Defining the Darkness.7

No source for this thought on terrorism.  But it was said during the campaign that terrorist groups like ISIL would be ecstatic to see Trump win.  His xenophobic and specifically anti-Islamic rhetoric and possible actions are exactly the recruiting image of America these groups sell.

Perhaps they'll let the new administration show its cards first.  But eventually--and maybe sooner rather than later-- I expect maximum effort to pull off a major terrorist attack on a US target.

This will drive Trump to either fulminations of frustration but little more than Twitter rage, or (I'm sure they are hoping) a rash act, possibly involving nuclear weapons, and/or committing the US to extended and large-scale warfare.

It may be that the Obama administration has destroyed enough of the ISIL leadership and structure to make this much less likely.  ISIL etc. may be limited for awhile to taking credit for individual acts.  But their recruiting is likely to become more successful.  Active terrorism and whatever that provokes seems likely to be part of the darkness ahead.

It's Mass Murder, but Is It Terrorism?

The wanton killing of more than 80 people in Nice, France immediately set off American politicians, especially Trump, Gingrich and co. but including Hillary Clinton.  They all exploded with plans to go at terrorists, and (in the GOPers case) Muslim terrorists even harder.

Now facts are starting to emerge about the 31 year old man who drove that truck through a holiday crowd.  He was Tunisian, with no known ties to any terrorist group or even much in the way of ties to Islam.

He carried with him in the truck a number of fake weapons and fake explosives, along with real guns.  He has a police record for theft and violence, and according to his father had mental health problems, and struck out violently at anything in sight.  Some of his neighbors said he was hostile and were afraid of him.

His crimes are unimaginably horrible.  In addition to the 84 deaths he caused so far, he injured more than 200, with 52 people still in critical condition, and a reported 25 in coma.

What this appears to be so far is not an act of Islamic terrorism, and perhaps in an effective sense, not of terrorism at all.  The object of terrorism is to cause terror for political gain, or as vengeance for a cause.  What this appears to be is mass murder by a deranged man.  The only "warning sign" anybody has come up with is a characteristic he has in common with other mass murderers--violence against women.

More information may yet yield a tie to terrorist organizations or a terrorist motive, but so far there is none known.  Yet this attack is a pretext for Trump to say as President he will declare war on ISIS.  The multiple problems with taking this literally must occur to junior high school civics students, or they would have in the pre-Pokemon-go era.  He cannot declare war on anybody, the Congress does that, and they can declare war on a country, but not on an organization or even the loose description of acts, such as terrorism.

It's a potent metaphor, declaring war, so just about everybody talks about their war on terrorism, including the president of France.  What the president of France ought to be considering is a way to put up barriers to prevent huge trucks from running through crowds at public events, regardless of the driver's ideology.  It seems entirely possible to me that this mass murderer had no symbolic intention in attacking on Bastille Day--he may simply have seen it as a big crowd opportunity, or even a big crowd of French if he had grievances against the government or the business bosses, etc.

He may well have copied terrorist attacks that involved mass murder, but I'm not sure that makes this terrorism in a way that justifies these responses.  Maybe his rationale was ethnic or racial even, though we may never know.  It may fit the working definition of a hate crime, and it is hard to imagine that hate wasn't involved. But the reaction so far from politicians leaping to conclusions and furthering the panic in populations over terrorism is unseemly at best.  And at worst it could lead to some very bad political choices.

An American Tragedy

In the wake of the mass killings in Orlando and the twisted response by Donald Trump, President Obama's widely quoted remarks on Tuesday were sometimes characterized as a tirade.

But those impassioned words were a fraction of what he said, and came at the end of a report on a National Security Council meeting on the progress of counter-ISIL efforts.  The meeting had long been on the schedule, but as President Obama said, inevitably the available information on the Orlando shootings dominated the discussion.

No current information suggests that the American-born shooter was directed by any foreign group, though he was apparently familiar with the ideology of ISIL and other terrorist organizations principally from Internet sites.  This comports with the information news media are reporting, of a very tangled state of affair with this particular man.

The full remarks (transcript here; video here) catalog efforts, many of them successful, to destroy ISIL where it lives.  But ISIL prospers from the sense of oppression, and President Obama was justifiably angry with Trump's policies that would oppress Muslim Americans as well as deny immigration on the basis of a religion--enacting precisely the policies that ISIL could use as evidence of oppression, to stir many new converts.  (This was his focus, rather than Trump's less that subtle implication that the President is an ISIL sympathizer if not co-conspirator.)  Hillary Clinton in Pittsburgh made similar points in her direct refutation of Trump's speech (I haven't read it, but here's the Times report.)

Trump, very Republican-like, needs everyone not to know the strenuous efforts the Obama administration has made and its many successes in weakening ISIL, or else his implications would appear ridiculous.  Their charges insult not only Obama but the entire US national security apparatus, our armed forces and our global allies.

As for mass shootings that include those perpetrated by self-styled political terrorists,  there is something that can be done to substantially reduce the risk of these events.  It's something supported by police and military leaders.  From President Obama's statement:

"Enough talking about being tough on terrorism. Actually be tough on terrorism, and stop making it easy as possible for terrorists to buy assault weapons. Reinstate the assault weapons ban. Make it harder for terrorists to use these weapons to kill us. Otherwise, despite extraordinary efforts across our government by local law enforcement, by our intelligence agencies, by our military, despite all the sacrifices that folks make, these kinds of events are going to keep on happening. And the weapons are only going to get more powerful."

