field in Pennsylvania.

Today, at those three sites, people are remembering their children, spouses, parents, relatives, and acquaintances who died then.

Given the energies involved, many people were left without bodies to bury. Some victims were most likely vaporized, and New York was picking bits and pieces of others of the rooftops for years after the attack.

9/11 Memorials

For many survivors, the sites of the attack are the closest thing they have to a grave. That's part of the reason why memorials have been planned for these places.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Pentagon Refuses to Send Mail to Soldiers

And it's not the way it seems. "Holiday mail addressed to 'Any Wounded Soldier' will be returned or thrown out, Pentagon says" is the headline - and there are some pretty good reasons given.

After 9/11 and the anthrax scare, the Postal Service and the Pentagon won't deliver letters addressed to "Any Wounded Soldier" because
  • Terrorists could send toxic substances or demoralizing messages to American troops, without knowing specific soldiers
  • Peace activists and other opponents of the war could send toxic substances or demoralizing messages to American troops, without knowing specific soldiers
The USO has the same 'no name, no delivery' policy.

There are folks who'd like to send 'good job / get well' messages to wounded soldiers whose names they don't know. This is a good thing, and I admire people who want to spread good cheer.

On the other hand, there's good reason to be careful. There are people out there with very sincerely-held beliefs who would find great satisfaction in sending a message like this to some GI who has lost friends overseas, and whose current assignment is a hospital bed:

"Thank God for IEDs
God Himself Has Now Become America's Terrorist, Killing
and Maiming American Troops in Strange Lands for Fag Sins."

(I'm not making up that quote.)

There may be a way to satisfy concerns about security and decency, and still get those "to any" messages through.

The "New York Times Regional Media Group Alabama" says that "Aides to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., are offering to accept letters, screen them through the U.S. Capitol mail operation, and get them to members of the armed forces."

That sounds like a good idea. Senator Sessions' offices are set up to take email, snail mail, phone, and fax messages.

My guess is that other organizations have started matching "to any soldier" messages with specific American soldiers - or will start, now that the ban on "to any" messages is in the news again.

There's also a website, "To Our Soldiers" - I haven't researched it, but it looks like a they have a good idea.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Osama bin Laden, Superstar!

Blogger's preface:
  • I've been serious about the situation in Iraq for days.
  • Last night I read about Britney Spears' remarkable song-and-dance routine at the MTV's Video Music Awards.
  • Today, I watched Senators act as if they were doing screen tests for a contemporary Mack Sennett comedy.
I'll let you decide whether or not those phenomena had anything to do with this post.

Now, the post:

For the second time in less than a month, Sheik Osama bin Laden, one of Al Qaeda's founders, and spiritual leader of many jihadists, released an inspirational video.

Bin Laden achieved fame after the super-mega-hit performance of some of his followers six years ago today. Their attacks, on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon, were slightly marred by uncooperative passengers on Flight 93.

Perhaps in hopes of producing another smash hit soon, Sheik Osama bin Laden urges Muslim youth to join a "caravan" of martyrs, like 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri.

Bin laden shows the sort of humility so typical of megastars, by reducing his onscreen presence to a simple still photograph, possibly taken from his recent super-hit video. Bin Ladens' voice plays over the picture.

Hijacker and martyr Waleed al-Shehri, in a posthumous appearance, taped before he helped kill thousands of people, warns America that there will be more Muslims like him, bringing death and destruction to America: "We shall come at you from your front and back, your right and left."

Inspirational words!

Wouldn't it be nice, if all that energy could be channeled into something a little more productive than mass destruction? Maybe a "keep your oasis clean" campaign, or saving the Egyptian tortoise?

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 10, 2007

Six Years Ago, Tomorrow: Remembering 9/11

Six years ago tomorrow, people died when New York's World Trade Center towers collapsed. More died when the Pentagon's walls were breached by an airliner, and the passengers and crew of Flight 93 stopped terrorists from completing their mission.

Not that other countries haven't had trouble with airliners. Take Korea, for example.

In 1978, Korean Air's Flight 902 strayed into what was then Soviet airspace. Soviet air defense identified the airliner as a Boeing 747, then they shot at the airliner. Two passengers died, and the Korean pilots were forced to land on a frozen lake.

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 got too close to Soviet territory in 1983. This time everyone on board died. The airliner was shot down by the a Soviet fighter. This attack may be understandable. The fighter pilot's commanders were under the impression that it was an American spy plane.

