onetimespook

Khost Rethought

2012-01-29T16:05:00.005-05:00

In my blog titled, “Time to Bring Back the Dinosaurs” I suggested that had CIA received an infusion of good, old-fashioned tradecraft, the Khost massacre might have been avoided. In light of the article titled, “A family bereaved and divided,” (Washington Post 29 Jan. 2012) it would appear that assigning full blame to the base chief, Jennifer Matthews, was most unfair.

So, where to begin affixing blame? First, I’d suggest it was negligence on the part of the Agency to permit Jennifer to apply for the posting. What was behind this? The Agency is not noted for personal consideration when making assignments. So, was it impossible for the Agency to find any operations officers to accept this job? Was this why they put an analyst vice an operations officer into this dangerous place? Granted, she was a highly trained analyst. Maybe she’d worked with operations officers in conducting debriefings, but she was not an agent handler. She had not received special operations training which should have been the sine qua non for such a job.

Next, I’d fix blame on the case officer in liaison with the Jordanian service. An Agency officer cannot accept a foreign intelligence service’s word for the trustworthiness of an agent they’d recruited. It was incumbent on the Agency officer in liaison with the service to conduct his own validation procedure. This, he clearly had not done. Why not? Had he just been remiss? Had Headquarters been so enthused at running jointly with the Jordanians an agent who claimed to have direct access to bin Laden that they told this officer, “Just get on with the program?” We’ll never know the answer to this question.

It was poor tradecraft for Headquarters to order the debriefing to take place at Forward Operating Base Chapman. Jennifer should have been ordered to travel to a more secure location maybe in the Kabul area where better security could have been exercised. When is it permitted to bring an unvetted agent into your base, to meet face-to-face with other CIA officers? Never!

Jennifer deserves praise for having agreed to undertake such a dangerous assignment. She left home and hearth to do her part to protect our Homeland by operating against al Qaeda. Her husband, her children, her family can be proud of this CIA analyst who was prepared to give up so much, to take such a risk, all in the hopes of making this world a safer place. In the end, she gave her all.

On understanding the Afghan military partnership

2012-01-22T12:39:00.006-05:00

This was contributed by a former colleague. He knows more about the intelligence business than the whole blooming Agency combined.

Now a French trained Afghan has killed four French trainers.

To some of my acquaintances who believe that Islamists are for the most part peaceful and so on, I make the following comment. I lived in three Arab countries, and traveled in a number of others, and dealt with locals on a regular basis, but never came to the point where I felt I could really trust one of them completely. So, I posit the following to these people.

Let us assume that you live next door to a devout Afghan Muslim family. For some years you and your family have had good relations and you are in social situations essentially comfortable together. One day a Mullah comes to the male in the Arab family and says something like this.

"Your American neighbor has a close relative fighting in Afghanistan who with his military unit was responsible for blowing up a Mosque in your village outside of Khandahar. Some of your relatives were killed. It has been decreed that in retaliation you must kill your next door neighbor--even if you should later be killed by the infidels you will be a martyr."

Now here is the problem. Which will win out, your friendship with the Arab in which case he will not act against you, or he will, because of his total devotion to Islam, follow the instructions of the cleric and comply with the instructions passed to him. (I for one would not want to deal with this option.) Of course, one can introduce factors that would tend to obviate this dilemma in some way. But in its essence it is still out there.

I have never given up my strong sense of cynicism about Arabs and how, when, and where they place their loyalty. As you know, Brits said you can't buy an Arab but only rent him. Certainly in our Stations it was an attitude that was easy to adopt and act on.

We had a friend in Baghdad, an elderly but wealthy Arab who had the Carrier Air Conditioner distributorship for several Arab countries. He felt he was too old to continue to manage it and so gave the business to his son to manage. The son did so for a brief while and then disposed of it, making a lot of money. He promptly went to Beirut to live in a big penthouse, and became a playboy. Don't know the end of this since we were evacuated at the time of the 6 Day War, but such intra-family betrayals are not, I believe, unusual.

I never felt they trusted each other, and now, with factions arising in the mobs of the Arab Spring, it is easy to see that unity and loyalty does not rate high among them. Well, I guess we, you, I and others of us have fought our battles, will become victims, of the wisdom of our contemporary leaders who see good in all those things, people, and places we question.

And thus ends my colleague's offering. Are all Muslims this devious? No, not the modern ones. But a Muslim who believes in guiding his life according to Sharia,....

Is Our Government out of Control?