Whether the potential perpetrator is a political terrorist or a person with heavy psychological problems or both, reducing easy access to weapons that one person can use to kill and severely wound 100 people in minutes is an obvious and fairly simple move.  As was painfully obvious in President Obama's first statement on the Orlando gun slaughter, the continuing failure to do this continues to be an American tragedy.

Where the Terror is

Another horrible terrorist attack in Europe, and another round of panic from American media and politicians.  Trump wants to seal the borders and resume torture, Cruz wants to occupy American "Muslim neighborhoods."  Nobody seems worried about American toddlers, who killed more people last year than terrorists did.

No--Trump can dribble uninformed nonsense about fighting terrorism (according to the pros), after unveiling his set of foreign policy experts that no actual foreign policy experts have ever heard of.

Meanwhile, as Jonathan Chiat explains, Cruz's remedies will create the conditions in the U.S. (where Muslims are mostly assimilated) that pertain in Europe (where Muslims are segregated) and give us the terrorist problems they have: "In Europe, ethnically homogenous Christian populations have been unable to assimilate immigrant populations, with disastrous results. The Republican Party now appears doctrinally bound to replicate that failure."

But what about those toddler terrorists?  How do we get weapons out of their dangerous hands?  Don't ask the National Rifle Association, and its frothing at the mouth opposition to any gun regulation.  It is too busy vetoing a Supreme Court nominee.  In this crazy atmosphere, that one seems to have largely gotten a pass, but it shouldn't: the Senate majority leader said on Sunday that a Justice to the Supreme Court can't be confirmed because the NRA opposes him.  Gee, I missed that part of the Constitution, where the Senate cedes its responsibility to advise and consent to a organization representing gun makers.

I am not terrorized by ISIS. They're evil and hateful, but I have more chance of being hit by lightning (and we had a hell of a lightning storm last night) or shot by a toddler than hit by a suicide bomber.  But these guys, these Republicans, they terrorize me.

I'm not alone. Donald Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate since the former head of the Ku Klux Klan says the Fix headline in the Washington Post.  He is viewed unfavorably by two thirds of the American public, with more than half registering extreme disapproval.

A study of a North Carolina Senate race suggests the Republican incumbent loses 26 percentage points--and his seat--if he endorses Trump.  But it's not just Trump.  That Senate majority leader McConnell is viewed favorably by just 15%---in his home state.  Some 60% of Republican primary voters say they are embarrassed by their own candidates and their campaign.  Hillary is not winning any popularity contests, but an overwhelming proportion of Democrats would be happy with her as President.

Trump's weekend session with the Washington Post proved once again that he is ignorant and unequipped for any national office--nobody with his lack of qualifications (he makes Sarah Palin look like an expert) has gotten this close to the presidency in at least a century. Trump and Cruz are counting on panic over terrorism to deprive voters of their sanity.  Trump thinks it worked for him last time, after Paris.  We'll see if it works now.  A terrifying thought all right.

Leading From Within

"The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power."

“Let’s make sure we never forget what make us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear.”

President Obama
Address to the Nation
(The White House transcript isn't working at the moment--here it is at Buzzfeed.)

Can we repel a threat without becoming a mirror image of our enemy?  It isn't done very often.  But President Obama is determined that it will be, this time.

President Obama's strategy to "destroy ISIL" is not a political position--it is an operational strategy that has the support of those who carry it out--both U.S. agencies and crucial international partners:

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.

As the sitting President since 2009, Obama's success consists largely of what hasn't happened--all the plots and plans that were stopped, that Americans know nothing about.  They know only what terrorists were able to do.  Even the announced disruptions and terrorist leaders killed disappear from memory when any kind of attack is somewhat successful.

President Obama also called out Congress, urging them to deny guns to individuals on the terrorist no-fly list, to end access to assault weapons (which the New York Times again called for in a front page editorial) and to authorize use of force against ISIL--which many will be surprised that Congress has failed to do.  That's because Congressional Republicans are more interested in partisan politics than actual national security.  They complain that Obama isn't doing enough, and they oppose anything he proposes to do.  In part because of the factors outlined in the previous paragraph, they sometimes get away with it.

He refused the usual political expediency of invasion--the political response to fear, and to the opportunism of those who profit by the blood of others.

President Obama spent a fair amount of time in the address countering the danger of xenophobia and prejudice against Muslims that the GOPer leaders are trying to foment.  Fortunately, the first poll after San Bernadino showed no immediate jump in prejudice against Muslim Americans.  And the shout by a witness to the perpetrator of the more recent terrorist knife attack in London has become an international rallying cry : You ain't no Muslim bruv!

But ISIL isn't the only terrorist threat, as President Obama recognized.  There are the many Americans slaughtered by gunfire, by a lone gunman with semi-automatic weapons whose motives are personal, if they can be called motives.  And there are domestic terrorists with assault weapons and other weapons.  As the New York Times noted:

Indeed, the death toll from jihadist terrorism in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — 45 people — is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies, according to New America, a research organization in Washington.