Contrast these little misunderstandings with Flight 85, on September 11, 2001. This account takes a while to tell, but I think it's worthwhile to recount, as an example of what kind of a country America is.

By the time the Korean Air flight was approaching American airspace, American air traffic control and the U.S. military were already tense. Two hijacked airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. Another set of hijackers had rammed an airliner into the Pentagon. Passengers and crew of another airliner stopped the hijackers in their plane, but died in the process.

Air controllers in America and Canada were in the process of getting hundreds of airborne vehicles to the ground, safely, in as little time as possible.

Meanwhile, over the Pacific, Korean Air Flight 85 was headed for Anchorage, on its way to New York City. The airliner started transmitting a coded signal (HJK) which warned air traffic control that there were hijackers on board. Korean Air officials said that it was all a misunderstanding.

Downtown Anchorage was evacuated, and American fighters armed with guns and live missiles intercepted the airliner.

An extreme response? Under the circumstances, no. Not at all. There was no way of knowing how many rogue airliners were still in the air.

The sensible thing to do would have been to shoot Korean Air 85 out of the air while it was still over the Pacific.

Especially since, when asked by air traffic controllers, the Korean pilots declared themselves hijacked. That is, "they set their transponder, which transmits information about the flight to radars, to the four-digit universal code for hijacked - 7500."

Americans aren't sensible, not that way. While the airliner kept transmitting the hijacker signal, air traffic controllers, working with U.S. and Canadian military, gave the pilots maneuvering instructions, which they followed.

Despite the "7500" signal and what was going on in the eastern part of the USA, it seemed possible that there really weren't hijackers on the airliner.

US and Canadian officials decided to have the plane land at an isolated spot: Whitehorse International Airport.

The 747 crew may have been surprised at being diverted to a small town in western Canada, and more surprised when armed RCMP troopers ordered them out of the plane. They apparently didn't know that they were transmitting a hijacking warning.

With a nation under attack by hijacked airliners, an airliner whose radio was yelling "I'm hijacked!" was brought to a safe landing.

I think it's a good idea to remember realities like that, when reading words of journalistic wisdom like "There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq" (Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour "My Lai" Hersh).

Back to 9/11.

Last year, I watched the president, the first lady, and a marine place a wreath of flowers on two pools of water in what New Yorkers called The Pit.

Bagpipers played while they walked from one pool to another, and as they walked away. Notes of "Oh Beautiful for Spacious Skies" bounced off walls of The Pit.

Those pools marked the World Trade Center tower footprints in lower Manhattan. The wreath-laying was the first memorial observance I noticed that year.

Finally, here are a few quotes that I can find comforting. It looks like folks weren't any more wise, or daft, in the past than they are now.

"The outcome of the war is in our hands; the outcome of words is in the council." (Homer (800 BC - 700 BC), in The Iliad

"Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Flavius Vegetius Renatus (about 375 AD), in De Rei Militari

"The name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquility, servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death." Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC), in Philippica

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds." Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940), in a speech at Downing Street, London, after his return from making the Munich Pact. September 30, 1938

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators" Neville Chamberlain, in a speech to the House of Commons, justifying his policy. October 6, 1938

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided." Senator William Borah, (1865-1940, Idaho's Progressive Republican "Lion of Idaho"), when he heard that Hitler had invaded Poland. September of 1939
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

It's Not Both Sides: It's All Sides

In a week, it will be September 11: six years after airliners crashed into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

I may come up with something reflective and thoughtful when that date comes around, but for now I'll just take a quick run through today's headlines.

"Chinese military hacked into Pentagon" Financial Times (September 3, 2007). The Pentagon had to shut down part of its network recently. Apparently the data that was compromised wasn't particularly important. And, the attack came from computers in China. "Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the People’s Liberation Army," the London news outfit reported. "These hacking attacks go on everyday but this was a more complicated attack with more sophisticated technology that broke through the current firewalls," another news service reported. The Chinese government denies having anything to do with the Pentagon attack, and on a hack attack on German government computers earlier.

China isn't involved in the jihad against the west: or if it is, it's showing it in a very strange way. The Online Times reports that "Beijing’s 'war on terror' hides brutal crackdown on Muslims" (July 22, 2007). The article focused on the late Ismail Semed, "a Muslim and a political activist." He confessed to "attempting to split the motherland," after being encouraged with torture.