2012-01-12T15:58:00.000-05:00

Is our government out of control? This is an interesting question. Rarely is such a question posed in the case of a democratic government. Kleptocracies, thugocracies and other forms of tyrannical governments, yes, it's a valid question. But let's look at ours, for a moment.

Most recently a couple that wanted to build a home on land they'd purchased were told by the government that it was believed that their land constituted a wetland. This after they'd received all state and local permits necessary. Yes, all 0.6 acres constituted this marshland (the Feds believed) and it had to be preserved. So, please restore everything as it was before you unloaded tons of earth and built footings and basement walls. Yes, this is our EPA and U.S. Army engineers at work. They aren't worth a spit in protecting a city the size of New Orleans from the ravages of flooding, but they're sure going to keep this spot of land pristine.

This is tied in with the goal of our government to foster anything and everything that is "green." So, let's start with Solyndra. That U.S. company was on the ropes of failure before it came to the notice of the White House. President Obama committed tons of cash to help it flourish. We all know how well that worked out, don't we? There is no way for the U.S. to manufacture solar panels and undersell those imported from China. Why do we permit this? Why don't we protect our own manufacturers? Go ask our Ideologue-In-Chief. All the workers at the Solyndra plant are now in the ranks of the unemployed.

The latest brilliant move was when the government required oil companies to blend 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol into their gasoline or face fines. Great idea except for one little problem. No one's making cellulosic ethanol because it's terribly expensive. Putting this product into gasoline should have a startling effect on the price per gallon.
What's the problem here? It is the natural result of a government run by an ideologue. He's not trying to save us from importing oil, he's worried about the effects of exhaust gasses upon the climate. If he's so worried about reducing oil imports, why not open up more of our proven reserves to drilling?

President Obama entered into the presidency prepared to put into effect his far-left philosophy of government featuring everything from a "greening" of the Earth to a taxation plan that would take from those who worked for their income and give to those who never worked a day in their lives. His ideologically-derived goals will - repeat - will be met, come hell or high water. The public welfare be damned.

Time to Bring Back the Dinosaurs

2011-12-13T12:26:00.001-05:00

Bob Baer, of “Sleeping with the Devil” fame, beat me to it when he decried the apparent demise of incorporating tradecraft concepts into CIA operations today. Maybe it’s high time for CIA to consider bringing some dinosaurs back from the cold.
Let’s go back to the rendition of an al Qaeda agent living in Italy. CIA sent off its best rendition officers to “conduct” the target to CIA-controlled lodgings. The whole business set up a hullabaloo in Italian government circles. It appeared that the rendition specialists had lived like kings while awaiting the initiation of the operation. They bought everything using their personal (true-name) credit cards. It didn’t take too long for the Italian security services to identify every CIA rendition officer. A quick check of the telephone records of this witless bunch and the Italian services identified the CIA base chief, the officer nominally supervising the rendition. The violation of tradecraft principles in this operation was appalling.
We aren’t done yet. Hizballah is now claiming to have identified a number of CIA officers as well as their agents. If you’ve identified a CIA officer, it doesn’t take too long to uncover his agents. This is especially true when the officer fails to practice his tradecraft. It would appear CIA isn’t the only service to have fallen by the wayside, The Syrians, Iranians and Hizballah would appear to have identified a number of Mossad undercover officers and their agents.
Welcome to the age of high-tech. We may champion this age in our daily lives but intelligence officers should eschew this development if, for no other reason than it would appear to have supplanted the practice of tradecraft. Worst of all, one wonders if tradecraft principles are even taught to new officers. Ah, the new wonders of the world of high tech spycraft. We have unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that permit an operator thousands of miles away to send a missile into a speeding pickup truck. We have any number of different sensors that can distinguish between the foot tread of a human and a waterbuck and send the message tens of thousands of miles away, bouncing signals off satellites. We have ultraviolet and infrared gadgets. Our devices can look through solid brick walls and determine how many individuals are in a given room. We can do all these things, but we can’t keep secret the identities of our officers or our agents.
It’s time to bring back the dinosaurs. I am such a dinosaur. In my days as an active CIA officer, we had precious few such high tech devices. We were pleased to get a simple recording device that fit into a shirt pocket. What an advancement it was when we moved from spring-loaded robot cameras to motor drives. And who in CIA today would know how to prepare and conceal a microdot? Yes, high tech has, in many ways made our operational lives simpler, but they have not—repeat—not made our operational lives more secure. All right, give your agent a cell phone instead of more involved ways of communicating with him. Look out! He will be tracked hither and yon by the counterintelligence offices of the local service thanks to the locating devices built into cell phones today. And when he’s caught red-handed, the record of all calls made from that cellphone will be available. Will his case officer’s name and number appear? You bet it will!
So I end my plea; can we please go back to the dinosaur days when we worried about who might be following us? The dinosaur days when we worried about our agent communications falling into the wrong hands? The dinosaur days when we took nothing for granted and every agent was bad until proven good? Just that alone would have prevented the Khost massacre.