No spies or law enforcement agencies can prevent the kind of attack that happened in San Bernadino, if these weapons of mass destruction are easily available, and tracking large purchases or investigating them is difficult if not impossible because that's the way the NRA and its lackeys want it to be.

War on Everyone

ISIL planted a bomb on a Russian civilian airliner, killing everyone aboard, which Russia finally acknowledged this week.  ISIL was behind the gun and bomb attacks in Paris that killed 129 and injured hundreds.  On Wednesday, ISIL bragged about bringing down the Russian airliner, threatened the U.S. including New York (as they had previously threatened Washington), and beheaded two hostages, one Norwegian and the other Chinese.

So ISIL has very quickly made direct enemies of France and Russia, and now China, and threatened the U.S.  France has declared war on ISIL, though perhaps not formally yet.  Russia has vowed vengeance, and now so has China. 

This kind of thing didn't happen in the 20th century or even earlier in this century. Before this, even a terrorist group would try to play off one major power against another, or divide them in some way, or at least seek an ally willing to provide funds, arms and safe havens to befuddle their adversaries, or just their competition.

ISIL is not doing that. Already the enemy of a number of countries in the Middle East, ISIL seems to be waging war on the nation state itself.  If not the concept, then the nation states as currently organized.  But for all intents and purposes: the nation state.

This takes what has been dubbed asymmetric warfare to its logical conclusion.  ISIL's most potent symbol so far is the soda can bomb which it claims brought down the Russian airliner.

Meanwhile, the President of France is declaring total war, vowing to eradicate ISIL.  But reports so far suggest that France's only international action, its air strikes, have not been very effective.  Same with Russian air strikes, which seem to kill as many civilians and ISIL's enemies as they do ISIL fighters.

ISIL seems to be trying to exploit the weakness of the nation state, which is political.  Nations can protect their citizens, though not absolutely.  Most analysts believe that for example the U.S. is pretty well protected against ISIL attacks--see here and here and here and here-- but since 9/11 the terrorist's greatest weapon is the suicide attack, so it is always possible.  Otherwise, domestic gun massacres have killed far more Americans than terrorists, especially if 9/11 is excepted.

But nations cannot tolerate the political cost of being shown up and terrorized. Anger and fear are natural, but politicians feed hysteria, they bluster and turn against each other.  National unity is weakened or exposed as a house of cards.  Or conversely, a virtual dictatorship is the source of temporary unity, often engaging in suicidal violence.

Russia has vowed vengeance, China has vowed justice, and France has vowed eradication.  Depending on how those terms are defined, Russia and China have a shot. France has little chance.  ISIL can invite their violent ire because it doesn't care how many innocent people get killed when it is attacked.  Innocent death is another recruiting tool.  Meanwhile, they have inspired bluster and the appearance of impotence from nation states who have no model for fighting them.

The only leader so far who has spoken the grim reality is President Obama (as Ryan Lizza noted in the New Yorker.)  In his press conference, after describing all that the U.S. has done in counter-terrorism and diplomacy, etc. he said:

 " And keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world and we have the finest military minds in the world, and I’ve been meeting with them intensively for years now, discussing these various options, and it is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisors that that would be a mistake -- not because our military could not march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we’ve seen before, which is, if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface -- unless we’re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else -- in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

So a strategy has to be one that can be sustained. And the strategy that we’re pursuing, which focuses on going after targets, limiting wherever possible the capabilities of ISIL on the ground -- systematically going after their leadership, their infrastructure, strengthening Shia -- or strengthening Syrian and Iraqi forces and Kurdish forces that are prepared to fight them, cutting off their borders and squeezing the space in which they can operate until ultimately we’re able to defeat them -- that’s the strategy we’re going to have to pursue."

It's important to note that ISIL's war on the nation state is not its primary goal.  ISIL is at war with everyone and everything that isn't ISIL.  It wars against other terrorist groups (as its lethal attacks recently in Lebanon) and specifically other religions as well as other sects.  In its destruction of ancient monuments, it is at war with the past and with cultures it hasn't invented.

With several of its known leaders killed in recent weeks, it's not clear if this latest flurry is a sign of strength or desperation.  But at the moment, ISIL has the nation state flailing.

Republican Holy War

Update: President Obama in a press conference Tuesday: 
"We are not well served when in response to a terrorist attack we descend into fear and panic...We don't make good decisions if it's based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks."
Of Republican candidates:
"They've been playing on fear to score political points or to advance their campaigns and it's irresponsible. It needs to stop because the world is watching," Obama said."I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate." 

Jonathan Chiat's column today casts the despicable and predictable Republican response to the Paris terror attack in a bright if frightening light: nearly everything their leaders are saying are exactly what ISIL/ISIS/ Islamic State and the jihadists want them to say--exactly what will provide them with more power and troops.

Republicans are promoting a holy war of us (white Christian rabid right Republicans) against them (the entire Islamic world.)  It's the mirror image of ISIS, engaged in a holy war of them (a minority with a twisted interpretation of Islam) against us (everyone else, including most of the Muslim world.)

The stakes in defining this conflict could not be higher.  Chiat writes:

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, believes in defining the conflict in the most narrow terms. There is a very good reason for this. The United States is not actually at war with Islam. Non-extremist Muslims account for the lion's share of the victims of jihadist terror, and are needed as allies in the conflict.