China's western holdings include Uighur Muslims, a Turkic people who would just as soon not be part of China's regime. Chinese authorities were quiet about killing unruly Uighurs until 9/11 and the "war on terror" gave them an excuse for their anti-Muslim actions.

Please note: 9/11 didn't make the Chinese government start killing Muslims. It gave them a polite excuse for doing what they'd been doing for years.

The conflicts of the early 21st century are not a simple, two-sided confrontation.
  • Fanatic Muslims are killing westerners, Muslims who aren't Islamic their way, and anyone else they don't approve of
  • China is killing Muslims who don't want to be Chinese on the Chinese government's terms
  • Russia is flying long-range bomber patrols over the Atlantic, and, according to President Putin, putting money into their aircraft industry, because "Russia ... faces the task of maintaining supremacy in producing military aircraft," according to CNN.com / World, which quoted Reuters
  • America and a coalition of other nations have attacked nations which harbor the Islamic fanatics
Whatever else can be said about today's world: it's not boring. There are at least three, probably more, major powers at work.

"Budget Cut Will Delay Anti-Missile Laser" Yahoo! Finance (September 4, 2007). A flight test of the airliner-based Airborne Laser (ABL) system last week went very well. ABL system development is running behind schedule and over budget.

A big reason for the delay and expense is that "jitter," vibration that's part of a 747's normal flight, interferes with the precision aiming needed: and is harder to deal with than expected.

The Senate and House Armed Services committees, acting with the responsibility and wisdom that we've come to expect, cut the president's proposed fiscal 2008 ABL budget of $549 million. So far, the House Armed Services committee wants to cut the budget by $250 million. The Senate Armed Services Committee wants to cut $200 million from the ABL program.

With any luck, nobody will try to shoot down an American airliner until the system is finally ready. What astonishes me about the congressional decision is that those people often use civilian airliners themselves. You'd think that they'd be more concerned about airplanes blowing up with people inside, when they could be some of the people.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Peace, Hope, and Jihadists With Nuclear Bombs

The Times Online is running an article headlined "Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran" today.

Following good, journalistic, reverse-pyramid format, the gist of the article is in the first paragraph, "The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days, according to a national security expert."

The national security expert is Alexis Debat, who spoke a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal.

Debat told the UK newspaper that US military planners had decided: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." Debate added that it was a "very legitimate strategic calculus."

I don't know how mainstream media is handling this yet, but parts of the blogosphere are reacting predictably. Free Republic's post on the article drew comments from the silly
  • "Oh, Yeah? Well, I’m formulating my TWO-day plan!"
  • "Its disinformation. The plan will take one day."
to the thoughtful
  • "An alternative to direct military action would be to continue with the embargoes and keep up the political pressure. I would also encourage the smuggling of electronic communication devices like internet capable laptops into Iran. By educating the youth, who do not remember the cruelty of the Shah, only the cruelty of the Ayatollah, the stage will be set for a new revolution."
  • "Airstrikes like these would be too good to be true; therefore, this story is probably just psy-ops. Especially since the source is identified. If it were an anonymous source, like those that the NY Slimes relies on, I’d give it more credibility."
(I said thoughtful, not polite!)

On the other hand, there's yesterday's post in a rather carefully anonymous blog called:

"Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq (The Obsessive Compulsive's Guide to the Middle East)"

"While the Middle East takes a licking, we keep on ticking: Al Bintein Mudawenetein"

This blog's September 1, 2007 post title is "9/1/07 Meanwhile in the U.S. -- documenting another day of crimes by the American regime.," by "Catholic Sunni Shia." It's a collection of headlines with blurbs . The bomb-Iran headline is in bold. The headlines:
  • "Marine killed five unarmed Iraqi men"
  • "Marine tells of order to execute Haditha women and children"
  • "U.S. Military Censors ThinkProgress"
  • "Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog'"
  • "As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Legacy"
  • "New McCain Push on War, His Candidacy"
  • "UPI Poll: U.S. energy source less secure"
  • "Civilian prisons coming soon to U.S. Army base near you"
  • "Victims of National Security Injustice, The Tragic Ordeal of the Cuban Five"
  • "Wives of Saudi militancy suspects want public trial"
  • "Pentagon 'Three-Day Blitz' Plan For Iran"
  • "USA equipping a private army in preparation for an invasion of Venezuela"
  • "'They wanted them poor niggers out of there.'" (don't blame me: that's what was in the post)
That reminds me of my seventies college experience: and the eighties one, too.