U.S. Troops to Uganda

2011-10-16T15:27:00.003-04:00

The President of the United States is sending about 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to wipe out Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). But that’s all right, the White House tells us, since these troops will fight in self-defense only. I’m sure Kony will be content to sit deep in the bush and just watch the Ugandans learning those tactics that, when executed will result in the destruction of his movement.

Who is this Joseph Kony? This terrorist leader has been fighting off Ugandan forces for the better part of the last quarter century. Originally, his insurgent group aimed at overthrowing a demonstrably corrupt government. But then increasingly, religious overtones began to enter the picture to the point where Kony presented himself as receiving orders directly from the Christian God. Intermingled were elements of tribal (Acholi) animist elements. In their long history, the group conducted horrible massacres of entire villages in the interior of Uganda and southern Sudan. Kony’s principal notoriety resulted from his kidnapping children and turning them into a children’s army. Kony and his LRA are a particularly despicable insurgent group and they certainly deserve neutralization if not annihilation.

The question remains, is this mission proper? Where is the U.S. national interest in this project? President Obama made a lot of political noise when he condemned President G.W. Bush for having put us into the Iraq adventure. In the latter case, one could make the argument that Saddam’s policies threatened the entire Middle East and that region is within our national interest to protect. One might raise this point in the case of Libya. But where is the U.S. national interest in putting down a terrorist group threatening the Ugandan government? Yes, Uganda does have minerals that would be ‘nice to have’ in our basket of commodities. These minerals may be worth our treasure, but definitely not worth the blood of our military.

Iranian Assassination Plot - Our Feeble Response

2011-10-16T15:05:00.004-04:00

In response to the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., President Obama will seek to increase Iran’s isolation. He will once again shake a presidential finger in the faces of Iran’s leadership. Boy, that’ll tell ‘em, all right. No, Mr. President, when they hit you, the only proper response is to hit back—and harder than they hit you.

What is there to hit? How about putting one of their ports out of commission? How about putting one or more of the al Quds training centers out of commission? No, not necessarily through military action, this is why we have a CIA and Special Operations Forces. When a response short of a declaration of war is required, these are the go-to guys. They certainly don’t need any assistance from me as to how to go about this business. Think Stuxnet, Mr. President. No one fired any shots, no one died, but the computer virus damaged many of Iran’s centrifuges beyond repair and stopped others running for some time. Come on, Mr. President, do something! Show some leadership! After all, you are the Commander-in-Chief.

Crooning our National Anthem

2011-07-07T15:54:00.002-04:00

Watching the televised production of “A Capitol Fourth” Monday (4 July 2011) evening I just knew what would happen the moment the singer chosen to sing our national anthem walked onstage. I was not disappointed.

A national anthem is supposed to get one’s blood flowing. It should cause one’s chin to rise, one’s shoulders to square. In sum, a national anthem should rouse one’s spirits and develop a heart filled with patriotic fervor.

Not so—this was not to be the case on our Capitol Fourth. Once again, the authorities selected a young African American girl who delivered our national anthem as if she were cooing to a baby. Or maybe it was more of a crooning one would expect to hear in a downtown night spot. Parts of her singing reminded one of joyous, exuberant psalm singing in a church choir. None of these styles, in my opinion is appropriate for the singing of our national anthem.

Not to pick on African American girls, I register the same unhappiness any time a singer of pop, reggae, country rock, whatever, stands before the microphone at a public gathering. These pop singers believe they should translate the notes and the beat of our anthem to fit their personal (commercial?) style of singing. Not so, my friends, reread para 2 supra.

The Lecture Panetta Should Deliver to President Obama

2011-05-21T13:50:00.001-04:00

An article appeared in the 20 May 2011 edition of the Washington Post titled, “Panetta Warns CIA Workers against Leaks on bin Laden.” Someone should advise Mr. Panetta his officers know how to keep secrets—they do so every day of their service and afterward, through the rest of their lives. Mr. Panetta might best direct his lecture to President Obama and his national security advisors.