 Air strikes and counterterrorism may be important tools against ISIS, but in the long run, we need non-radicals to maintain the loyalties of the majority of the Muslim world. If the Muslim world gravitates toward its most extreme elements, the West will find itself in an unwinnable struggle against an enemy that can generate fighters moving invisibly among 1.6 billion people worldwide. 

The radicals want to persuade the rest of the Muslims that they represent Islam writ large in a clash against Christians and Jews. The West’s strategy is predicated on breaking down this link, making it as hard as possible for them to claim that the West is at war with Islam as a whole."

In this context, it's worth noting this, from an evaluation of terrorist threats to the U.S.:"And Daniel Byman, a Brookings Institution analyst, noted in an interview that many such plots since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been disrupted because of tips from American Muslims."

The most extreme elements of the religious right have long had this twisted mirror agenda of holy war, as it fulfills what they believe is the prophesy--for the end of the world, which of course only they will survive in clouds of glory.

Republicans were falling over each other to see who could be more extreme in their response.  Marco Rubio won--he endorsed this holy war.  But Jeb Bush wasn't far behind--he proposed that America accept only Christian refugees.

At a news conference at the G20 conference, President Obama was blunt and passionate: Without naming him, Mr. Obama singled out a comment by former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, one of the Republicans seeking to succeed him, for suggesting the United States focus special attention on Christian refugees. “That’s shameful,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not American. It’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

He denounced ISIL as "the face of evil" but refused to be terrorized into overestimating its strength in the Paris attacks:
“If you have a handful of people who don’t mind dying, they can kill a lot of people,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s one of the challenges of terrorism. It’s not their sophistication or the particular weaponry that they possess. But it is the ideology they carry with them and their willingness to die.”

He noted that he has used force (often to criticism) but insisted on maintaining a sane pragmatism in word as well as deed.  Not only does ignorant bluster play into the hands of terrorists who recruit members on the basis of a holy war, it is the talk of irresponsible people who fortunately for the moment don't have responsibilities to actually respond.  The Times report concludes:

But he said he would not be pressured into “posing” as a tough president by doing things that will not make the situation better to satisfy his critics.

“Some of them seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference,” he said. “Because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough."

Focus

Thousands of words have already been written and said responding to the terrorist attacks in Paris, for which the group known as ISIL and a half dozen other names has claimed responsibility.

But going forward, I find this essay in Newsweek to be the most sensible and comprehensive.

Despite whatever historical precedents and causes, or more recent policies and outcome that might have contributed, there appear to be two new elements in this attack.  First, that ISIL is engaging in terrorist attacks outside the Middle Eastern territories it claims for itself.  Second, the nature of those attacks--small arms used in unguarded public places to maximize casualties--so-called soft targets.

The sensible response is to quickly develop and/or deploy strategies to deal with these changes. This may well involve public debate over policies and proposals, but as Kurt Eichenwald notes, strength lies in unity.  He notes that terrorists closely observe political responses, and suggests that making the terrorist attacks in the Benghazi a partisan political issue, especially without foundation, conveys an inability to seriously develop and deploy a unified response.

The difference is the political attacks that tend to de-legitimize the national leadership, adding to confusion and fear.  Sure enough, as he points out, rabid right Republicans were quick to do so, attacking President Obama for what happened in France.

But according to news reports, the nature of attacks by two of the Democratic candidates against the frontrunner in Saturday's debate were too close to being of the same type.  Instead of discussing the way forward for the nation, there were attacks on past votes and policies.  At this moment, when Americans are looking for leadership, such attacks are dispiriting and inappropriate.  Disagree with proposals for action, certainly.  But political sniping misreads the moment and damages everyone.

This is especially true when everyone knows that Secretary Clinton is the person most likely to be elected President of the United States in a year's time.  It's not that she can't be politically opposed.  But it is her proposals that are to be debated, and the proposals of others, especially on the response to terrorist acts and threats.
We need that level of focus and seriousness, particularly when the Republican candidates' "proposals" vary from ignorant bluster to more sophisticated warmongering.

Senator Sanders was certainly correct, however mockingly the question was meant, that the climate crisis is the most serious problem facing the world, in part because it is a source of conflict and chaos that leads to war and terrorism, including much that is going on right now.  That needs to be kept in mind, because this terrorist act does not diminish the urgency for what nations will gather to do in a few weeks, in Paris.

With Paris

All eyes turned to Paris for a reason very different from the climate crisis on Friday, as terrorists attacked seven locations in the city, killing at least 120 and injuring hundreds more.

 Among the many events cancelled was the remainder of the Climate Reality Project 24 hour telethon, which Al Gore was anchoring in Paris.

In the immediate aftermath, there were acts of generosity and solidarity from around the world.  President Obama was among the world leaders who pledged support to the French people, and called the attacks a crime against humanity.

Among the images emerging is this peace sign shaped as the Eiffel Tower, reportedly first posted on Instagram by Jean Jullien.  If the recent past is any guide, other emotions will emerge, but let us recall the empathy, compassion and courage of this moment.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Terrorist

President Obama calls out Congress for aiding and abetting killers by refusing to pass the simplest gun control laws, while the white racist murderer who was invited into an historic black church in Charleston for Bible studies says he almost didn't carry out his plan because they were so nice to him.  But he had a mission.  Jon Stewart calls him a terrorist, much more dangerous to at least black Americans than any foreigners who might target white people. David Remmick at the New Yorker places this in historical and political context (i.e. Obama.) There's not much more to add to what Stewart says in this video. 

