A Warning Too Late

Reports of Islamic items being found along the border with Mexico started surfacing a few years ago. It was speculated early on that radicalized Islamic terrorists could be entering the United States along with other illegal immigrants.

The result in part was the rise of the Minuteman Movement. The movement consisted of concerned ranchers and citizens along the border that felt the US government was not doing enough to address the issue of illegal immigrants.

Now DHS is alerting the public to this threat. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you can smuggle illegal immigrants in through the border, smuggling a terrorist isn't any more of a challenge.

We've known for sometime that drugs and weapons are also illegally smuggled into this country through the border. It isn't much of stretch to assume terrorist weapons are also being smuggled in. I hesitate to use the term "weapons of mass destruction" as I think it diverts our attention from the fact the choice of weapon isn't as important as how well the attack is planned and executed.

The attempted bombing in Times Square and the attack in Mumbai are a study in contrasts. Times Square used a WMD but it was poorly executed and was detected and neutralized before anyone was hurt. Mumbai on the other hand used a well coordinated attack of trained rifleman and bombs in 2008 to kill 173 people and injure 308. Mumbai did not really use a WMD but the effects were on par with the bombings in Madrid in 2004 (193 killed) and London in 2005 (93 killed, 350 injured)

The article goes on to point out the connection between drugs and terrorists. Why is this news? The Soviet Union was the primary funding source for terrorists groups during the latter part of the 20th Century. Terrorists group were then primarily aligned along political ideology such as Marxism or Communism making them a potential weapon for the Soviet Union to use against the Democratic West especially the United States.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the funding source for these politically aligned groups also collapsed. Around the same time, Pam Am Flight 103 was blown up over the skies of Lockerbie, Scotland. The event signaled the beginnings of terrorist groups aligned with radical Islam. It would be until 1993 and the first bombing of the World Trade Center before the United States public would recognize this new threat.

Terrorist groups formed around radical Islamic beliefs benefit from being primarily based in the Middle East. They do not need a sponsoring super power such as the former Soviet Union to get financial backing. Most members of these new terrorist groups can get funding through the sale of oil. Osama bin Laden was an independently wealthy Saudi before he became the world's most famous terrorist.

However, not all groups are based in the Middle East or receive funding through oil. These groups turn to drug cartels which have as much money, if perhaps not even more, than the oil cartels.

Countries such as Colombia and Afghanistan generate huge profits through the sale of illegal drugs. In turn, many of the local populace in these countries are hostile or at least unsympathetic to the United States.

In much of South and Central America, the United States is blamed or supporting right wing regimes which often resorted to torture to maintain power. The right wing regimes were in-turn viewed as puppets of American colonialism in the guise of the United Fruit Company.

The resentment for atrocities committed by former colonies generates support amongst the locals for drug cartels and terrorists groups. None of this though is a new phenomena, any student of political science or international affairs knows this.

Our government seems to be behind the power curve again. We need to stop worrying about building up the border. We need to finding out who is already here. Of course this opens up a very nasty potential for the government to become even more intrusive into the lives of US citizens.


FOXNews.com - Feds Issue Terror Watch for the Texas/Mexico Border

Posted using ShareThis

George Pataki: Obama is Jeopardizing U.S. Security

George Pataki: Obama is Jeopardizing U.S. Security

Posted using ShareThis

We are taught over and over in military history and the war college; don't fight the last war again. The next attack won't involve airliners and may or may not involve foreign terrorists. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was committed by domestic terrorists. Pataki's comments assume only foreign terrorists pose a threat. There are many dissatisfied, homegrown terrorists that given the means, motive and opportunity would attack. What Pataki should criticize Presidnent Obama about is his selection of DHS Secretary Napolitano whose focus is substitutes the war on terror for the war on drugs. Diverting our intelligence and law enforcement resources to another war on drugs show little promise of making the homeland safe.

The American Czar

Why do US presidents try to be Russian monarchs? Every president since George H. Bush has appointed “czars” to overcome bureaucratic delays and streamline their agenda. The term started when the first President Bush appointed Bill Bennett as the first “drug czar”. The term czar originally meant a supreme monarch who had the approval of another monarch or church leader such as the Pope. In keeping with this sense of divine supremacy, Bennett quickly coined the term “war on drugs” to show the US meant business regarding the illegal use and sale of drugs. The war on drugs introduced mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug crimes that in turn flooded our prisons beyond their capacity. Conversely, drugs use remained constant (switching between drugs of choice causes fluctuations statistics) and illegal drugs continue to be smuggled into this country. The power of the “czar” in the United States then becomes questionable. Why continue having these special advisors that can’t implement their bosses political agenda?