It was President Obama and his White House security staffers who made public a great deal of information on the SEAL-conducted raid on bin Laden's villa that should have remained secret. It is clear they all did so in the interest of political gain; to give President Obama and his administration a “bump up” in his sagging polls. Clearly, that information was classified; if not, it should have been classified, as the revealed material dealt directly with sources and methods.

Did they have to reveal the existence of the “stealth” surveillance drone? Did they have to reveal the existence of the CIA safe house in proximity to bin Laden’s villa? Did they have to reveal the specifics of the intelligence collected e.g., computer hard drives, diaries, thumb drives and the like? Once again, we perceive the much higher value our leaders place on political gain vice national security

President Obama - A Champion to the Arab People

2011-05-20T13:41:00.004-04:00

President Obama is going to ‘bestow upon the new Egyptian “government” something in excess of one billion of our taxpayer dollars. Does President Obama or anyone else in the executive branch have any idea as to who will benefit from this gift? All Egyptian political parties are in a state of flux at the moment, but one party in particular is well organized and, according to local pundits, is scheduled to win the election. And that winning political party that will receive President Obama’s one billion dollar gift is a terrorist organization.

Permit me to explain. The one billion dollar gift will go to a well-known terrorist organization, an implacable enemy of our country. This terrorist organization was responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat following his courageous visit to Israel to address the Israeli Parliament. This enemy fathered the Hamas organization that seeks the destruction of Israel. This enemy prays for the destruction of our country and its people.

This terrorist enemy is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ikhwan. The leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood shares something in common with the late unlamented leader of al Qaeda, Usama bin Ladin. The Brotherhood believes there is only one overriding rule of behavior, Sharia Law. Yes, the same Sharia law that condemns all democratic forms of government as anti-Islam. The same law that considers women no more than chattel, hardly human. Sharia permits a husband to beat his wife (or wives) at will. Sharia permits a father to cut his daughter’s throat for walking about without a family-related male escort. Sharia requires a rape victim to produce four witnesses to the act. If she cannot do this, she, in turn, is charged with prostitution or, if she is married, with adultery. The latter is punishable by stoning to death. This group, the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that champions this Sharia law, is slated to get over one billion of our dollars from President Obama.

We should have known of our president’s favoring of the Arab. We all saw his bow to the Saudi king. We all see his readiness to permit the engagement of our military in support of an anti-Qadhafi organization without any idea of what this anti-Qadhafi organization represented. We all see his readiness to support any anti-regime group in the Maghreb and the Middle East with one major exception, the corrupt, anti-democratic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic government of Saudi Arabia.

Must have something to do with his Islamic training as a young boy.

Proud to have served in the CIA

2011-05-03T10:22:00.005-04:00

I have never been so proud of my service in the CIA. At the time I left active service in 1994, the Agency was in the throes of bureaucratic entanglements. Leadership of the Directorate of Operations, today's National Clandestine Service, was sorely lacking. Special Operations had been eviscerated. Case officers, the agent recruiters and handlers, had learned promotions came more easily and with no risk by networking at headquarters rather than working the less desirable areas of the globe in search of agent material. The watchword of the day was, "Avoid risk at all cost." Case officers knew,if there was a flap associated with their operation, no one, but no one had their back.

Then General Mike Hayden, a consummate intelligence professional, took over as Director of the CIA. He began the process of putting the Agency back on the right track. Leon Panetta, who followed General Hayden as Director, to the surprise of many at CIA, proved to be not only a protector of his people, he made them proud to be intelligence professionals. And they did not let him down.

Agency professionals, from case officers, analysts, technical ooperations specialists to interrogators, they all pursued Usama bin Laden with the knowledge their director and the rest of CIA's senior leadeership were behind them. And thanks to Mr. Panetta's special relationship with President Obama, all of CIA knew they had the full backing of their Commander-in-Chief.

An Open Letter to Mr. John Brennan

2011-04-12T15:46:00.002-04:00

Mr. Brennan, President Obama’s chief advisor on matters terrorist, refuses to conjoin Jihadists with Islam. He supports President Barak Obama’s insistence that there is no connection between the events of 9-11 and Islam. In effect, they both insist there is no connection at all between terrorism and Islamic Shariah law.

Why is this? Certainly, Mr. Brennan, a former senior CIA official and Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, understands the fallacy of this argument. The 9-11 terrorists were jihadists who were carrying out the obligations of Shariah law. And Shariah law applies, in principle, to those of the Islamic faith. Ergo, there has to be a connection between the 9-11 terrorists and Islam.