At the Speed of Tweet

It's hard to know what to say about the events surrounding the assassinations of cartoonists in Paris, except that they've happened with blinding speed: from the horrific incident to international protest involving millions of people including European heads of state leading a march in Paris of up to a million and a half people, to becoming a fashion statement at a show business award show, and the backlash to the response (for example here and here.)

Meanwhile, here's an interesting post at Daily Kos about one of the cartoonists who was assassinated, at the age of 74.  It suggests the dangers inherent in the reaction, understandable and necessary though they might be, increasing police and military presence and power.  That and the accelerated right wing and racist bushwah.

 On the whole though, it strikes me that the Europeans are handling this with a lot less inflated panic and hyperbole than the Bushites did 9/11.  Or that the right wing here continues to do,  focusing on the US participation in the Paris event, which the White House clumsily has made into a bigger story today.  But it's a story only in US politics, not in Europe.

Protecting the President

When somebody ran across the lawn and into the White House, it was the occasion for some pointed humor from the New Yorker's Andy Borowitz.   Obama to Move to Doorman Building skewered one aspect of this story.  Citing Security Concerns, Iraq's Prime Minister Cancels Visit to White House suggested another.

Then came further news that the intruder got pretty far into the White House, carrying a knife, with his guns left behind in his car.  And it wasn't funny anymore. The head of the Secret Service got grilled in a congressional hearing, and subsequently resigned.

Jelani Cobb (also in the New Yorker) spoke directly to the assassination fears that both preceded and followed this president's election.  He reminds us that there were black voters who didn't vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries as a favor to Michelle and their daughters.  He reminds us of the startling interview Mrs. Obama in which she responded to the fears that as a black man running for President, he was in danger:

Michelle replied that the dangers of the Presidency were not novel. “I don’t lose sleep about it,” she said. “Because the realities are, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station”—certainly the first time that this particular demographic truth has been enlisted as a reason to be optimistic about a black man’s prospects."

That's a devastating quote now, after (to take just one example) a black man was shot and killed in the aisles of a Wal-Mart.  But for the President, those fears have diminished, mostly because of Barack Obama's own demeanor, Cobb writes: "In 2008, Obama projected calm amid political turbulence. As President, this demeanor has been part of the reason that such fears have receded to the extent that they have. Yet a population that lived through the September 11th attacks can scarcely ever confuse remote likelihoods with complete impossibilities."

Now what seems to be a shocking White House vulnerability has been exposed, and it has been making news for days.  Terrorists around the world have certainly taken notice.  But it's even more dangerous than that.

 In this regard I think of beheading.  Until a month or so ago, beheading was so unthinkable that it was a joke about times long past.  But it isn't a joke anymore.  I was startled to see it referenced that way in a cartoon about it (once again, in the New Yorker) just from September.  More recently however, something that suggested beheading had to be cut out from a Doctor Who episode at the last minute.

But those weren't the only effects.  Suddenly there were news reports in the US of ordinary people beheading other ordinary people.  I recall seeing two, possibly there were more.  Maybe that doesn't qualify for going viral, but at the least it ceased to be unthinkable.

I seem to recall that this successful intruder followed a day or two after somebody else scaled the White House fence but was stopped on the lawn.  It's become thinkable.  The aura of invulnerability is gone.

It's also a reminder that those most virulently opposed to President Obama's very existence as President are likely to be among the most heavily armed private citizens in America.

It's likely that the White House is better prepared for an armed assault or terrorist attack than a lone man running amuck (but of course, the "lone man" has proven to be the deadliest danger in the past.) But we don't really know now, do we?

 It's certainly better that such a security breakdown was exposed without real damage.  It's good that Congress got upset about it, because Congress is as responsible as anyone else for it, as their stupid sequester cuts have left the Secret Service hundreds of agents short.  Now the guy who used to lead the detail that specifically protected President Obama has come out of retirement to take charge.  He's got some work to do, and fast.

Though some people profited, this country never got over the assassination of President Kennedy.  African Americans in particular have never gotten over the assassination of Martin Luther King.  It doesn't take much imagination to understand the stakes.  

Update: I don't much trust the Politico site, but I do trust the writer Marc Ambinder, and his piece on the Secret Service is revealing, and troubling.

9/11/14

In one of two New Yorker pieces loaded with healthy skepticism about US options in the Middle East, Philip Gourevitch concluded (referring to President Obama's speech yesterday):

"We can only wish that he succeeds—whatever that might mean. On this anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we remember the wound that Al Qaeda dealt us, but we cannot forget the far greater toll of the self-inflicted wounds that America endured in the fever that followed. Obama had hoped to be the President who would bind those self-inflicted wounds and reposition us in the world. His previous caution was not simply a character trait; it was a sober response to the reality of our past interventions, of our wars that have begat more and worse wars." 

Leadership in Today's World

In a brief and ultimately eloquent address to the nation, President Obama outlined international efforts to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the terrorist group he calls ISIL, refusing to use the name the media uses that supports their claim to be an Islamic state. (They aren't a state, he said, and they aren't Islamic.) White House detailed summary is here, and the full transcript is here.