President Obama has a record number of “czars” in his administration. In addition to the ubiquitous “drug czar”, he has 31 czars. The following is a list from Politico.com;

1) Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
2) AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
3) Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
4) Border Czar: Alan Bersin
5) California Water Czar: David J. Hayes
6) Car Czar: Ron Bloom
7) Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
8) Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
9) Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
10) Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
11) Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner
12) Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois
13) Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
14) Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones
15) Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
16) Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
17) Information Czar: Vivek Kundra
18) International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
19) Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair
20) Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
21) Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
22) Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
23) Science Czar: John Holdren
24) Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney
25) Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
26) TARP Czar: Herb Allison
27) Terrorism Czar: John Brennan
28) Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
29) Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
30) Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
31) WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore

The White House calls these “czars” special advisors to the President. The need for czars seems rather unnecessary as President name their appointees as Secretaries for the various federal agencies. In addition, the President has his Chief of Staff , National Security Advisor, National Security Council and various other executive staffers to help him formulate policy. The other problem is unlike their namesake; the American czars have no real power. They can conduct meetings, symposiums and press conferences but in the end are unable to change the very bureaucracies they are trying to circumvent.

The czars are also over-politicized; the Green Jobs czar Van Jones is getting bogged down by his past more so than by any policies regarding his current position. His comments about white kids and Columbine has polarized the Internet. I’ve listened to his comments and he does make some intriguing observations (why are majority of school shootings conducted primarily by whites?). However, he at the same time skips over the predominance of violent crimes committed by blacks (especially black on black crime). Depending on which side of his argument you find yourself, you either dismiss him for his omission or your praise him for his acumen.

Intellectual discourse is dead and only partisan rhetoric shouted at decibels approaching a jet fighter launching off an aircraft carrier can be heard. Perhaps in the middle of all of this noise, Presidents will learn to be less reliant on czars…and I may win the lottery.

US Mexico Winning the Drug War

Secretary Napolitano claims we are winning the drug war. She basis this on the amount of drug seizures. Using drug seizures as a metric for drug investigations is fraught with errors. Yes, you get to brag about how big the seizure is but you don't know how much more got away. If US agents seized 4.2 million pounds, that simply means the drug cartels grew or produced another 8.4 million pounds to replace it. The economies are such that for all of the costs associated with enforcement and conviction, the drug dealers are spending pennies in comparison. Gauging enforcement efforts based on seizures alone is akin to former Sec Def McNamara's fixation on body counts as a way to defining victory during the Vietnam War.

WASHINGTON -- The United States and Mexico are "winning" an often brutal war against drug cartels that operate across the border separating the two countries, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday.

"We are not only fighting this fight, but we are winning it," Napolitano, a former border state governor, said in prepared remarks at a border security conference in the frontier city of El Paso, Texas.

Noting that drug seizures since the beginning of this year had totaled 4.2 million pounds (1000 tonnes), Napolitano said the United States was now presented with a "unique opportunity to break up these cartels" that must be seized.

Her comments came one day after President Barack Obama visited Mexico, throwing his weight behind Mexico's crackdown on violent drug cartels that control much of the flow of illegal narcotics from South America to the United States.

Napolitano highlighted a string of drug and weapons seizures as evidence that the billion-dollar-plus war against the drug cartels was succeeding, despite a violent push back from gangs who have often appeared able to outgun and outspend Mexican federal forces.

The United States has pledged around 1.6 billion dollars to tackle drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America under the Merida Initiative, which also includes funds for training and equipment to boost security on the Mexican side of the border.

Since coming to office the Obama administration has acknowledged the US role in the violence, pledging to stem the flow of weapons into Mexico and curb demand for drugs in the United States.

"So far this year, we have seized 2.4 million pounds (one million kilograms) of drugs, more than 95,000 rounds of ammunition, and more than 500 assault rifles and handguns," Napolitano said.

Warning that further violence was likely, she offered support for the government of Mexican President Felipe Calderon despite allegations of military human rights abuses.

"We have a strong partner in President Calderon," Napolitano said. "We are fighting this fight together with the government of Mexico."

Napolitano said that defeating the cartels would take several years, and compared it to the US fight against the Mafia.

"The fighting has resulted in more than 12,000 deaths in Mexico, and there will, no doubt be more," Napolitano warned.

© 2009 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.

DHS Seeks Volunteer Guard for Border Drug War

According to an AP article on Newsmax, the Department of Homeland Security is developing plans to deploy up to 1,500 National Guard volunteers on the Southwest border as part of counterdrug efforts. There have been calls for the National Guard to be deployed to border before. The National Guard in Title 32 status is able to execute law enforcement support for counterdrug operations. The problem is arming the troops and under what circumstances those troops would be allowed to use deadly force. In the early days of the war on drugs, active duty personnel where deployed on the border for the same reason. Everything looked good until a Marine encountered what he thought was a drug dealer getting ready to fire. The Marine engaged the threat with deadly force and killed the suspect. Turns out the suspected drug dealer was actually a young boy tending to his animals. Initial reports wanted to blame the marine but what few wanted to talk about was the rules of engagement given to the Marine. The military at the time were given only M-16s and unclear rules of engagement, while unfortunate the Marine reacted in the only way he could given the circumstances.

Fifteen years later, I wonder what the rules of engagement will be for the National Guard troops? The National Guard has been heavily mobilized since 9/11 with non end in sight. Rates of substance abuse, domestic violence and suicide are increasing. The impact of adding yet another deployment to the National Guard needs to be carefully weighed against other operational commitments.