I know you love your job, Mr. Brennan, but that’s no excuse to avoid the obvious: Practitioners of Shariah law are, perforce, terrorists because Shariah law requires all its adherents to oppose all societies, all systems, all legal structures that do not conform to the ultimate goal of Shariah. Mr. Brennan, one might draw a line between those Muslims who do not accept all the requirements of Shariah and those who do. The latter are our enemies, not the former. However, in the eyes of the latter, the former are equally enemies of Shariah along with the rest of us non-Muslims.

Sorry, Mr. Brennan, defining the term ‘jihad’ as a ‘moral good’ works only if you study Shariah law where ‘moral good’ equates to the total destruction of anything, everything and anyone that frustrates the creation of the Islamic Caliphate. Mr. Brennan, you are doing a tremendous disservice to U.S. policy makers, let alone to our U.S. military forces. You are blinding them to the realities of the threats to our society. You are shielding our true enemies from those sworn to destroy our true enemies. How can our protectors, both civil and military, accomplish their mission if they don’t know from whom they are to protect us. One of the first commandments taught our military is, “Know your enemy.” Mr. Brennan, why not strip away the veil of political correctness and let the American people know who the enemy is?

Obama, the ideologue, does it again

2011-02-03T17:35:00.001-05:00

What is all this nonsense about Egypt and democracy? Egypt is a Muslim country. No Muslim, worthy of the name, accepts democracy. Read the Qur'an. Do you find anything there that even remotely reminds you of democracy?

The only organized "political party" in Egypt worthy of the name is the Muslim Brotherhood. These people are the fathers of Hamas and many other Islamist groups. As is oft quoted, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." Can there be any doubt but that the Muslim Brotherhood exemplifies the most noble among the Islamists?

And it is this group that will receive the leadership of Egypt once Mubarak either decides to leave or is pushed from his position of leadership. No, Mubarak was not the most democratic of rulers either in the Middle east or elsewhere. But he was our friend. He espoused our policies vis-a-vis Islamic extremism. And he signed a peace accord with Israel.

It is amazing, the lack of understanding of the Arab persona that exists within our government. Has no one ever heard of the importance the Arab attaches to loyalty? Has no one in our government ever heard of the importance the Arab attaches to honor? Clearly, no one. Mubarak supported U.S. and other Western governments' policies in the Middle East. And how has our government treated him? They told him he should step down NOW. Is that the manner of a friend? Is that the way in which one demonstrates loyalty? Surely, there could have been innumerable ways to indicate to Mubarak that it was time to go. And all of these ways could have been communicated secretly so as to preserve his honor. But no, Obama had to demonstrate visibly his disdain for "Strong Men" and others who failed to demonstrate HIS concept of democracy. Mr. Obama, not every country, not every culture holds "democracy" in such high repute as we Americans. Once again, read the Qur'an. You will see that democratic ideals do not exist within its parameters.

Mubarak said he would step down in September, prior to the national elections scheduled for that month. No, his son would not succeed him. Mubarak had sent him out of the country, knowing he was not of the same mettle as he. That should have ended it right there. "Thank you, Mr. President, for your understanding of the sensitivity of the current political scene." something like that would have done it, in conjunction with the message carried to Mubarak our former ambassador. But no, our president and his press secretary had to enunciate most clearly that the U.S. wanted him gone NOW.

Watch your TV screens this evening. Observe the fighting taking place in Tahrir Square between the anti-Mubarak demonstrators and the sudden appearance of the pro-Mubarak elements. Who are these pro-Mubarak elements? they are secret police, regular police, presidential special action forces and the like. Where did they come from, all of a sudden? In my opinion, they were launched by Mubarak in response to what he perceives, to be Obama's treachery, his disloyalty.

Time will tell whether can weather the storm or not. Many observers claim the Muslim Brotherhood is far from well organized, they stand not the chance of a snowball in the Valley of the Kings. Time will tell. Note that upon the heels of the departing head of state in Tunisia, a formerly exiled Islamist returned to the country and within 48 hours, the first Synagogue was set on fire.

Where Have All The Taliban Gone?