All this follows a lot of sound and fury signifying hypocrisy and misplaced partisanship more than actual anxiety or alternate plan.  Or, their alternate plan turns out to be just what President Obama has been doing.  (Frank Rich:"They offer no strategy of their own beyond an inchoate bellicosity expressed in constructions along the lines of “we must more forcefully do whatever it is that Obama is doing.” That’s because Obama is already doing the things that can be done (and that some of his critics redundantly suggest)..."

The general idiocy behind the noise is summarized by Michael Cohen in the NY Daily News.  Meanwhile President Obama did what he said he would do: he got NATO to materially support and help develop a strategy (not only in the Middle East but the other foreign policy challenges in Ukraine and the Ebola epidemic in Africa.)

President Obama also insisted that further American support depended on Iraq forming a more inclusive government, which they promptly did, at least so far.  So he was able to announce more US air strikes to support Iraqi ground efforts to combat ISIL.

At the same time, he emphasized: "But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground."

It is important to state that this use of air power--which means deadly, ugly, killing bombing--does not include the kind of wholesale bombing of cities and civilians that the Shock and Awe Bushites ordered.  Targeted drone and piloted aircraft strikes are horrific, and sometimes go wrong, and sometimes kill innocents. They certainly raise legal as well as moral questions. But they are measurably different than the bombing of Iraq under both Bushes, and the bombings in southeast Asia in the Vietnam era.

As President Obama pointed out, systematic efforts to degrade and destroy terrorist organizations threatening the US have been ongoing.  This is a policy that not all of his supporters agree with, but he was forthright about it: "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order."

It is a pragmatic policy of countering present threats while pulling back from the larger practices that motivate new members of terrorist groups.  President Obama was equally forthright in affirming that he will follow terrorists into Syria as he followed bin Laden into Pakistan. "This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."

But he also emphasized gaining meaningful international support, especially from the Arab world.  He will chair a session of the UN Security Council to mobilize more nations.

He ended with an eloquent summary of American leadership for the good, and affirmed his own optimism about the country now. "It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny. It is America -- our scientists, our doctors, our know-how -- that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons so that they can’t pose a threat to the Syrian people or the world again. And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful future."

Reaction  is starting to be registered, and the first meaningful moments will be whether Republicans in Congress can do more than carp and bellow.

portrait of Churchill Dec. 1941 by Yousuf Karsh

"You do your worst and we will do our best.”

Winston Churchill in December 1941, speaking of the Axis powers soon after Pearl Harbor, to the U.S. Congress.

Response

President Obama's statement yesterday on the murder of American journalist James Foley rightly characterized the ISIL terrorists as extremist murderers and torturers with no legitimate place in civilized society.  President Obama is able to make this charge credibly precisely because he has been so nuanced in his statements and policies, especially regarding Islamic peoples.

Not everybody is so precise or accurate.  The haters who aim the energy of their racial and religious prejudices are all too ready to make blanket accusations.  Some of this is the worst kind of politics, reviving the racial ignorance that goes immediately to a non-white against white scenario (which is also at work in reactions to events in Missouri.)  Neil Steinberg's column is a must-read on this topic (including his brilliantly selected and appropriate Winston Churchill quotes.)  

This murder has focused attention on ISIS/ISIL.  It's identity is emerging as a kind of terrorist cult-- a lot like the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia--but not limited to people from one country or of one race.  Learning about this entity will help to formulate responses.

But in the aftermath of this horrific murder, this is a dangerous time.  Already extreme voices and political opportunists are whipping up war fever and xenophobic hysteria.

We don't need bluster, and we can all be grateful that Cheney and Co. are not in the White House at this moment.  We don't need Hillary Clinton's bluster either, of the kind she expressed in her Atlantic interview.  We need accuracy and strategy, and a renewed commitment to the best aspects of our civilization.

Update: More on strategy--and the fever--in this Guardian report.

Thursday

On Thursday, there were more images of demonstrations in several countries, including large ones in Yemen and Egypt that involved police and some violence to American Embassy property.  Three people, none of them American or Embassy staff, were said to have been killed in Yemen.

These demonstrations were based on the continuing misinformation that the U.S. government was responsible for an Internet video that insults Islam.  More demonstrations are expected on Friday, the day of prayer.  Governments in Egypt and Yemen were active in guarding the American embassies.

Information on the quite different event in Benghazi is still contradictory.  Some stories maintain that the violence resulted from a protesting mob, while another quoted witnesses as saying that the consulate was attacked by heavily armed fighters who arrived together in vehicles, and there never were real protesters.  Rachel Maddow again made the case for an organized terrorist attack.  Meanwhile, the Libyan government has arrested four and is questioning others in connection with the murders of four Americans.

To correct my previous post, the compound that was attacked was a consulate, not the U.S. embassy.  The official embassy is in Tripoli, and that's where Ambassador Stevens was headquartered.  He was visiting the Benghazi consulate on the fatal day.  The consulate was not as heavily protected as the larger and more permanent embassy.