(I did a little checking, and found that "Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq etc." seems to have used a Duluth, Minnesota-based service: Do a "who is" request for inblogs.net, if you're curious. InBlog's purported purpose is to address blogosphere censorship: "Is your blog blocked in India, Pakistan, Iran or China? If Yes then you can still access your blog anytime using inblogs free Blog Gateway." - That's a whole different topic.)

So What?

As usual, I'd appreciate it if people would think before they wrote. (I'd also like a million dollars, tax-free, but that's not going to happen, either.)

More to the point, I'd be dismayed if the Pentagon planners didn't have contingency plans for obliterating the Iranian military.

I'd also be dismayed to discover that they hadn't planned for re-taking San Diego after its capture by hostile forces, and any number of other more-or-less probable scenarios.
  • That's what they're supposed to do
  • That's what any responsible military organization is supposed to do
  • Just because a plan exists, doesn't mean its going to be executed
Unhappily, right now Iran has a nuclear program. The only assurance that it isn't being used to produce usable nuclear weapons is the word of the religious fanatics who run Iran.

Personally, I'd rather have some options other than hoping that the Iranian leaders are more reasonable, open-minded, and tolerant than they were back in 1979, when they broke into the American embassy in Tehran, and held hostages for 444 days.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Congress Must Decide Who to Protect Americans From

I've heard that this week's temporary update of the FISA bill is carefully worded to guard against law enforcement listening in on Americans who may be involved with plans that organizations like al Qaeda have for killing other Americans.

I suppose I should be glad that our representatives in Washington are working hard to protect our rights. But in cases like this, I'm concerned that many of them don't know what's been happening during the last few years ((From Newsmax.com and BBC.) ):
  • 1972, September 5, Munich Olympic Games. Palestinian terrorists kill 11 Israeli athletes.
  • 1979, November 4, Teheran. Ayatollah Khomeini supporters take over U.S. embassy. Fifty-three U.S. diplomats held hostage until 1981.
  • 1983, April 18, Beirut. Islamic Jihad truck bomb hits U.S. Embassy. 63 dead.
  • 1983, October 23, Beirut. Hezbollah truck bomb hits U.S. Marines barracks. 241 dead.
  • 1984, December 4, Kuwait Airlines. Hijackers divert flight 221 to Tehran. 2 dead.
  • 1985, June 14, TWA flight. Hijackers divert flight 847 to Beirut. 1 dead (U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, dumped on the airport tarmac).
  • 1985, October 7, cruise ship Achille Lauro. 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair dumped overboard.
  • 1987, September 5, Pan Am. Abu Nidal hijacks flight 73 in Pakistan. 20 dead.
  • 1988, December 21, Pan Am. Libyan terrorists allegedly blow up flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, 259 dead.
  • 1990, November 5, New York City. A group including Ramzi Yousef kills Jewish Defense League leader Rabbi Meir Kahane
  • 1994, March 1, Brooklyn. Rashid Bas attacks a van transporting yeshiva students. 1 dead.
  • 1996, June 25, Dhahran area, Saudi Arabia. Unknown persons hit Khobar Towers with truck-bomb. 19 dead.
  • 1998, August 7, Kenya, Tanzania. Unknown persons hit U.S. embassies with car bombls. 291 dead.
  • 1993, February 26, New York. An al-Qaeda-financed group including Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj, hit the Twin Towers with car bomb. 6 dead. "The blind sheik," Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, masterminded the bombing.
  • 2000, October 12, Yemen. Al-Qaeda may be responsible for attack on USS Cole. 17 dead.
  • 2001, September 11, New York City; Arlington County; Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Al-Qaeda affiliates hijack airliners, destroy Twin Towers, damage Pentagon. Fourth airliner brought down in Somerset County field. 2,974 dead.
I'm no accredited expert in international affairs, but I see a pattern here.

I do not believe that foreigners are trying to kill Americans. I believe that Islamic fanatics are trying to kill Americans.

Some of those fanatics are Americans.

Adam Pearlman was born in 1978 and raised on a goat farm in Orange County. His Jewish father converted to Christianity, changing the family name to Gadahn at the same time.