2010-10-23T11:50:00.004-04:00

An article in today's Washington Post cites General Petraeus' claim that UN forces are in the final stages of clearing a key area of Taliban fighters. I would be the last person to ascribe duplicity to this officer. I would, instead, state that he and the other UN commanders are fooling themselves.
The absence of Taliban fighters does not mean they have been killed or captured. It means they have vacated the area. The Taliban know the days of US/UN forces operating in Afghanistan are numbered. Why risk the deaths of their fighters at this time? They will be needed after the Infidels depart.
It should be clear to one and all by this time that the Karzai government, as it is currently constituted, will never succeed in wresting control from the Taliban once UN forces leave. So, given this condition, why should the Taliban forces commit their forces to fighting the "occupiers" in any but those battles where victory is most clearly assured?
No, General Petraeus, the absence of Taliban fighters from those areas where your forces are the strongest should not be seen as an indicator you have defeated the Taliban fighters. They have melted into the hills and across the border into Pakistan awaiting your departure. Then they will return and the country will be theirs.

Who Really Hates Us?

2010-08-17T11:35:00.003-04:00

The controversy over the building of a mosque next to hallowed Ground Zero has stimulated significant debate. Even senior Democrats are running away from President Obama's pro-Mosque position. The many who support the contruction of the mosque support consturction of the mosque next to the site of the Twin Towers defend their position by stating that the enemy is not Islam, it's bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Bin Laden is only following the precepts of the Qur'an on this matter. According to the tenets of the book sacred to all of Islam, Infidels have only three choices, submit and pay the tax levied on non-believers, convert or be destroyed. It isn't bin Laden who is the enemy, it truly is the body of believers who take the Qur'an as sacred text that must be accepted word for word. Only when all non-Islamic lands are under sharia law (with all that it entails) can the Islamic peoples of the world rest. Until that time, the West, principally, the US, is the enemy and must be fought into submission to the Caliphate.

The events of 9-11 were the opening salvo of Islam's war against the U.S. Building a mosque next to the Twin Towers site will be seen by the Islamic world as testament to a victorious opening salvo.

The Mosque at Twin Towers Site

2010-08-04T09:46:00.001-04:00

Who was it who said that putting up a Mosque at this site is tantamount to building a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor?
Oh, no, Saudi money has nothing to do with the financing of this Islamic Center. Let's look at the level of transparency that will be available to see just who is paying what. Our wonderful Saudi allies, those neat, loveable guys who brought you 9-11. Who will not permit any bibles, churches or synagogues in their country—who will not permit any Jews in the areas of Mecca and Medina. Have any of these apologists for the Islamic Center ever looked at a Saudi textbook provided to their schools in the U.S.? Where do you think our home-grown Jihadis get their ideas? They learn this hatred in the madrassas located in Anytown, USA. And these schools are funded largely by Saudi Arabia.

We Can't Do It Alone

2010-07-12T09:34:00.001-04:00

It appears we still haven't learned our lesson. Militaries (U.S. & NATO) alone cannot neutralize the Taliban without the full involvement of the host government. Our warriors defeat Taliban forces foolish enough to defend their hold on a village. Force of arms makes the difference. The Taliban are driven out.

The military commanders, possibly a few other senior officers enter the village. Through their interpreter, they look to change the allegiance of the village. The promise is, you support the Karzai government, the government will provide for your needs. The villagers give their assent; the troops leave. Another victory for our side.
The villagers wait. the Karzai government sends no one. The Taliban return. Their snitches point out those who cooperated with the military forces. They are swiftly executed.

And the cycle repeats.

Iran - the Complexities of Race, Religion and Ethnicity

2010-04-23T14:34:00.008-04:00

This blog is courtesy of "Woody", a former colleague and currently a good friend.

It isn't East and West that never meet but Kipling was partially right: it is the fist world and third world countries which never meet. Asking a third world country to rid itself of 'corruption' is asking it to stop breathing.

Take Iran. There are Iranians to be sure, in Tehran and maybe three other cities. But there are three major semi-autonomous tribes who do not love one another. Ten there are Jews, Kurds, Arabs, Turki, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Assyrians and a dozen other tribes sects, ethnic groups and powerful extended families, each with its own culture to be accommodated. The government of Iran cannot hope to control the country; it must be content to dominate it. Which it does with its army, gendarmerie, paramilitary forces and internal security units. The numerous controlling forces are a primitive but efficient heart.

The Iranian government? think of a border collie with a herd of cats. The controlling hearts pump life-giving, if tainted, blood into a primitive body, but it works. Asking it to dissolve itself when there is nothing to substitute is asking it to return to the caves.

Is there crime in first world corruption? It is practically all crime. Third world corruption? Much less, for crime needs enforced laws to violate. And third world corruption is often a way to circumvent bad law or substitute for lack of law.