Campaigning in Colorado, President Obama said:

Obviously, our hearts are heavy this week,’’ Mr. Obama said, as a hush fell over the crowd. But to a wider television audience he vowed: “I want people around the world to hear me: to all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.” He added, “no act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”


Political fallout continued, directly or at least partially related to these events.  A number of neocons and other GOPers began voicing support for Romney's general critique of the Obama foreign policy.  At least one (Rob Portman) was called out for supporting Romney's lies of the day before.

But criticism also continued, by still other Republicans.  Joe Scarborough, a media figure more than a Republican heavyweight but still a voice with some volume to it, made the most dramatic charges.  Addressing his fellow conservatives in a Politico oped he wrote: "And the lesson is clear: If we want to win the battle of ideas in the long term, we should be willing to face the fact that Mitt Romney is likely to lose — and should, given that he’s neither a true conservative nor a courageous moderate. He’s just an ambitious man. Nothing wrong with that, except when you want to be president." 

Meanwhile, TPM noted that a web version of a New York Times story on the Romney reaction was replaced by another story, which lacked a key quote: An earlier version of the story quoted an unnamed Romney adviser and former George W. Bush administration official saying Romney’s response to the attacks made it seem like “he had forgotten the first rule in a crisis: don’t start talking before you understand what’s happening.” 

Also on Thursday the last of the "bounce" polls showed that President Obama has opened up leads in three key swing states: Florida, Virginia and Ohio. He was at 50% in Ohio, 49% in Florida and Virginia.  From now on, the theory goes, the traditional convention bounce period is over and any change would be considered more telling for the long run.  But then there's the Egypt/Libya event and Romney's reaction.

So maybe it is telling already: In the latest Reuters/Ipso tracking poll made on Thursday, President Obama widened his lead over Romney by 7 points: 48% to 41%.  President Obama won all categories, including the war on terror, taxes and Social Security,   Romney won but one category: the federal deficit.

So the GOPer chances may be down to voter suppression, and some observers of the first day of the PA Supreme Court hearing were talking about the grilling that the PA government attorney got from the judges, especially the 3 Dems and the Republican Chief Justice. (Another observer however said something quite different: that the Chief Justice was mostly silent and appeared annoyed by the Dems.  This reporter for the Nation doesn't think the four votes are there to overturn.)

 The most damning statistic I heard that apparently was offered was that PENNDOT estimated it could process only a fraction of the eligible applicants for ID before election day.That should be game set and match right there.  It cannot stand for this election.  It's a travesty.

Reality

Information is still coming in and being sorted on what really happened in Egypt and Libya in the past 36 hours.  But the picture that is emerging looks like this:

Somebody posted a video on youtube, a kind of crude preview for what it said was an upcoming film that apparently attacks Islam as a religion.  Somehow (and this part is unclear) Egyptians in particular and perhaps Libyans were told that this film was a major part of U.S. commemorations of 9-11 on September 11.  This of course wasn't true.  Nobody much knew about it, in the U.S. or most of the world.  The film itself (if it exists) has never been seen.

Nevertheless, a few hundred people gathered in loud protest outside the Embassy's substantial walls.  Some climbed over the walls, got into the courtyard and burned the American flag. 

Later a small crowd may have gathered outside the American Embassy in Benghazi in Libya, in a similar protest, but this is not really clear.  What is clear is that an organized and heavily armed group attacked the embassy, essentially burned and destroyed it, and killed the U.S. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, at least one other American (a former Marine), and two other members of the Embassy staff (not yet identified pending notification of next of kin.)  One report said they did so with rocket propelled grenades.

On Thursday morning, when the deaths were confirmed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama condemned the attacks, and mourned the loss of these Americans, as well as the reported Libyans who tried to defend them.  The new Libyan government and the vast majority of Benghazi citizens consider the U.S. as a friend.  Ambassador Stevens had been the U.S. envoy to the rebels in Benghazi. 

Secretary Clinton said:  "Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be. But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya."

President Obama immediately ordered a rapid reaction force of U.S. Marines to protect the Embassy in Tripoli (Libya), where the remaining Benghazi staff (rescued by Libyans) are quartered.  Two U.S. warships moved closer, and it was made known that recon drones were over Libya.  In his statement in the White House rose garden, with Secretary Clinton at his side (photo above, video below), President Obama said:  " No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

I add emphasis there because of speculation about this attack.  President Obama called it an act of terror, which is a characterization with some meaning.   If it was organized and planned, rather than improvised, then a particular group is responsible.  Rachel Maddow made a strong case that it could well be an al-Qaeda group.  This late story suggests that U.S. officials are coming around to this view.

It's not known if the Egypt demonstration and the Libyan attack were linked at all.  There is also not much known about the person who apparently made the video in question.  He is said to be American or Israeli, but his name is likely an alias.   In this TPM story, the man in question is described as having "an Egyptian accent."  No one I know of is yet saying this, but there is at this point the possibility that the film itself was part of a plot to incite violence or even cover an act of terrorism.

In any case, when President Obama says "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done," those aren't just words.  Not by the President who has taken out a great many al-Qaeda's leaders throughout the Middle East, including bin Laden.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke movingly of Ambassador Stevens, and so did Senator John McCain.  A video of his Senate remarks is here.

2 Things From 60 Minutes

President Obama talked about the Osama bin Laden operation for more than 30 minutes to 60 Minutes on Sunday.  Two thoughts were most prominent in my response when I saw it later online.