Apparently Adam turned to Islam in his teens, after an enthusiasm for heavy metal. Then he discovered al Qaeda, moved to Pakistan, and Adam Pearl / Adam Gadahn sometimes calls himself Azzam al-Amriki (Adam the American), now that he's an al Qaeda spokesman.

He's featured in an al Qaeda video released today. "We shall continue to target you, at home and abroad, just as you target us, at home and abroad, and these spy dens and military command and control centers from which you plotted your aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq," this American said.

We can't count on all American Muslims who decide to become jihadists to be as obliging as Mr. Gadahn, making his new affiliation so obvious. Some may stay right here in the USA, unobtrusively working on the next big attack.

Personally, I'm not as concerned about people who have sworn to serve and protect as I am about people who have sworn to destroy and kill.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 20, 2007

Senators, Secrets, and Sides: Loose Lips and Politics

The fuss over a New York Senator's request for details of the Pentagon's Iraq withdrawal plans is still in the news, and probably will be for quite a while. Senator Clinton even offered to have the troop deployment plans handed over in a secret meeting.

So far, the Pentagon hasn't cooperated.

Members of Congress playing politics with national security is nothing new. Unhappily, Members of Congress having trouble at keeping secrets is nothing new, too. Other people's secrets, anyway.

Back in the 80s, a senator from Vermont earned the title "Leaky" Leahy, and was forced to resign from his Intelligence Committee post: just because he released classified information during that little Achille Lauro misunderstanding.

Senator Rockefeller, of West Virginia, kept his family name in the forefront of public affairs when he announced the existence of a secret spy program, back in 2004 ("Lawmaker Says Mystery Spy Project 'Dangerous To National Security'," 12/9/04, AP, Katherine Pfleger Shrader). By implication, he was referring to national security of the USA.

What makes this quarrel interesting is a Pentagon aide who charged that the Senator's questions about Iraq withdrawal planning would help the enemy.

A spokesman for the senator said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."

For once, I'm in agreement with something coming out of the New York Senator's office.

I do believe that this quarrel over letting a Senator get classified information is political, on both sides, at least in one sense of the word.

The New York Senator, in addition to a Congressional duty to examine information, has a reasonable interest in appearing active and concerned in national and international affairs. As a presidential candidate, she'd be foolish not to do what she can to 'look presidential.'

The Pentagon has a sort of political interest in plans for troop movement. This nation's military leaders, perhaps understandably, not only want to keep as many American soldiers from being killed as possible, but are required to maintain the existing power structure in the United States of America.

"Political" has been defined as being "of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power." In this country, the "social relationships involving authority or power" involve a government which is run along the lines of a constitution which, among other things, guarantees the right to discuss matters involving national policy.

By this definition, the Pentagon's efforts to protect the United States of America and its government institutions is "political."

The Pentagon is clearly on the side of those who would prefer to keep the system we have, where people are allowed to disagree with those in power, and engage in debates without the approval of their leaders.

People involved in organizations like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Army of Islam sincerely believe that a free and open society like ours is utterly unacceptable, and must be wiped from the face of the earth.

I'm not quite sure where some of our leaders stand, judging from their track records of releasing classified information: information that would most likely hurt the United States and help those who prefer a more orderly and culturally unified society.

Geoff Metcalf's 2005 column, Congressional Intelligence Leaks, takes a rather colorful look at Capitol Hill's leaky minds.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 19, 2007

U.S. Senator Helps Propaganda: But Not Ours

Or, With Friends Like These ...

The headline is, under the circumstances, mild: DoD rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq questions. The first sentence of the article is carries a rather more appropriate tone. "The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda."

Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman was responding to New York Senator Clinton's statements in May, that the Pentagon had better hurry up and plan how to get out of Iraq.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

Politicos broadcasting sensitive, even secret, information in wartime isn't new. At least not for the War on Terror.

Back in 2002, another Senator exercised his right to free speech, apparently without exercising his brain. Sen. Shelby the subject of probe on 9/11 intelligence leak (the Alabama Senator was a probable source of a "leak of highly classified intelligence related to al-Qaida communications in June 2002, primarily to CNN." The leak let al Qaeda know that one of their communications channels had been compromised, and that which two of their code words needed to be changed.

I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on members of the Senate. It must be difficult to keep track of what facts can be used to attract attention and get re-elected, and which, if broadcast, could kill American soldiers. Or even American Senators, if al Qaeda or a wannabe decides to take a whack at hitting the capitol again.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Iraq, Congress, and the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report

Or, Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Or, There's Nothing so Lovely as Surrender in April.