U.S. Military Suicides

2010-03-24T10:41:00.003-04:00

Did I read correctly that more U.S. servicemen and women die by their own hand than by enemy action? What is going on here? Why isn't the American populace expressing its incredulity? Why isn't there more information relating to possible solutions emanating from the Department of Defense?

I recall seeing a photo of a wounded veteran suffering from PTSD. On a table in front of him stood his medications: over a dozen different sized containers each containing a different prescription medication for his illness. No one had taken the time to study the possible side effects of these drugs let alone the resulting interactions of the medications. It's hard to believe but, on the average,U.S. military personnel suffering from this illness are being prescribed close to ten different medications.

Could one side effect of mixing these prescriptions be suicidal tendencies?

Re: The Effort To Pass The Health Care Bill: Follow The Buddha

2010-03-16T16:12:00.003-04:00

As the Buddha is reported to have said, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. Would that our members of congress empoloyed a similar regime when it came to the 2,000+ page health bill.

Recycling Terrorists - Guantanamo's Revolving Door

2010-01-04T12:31:00.001-05:00

As Sen. Lieberman pointed out, some of the current leaders of al-Qaeda in Yemen were recently enemy combatant prisoners at Guantanamo. They had been released to the Yemeni government and quickly found their freedom. It's not a stretch to believe their incarceration in Guantanamo and visitation rights would provide them insights useful in targeting Americans and American interests. During WW-II, POWs were not released to their native countries until after the war ended. Unfortunately, would some of these ex-prisoners be captured again, they wold soon find themselves repatriated to Yemen to repeat the cycle.

The Karzai Mafia strikes again

2009-12-20T13:09:00.005-05:00

If anyone needed proof that the Karzai government functions more like a mafia organization than a valid, popularly supported government one need only visit the following URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/world/asia/20karzai.html?pagewanted=3&th&emc=th

This New York Times story reads more like a novel. A young man calmly doing his homework with his sister is shot multiple times, allegedly by a family member. This would not have attracted much attention—how many gun-shot deaths occur daily in Afghanistan—except for the fact that the family in question is from the village of Karz. It's the First Family of Karz known as Karzai. Yes, it's President Karzai's family that is directly involved. It's a story of honor killings, revenge killings, and involvement in the country's principal export, drugs.

For all the patina of civilization we coat over that country, it remains a primitive, tribal-based autocracy. Personally, I wouldn't care a fig for that country were it not for the fact its Taliban terrorists provide safe havens for al-Qaeda killers and absorbs hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars that we could use here at home. Oh, yes, another reason—we have our men and women over there putting their lives on the line on a daily basis. Yeah, that's good reason for giving a fig.

There's corruption and then there's CORRUPTION

2009-12-18T14:52:00.002-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that I have failed to distinguish between corruption and CORRUPTION. I have little concern over 'corruption' as I've seen it throughout the Third World. Civil servants, from the cop on the beat to the little guy who works in the post office, hardly ever see their full salary and, in many cases, see no salary at all. These folks live on the small "tips" they receive from those whom they serve. In Kinshasa, I regularly tipped a mail clerk the equivalent of $3.00 per month to ensure my mail didn't "get lost." I paid a telephone technician the equivalent of $1.00 per month to ensure my telephone service did not become "disconnected." This is what I mean by lower case corruption.

CORRUPTION, all in caps, is the corruption I cannot stand; it's the corruption none of us should tolerate. This is the corruption that totally rots the body politic and condemns all citizenry to a life of misery. In the case of the Karzai regime, CORRUPTION is responsible for much of the capital going without 24/7 water and electricity. CORRUPTION is responsible for a lack of security in the country as a whole since a percentage of the police and military actively serve in the Taliban in order to feed and clothe their families. This is the CORRUPTION whereof I speak; it's the cancer in the Afghan body politic and, until it's excised before it metasticizes further, our blood and treasure will be squandered.

How corrupt can the Karzai government become?

2009-12-16T13:44:00.003-05:00

Heck it worked in Iraq, why shouldn’t it work in Afghanistan? If you can’t beat them, then buy them. Less than half of the Taliban fighters are dedicated Jihadis; most of them are toting AKs for the money. Yes, the Taliban leadership pays regular salaries to its soldiers. And that’s more than the Afghan government does for its military and police.

Back to the original theme. I read a most telling Washington Post article a couple of days ago. It seems that a Taliban soldier had heard that if he put down his weapon, the Afghan government would provide him a job and a home. What a deal. So, this chap duly lay down his weapon and applied for the benefits. The government response: “Sorry, we have nothing for you. We have no money to provide these benefits.”