First, the most amazing part of this operation--which nobody seems to be talking about--is that it was kept secret.  For months.  Nobody leaked, not even after a few drinks at the Correspondents dinner.

One way it was kept so secret, President Obama revealed, was that very few people knew.  Some of his aides--maybe even some in that now famous photo-- didn't know about it until it was pretty much happening. 

Michelle didn't know.  And, oh yeah, the Pakistanis.  (Another thought, not the second one, an ancillary thought, is that evidence that bin Laden was confident in his Pakistani protection was that he was evidently completely surprised by, and unprepared for, the raid.)

Still, think about this.  This whole operation could have come to a sudden and ignominious halt if word had leaked, at any point from last August, but especially in the final week.  But it didn't.  A lot of people deserve credit for various elements of the operation, but this is all President Obama and the people he chose to trust.

The second thing is rhetorical in nature.  President Obama scored points with forthright answers, and even if you disagree, he gets points for that comment that people who disapprove of bin Laden being killed "need to have their heads examined."  But I detected an unfortunate addition to his rhetoric, and I think I know where it comes from.

President Obama used the word "obviously" about nine times in his interview.  Overuse of that word is a characteristic rhetorical tic of Leon Panetta, now CIA chief, soon to be Secretary of Defense.  He's had it since his White House days with Clinton, and it was particularly annoying when he was testing the waters for a possible electoral run (for Gov or Senator) from California.  Panetta uses the word "obviously" to preface his answers to a truly annoying degree.  "Obviously" is always slightly insulting to the questioner.  It seems arrogant, although it also seems defensive.  Mr. President, stop listening to Leon!  Or at least check yourself.  You don't want to pick up this bad habit.

Bankrupt: Opening and Closure

President Obama has extolled the possibility of unity growing out of the end of bin Laden, and on Thursday he went to Ground Zero to further the healing process and perhaps even that elusive "closure."  But judging from the surrounding noise, bin Laden's death has not so much closed a wound as opened one.

For we're suddenly reliving the Bush years.  While GOPers are back defending the efficacy of torture (while interrogation experts continue to say it's useless as well as the terrorists' top recruiting tool, and numerous people who should know--plus a New York Times investigation--affirm that torture played no part in gaining the information that led to bin Laden), Democrats are opening their eyes again to the costs of Bushwar.  And they are even more tragic now.

On Tuesday, Lawrence O'Donnell compared John Kerry's 2004 position on terrorism and Iraq with Bush's, and showed that the years since have proven Kerry right.  Plus if Kerry's approach had been implemented, it would have been far, far, far less costly in money and lives.  But what O'Donnell doesn't say is that Kerry's prescription was at least in general the same as what Al Gore talked about immediately after 9-11. 

Also on Tuesday, Rachel Maddow used her program's considerable skills in making a point clearly and visually.  The point she made has been advanced by others ( most recently, the Washington Post reporter she quoted, Ezra Klein.)  The point is this: Osama bin Laden's basic intent was to leverage terroristic acts to force the United States government to bankrupt itself.  Literally, financially. 

Bin Laden had actually seen this happen to a Superpower, when the Afghan resistance he was a part of (at the behest of the Saudi royals) effectively bankrupted the Soviet Union.  He figured he could do it to the U.S., too.  Sure enough, as Maddow showed, the U.S. government doubled its defense budget and spent untold billions on intelligence and other activities directly flowing from a particular U.S. administration's response to bin Laden.  (This concludes Maddow's point and begins mine.)

For thanks to some unfortunate events in Florida and a politicized Supreme Court, bin Laden got a willing partner in the White House--helped by a cowardly Congress-- for this particular goal.  The Bushites responded as they did for all kinds of reasons.  That's evident from their resurgent talking points this week, as well as what they're not saying, which has to do with sustaining GOPer power and enriching their corporate partners.

But isn't it odd that bin Laden's goal and the stated goal of the Rabid Right--to so diminish the ability of the federal government that it can be drowned in a bathtub--is essentially the same?

Maybe that's a stretch for some people, but I submit the effect is pretty damn much the same.  Look at where we are.  Apart even from the thousands of dead, the thousands of wounded, the thousands of families and millions of people whose lives have been twisted if not ruined--there's the federal government, with huge debt and diminished abilities to respond to the real needs and greater threats that we face.

The ongoing needs--education, health care, infrastructure, investment in clean energy--that have only grown worse, and for which there are scant resources (and diminished ability within the federal government, systematically depleted in key areas for political reasons.)  All of the needs that could have been addressed.

What this week has accidentally reminded us is how much we wasted in the past decade, and how tragically timed that waste was.  Because we failed to address, even accidentally, the greatest threat to our civilization, even when it was more generally acknowledged: the Climate Crisis.

The news this week--ignored as usual--was that the most prestigious study so far (though not the first) indicates that UN estimates for melting of Arctic and Greenland ice were way too modest--the melting is happening much faster, and as a consequence they predict a greater rise in sea levels.

It's just one of the daily pieces of evidence.  At this point our fate is probably sealed, whatever it turns out to be, but it's not likely to be good.  But had we been addressing this for the past ten years, and even if we had the federal surplus to apply to getting ready for the effects, we might have gotten through this without the major dislocations we're facing.  And so here we are, in so many ways, bankrupt.