As usual, Iraq is in the news.

According to what I read in the news, the Malachi government in Iraq got a "satisfactory" rating on only 8 of 18 "benchmarks", mixed reviews for 2 more, and for the 8 remaining, in an interim report: the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report.

The report I read had a different count:
  • 9 benchmarks met: (i), (iv), (viii), (ix), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi), (xvii)
  • 7 benchmarks not met: (ii),(iii), (vii), (x), (xi), (xv), (xviii)
  • 2 benchmarks with a mixture of achieved and unachieved goals: (v), (vi).)
Here's the report, in pdf and html format, from the White House.

The current administration, trying to help leaders in Iraq set up a working government after over 30 years of a selfish tyrant's mismanagement, decided to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. These soldiers were going to wage war on al Qaeda in Iraq, and anyone else who wanted to overthrow or disrupt the Iraqi government.

This has been called a "troop surge." Actually, the current strategy is called "the New Way Forward."

The last deployment of the U.S. troops involved in the "surge" arrived in Iraq just a few weeks ago.

According to the White House report, this "strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror."

There's already progress. Limited progress, but progress.

The report says, "Tough fighting should be expected through the summer as Coalition and Iraqi Forces seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions for longer-term stabilization. These combined operations -- named Operation Phantom Thunder -- were launched on June 15, 2007, after the total complement of surge forces arrived in Iraq. The full surge in this respect has only just begun."

With a three-week-old major offensive showing limited progress, together with efforts at political reconciliation at the national, provincial, and local level, Iraq has a chance at getting a working government. A good chance, according to the White House.

Faced with the imminent threat of military and political success in Iraq, the United States House of Representatives acted with a decisiveness seldom seen on Capitol Hill.

A headline in the Washington Post says it well: House passes bill to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The measure, which passed a few hours ago, would have the Pentagon start withdrawing troops within four months, with all but a token force of 10,000 out of Iraq by April 1 of next year. The skeleton crew left behind would "train Iraqi soldiers, conduct counter-terrorism operations and protect U.S. diplomats."

al Qaeda and all the others who don't like U.S. efforts to help Iraq have been reassured by the House of Representatives. If they hunker down and survive until April of next year, they can enjoy a victory that will make the evacuation of Saigon, back in 1975, look like a tea party. Come to think of it, Saigon fell in late April, 1975, roughly April 27-30.

About the slow political progress in Iraq, the report says that there is "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq."

In other words, the Iraqis who are trying to put their country back together were worried that U.S. political leaders would do exactly what they did do.

The House of Representatives' notion of peacemaking goes to the Senate next. What they'll do, with 2008 elections coming up, is anyone's guess.

I sincerely hope that this nation's leaders are not putting polls and their own campaign plans above the good of the people who live in this country.

Whatever Congress decides, and whatever their motives, the odds are that they'll get to have their elections in 2008. November is only 7 months after April.

*-*-*-*-*

My academic and business experience has taught me that it's best to read original documents: not what someone says the original documents say. The only place, aside from the White House website, that I found a link to the White House report was the Fox Newsarticle.

Here's my summary of what the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" of July 12, 2007, says about the benchmarks.

The report itself is useful, if somewhat tedious, reading. (Available at the White House site, in pdf and html format).

  • (i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.
    * unsatisfactory

  • (iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
    * unsatisfactory, but it is too early to tell whether the Government of Iraq will enact and implement legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all Iraqis.

  • (iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
    * Multiple components to this benchmark, each deserving its own assessment:

    • Establishing the IHEC Commission:
      * satisfactory progress

    • Elections Law:
      * unsatisfactory progress

    • Provincial Council Authorities:
      * unsatisfactory progress

    • Provincial Elections Date:
      * unsatisfactory progress

  • (vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
    * hard to say -- prerequisites for a successful general amnesty are not present; however, in the current security environment, it is not clear that such action should be a near-term Iraqi goal

  • (vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.
    * prerequisites ... are not present.

  • (viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
    * unsatisfactory progress

  • (xi) Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
    * unsatisfactory progress

  • (xii) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying, "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
    * satisfactory progress

  • (xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.
    * unsatisfactory progress

  • (xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
    * satisfactory progress

  • (xviii) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.
    * unsatisfactory progress
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.