No money? After all those hundreds of millions of U.S.taxpayer dollars we’ve doled out to the Afghan government for this and countless other programs and now, when the program is just beginning to work, the Karzai gang claims they have no money? Well, the poor aforementioned chap is trying to explain to his family why, now that he’s stopped fighting, the quality of his life has not improved.

So, our guys are fighting and dying to support a regime that is so corrupt, so bereft of even a smidgen of morality it merits being effaced. Will Washington please wake up and smell the noxious vapors arising from Karzai's palace?

The New American Populism

2009-11-22T10:40:00.003-05:00

How to describe the groups of Americans who demonstrate fear, confusion, doubt, belief in conspiracy theories when considering their government. They are populists, Crazy populists in the minds of some. They are angry at everything: They are angered at the bailouts of major financial and industrial institutions. They are angered at the proposed health care plans, both of which (Congressional and Senate) will add significantly to our national debt, not to mention individual costs and small business costs.

They are angry at their government, all levels—they cannot understand why there appears to be no effort to create jobs. They are angry at their elected representatives who, in the face of promises to the contrary, are prepared to offer free health care to illegal immigrants. Everyone knows that "free" means higher taxes for the rest of us.

There is also general opposition to our policies relative to Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. We don't want to spend any more national treasure in support of a corrupt government (Afghanistan)or a corrupt, religiously divided government (Iraq). We wonder why our government won't react against despotic regimes chasing after nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran).

Finally, we are angry at our government for chasing after ridiculously expensive health care, ridiculously expensive bailouts when, for hoi polloi, there is the eternal state of unemployment. For those still employed, there is the constant fear of losing a job and joining the unemployed. Unemployment hangs like a black cloud of doom over tens of thousands of salaried white collar workers and wage earning workers alike.

Am I a crazy populist? No, at the moment I'm just a populist. Check back in a week or two to see if I've crossed the Maginot Line spearating the two.

The Administration’s Health Care program - an absence of feng shui in policy making

2009-11-21T17:07:00.001-05:00

What a fantastic opportunity for those who see cabals and conspiracies behind every column on the Capitol. At the onset of the debates over health reform, many conservatives portrayed the administration program as a plan to ration health care for seniors. Seniors are the most expensive part of the population to maintain in good health. To the degree that the government can trim health care for this group, it can reduce the overall costs. This debate then moved on to the point where groups like the Tea Party came to believe there was a government plan to establish “Death Panels” that would have the final word on health care for our aging population.

And then along came the results of a committee established under the George W. Bush administration concluding that, according to their studies, breast cancer screening for women under the age of 40 did not merit the costs involved; such mammograms revealed relatively few cases of breast cancer for this group of women. In effect, mammograms should not be considered until the age of 50. Folks seeking evidence to support their beliefs in an active conspiracy claimed that this committee’s results proved the administration wished to trim or ration health care. The administration took such flak on this, Secretary Sibelius felt it necessary to announce the Obama administration would distance itself from the mammogram issue.

Talk about bad timing. In my opinion, this illustrates an absence of feng shui in policy making.

Afghanistan - To surge or not to surge

2009-10-20T12:49:00.004-04:00

To surge or not to surge, that is the question. News reporting has it that President Karzai will agree to a run-off election. Details are somewhat hazy. Will it occur this year before the major winter snows make it impossible to deliver/retrieve ballot boxes from the remote villages? Will the president insist on delaying the run-off election until next year? Given the late date, even if the election occurred within the next 30 days, it might be impossible to ensure all eligible voters would have their ballots counted because of weather. Yet, to continue with a fraudulently elected president at the helm is unlikely to provide the legitimacy of a partner our foreign policy experts were hoping for in our pursuit of a viable Afghanistan policy.

And this brings us to the question of the surge. There was little doubt that this question was hostage to an answer to the larger issue of what to do about the fraudulent presidential election. Having (partially) come to grips with that issue, what do we do now? The military is supportive of General McChrystal’s request for additional troops. But do we want to go ahead with a major surge when we still have no exit policy? How will we know if/when we’re successful in our Afghan campaign? When our military forces have neutralized every Taliban follower? When we’ve captured Usama bin-Laden and his principal cohorts? When the Pakistani Taliban no longer threatens our Pakistani partner? What is our definition of success in Afghanistan?

It would appear there are “good” Taliban and “bad” Taliban. It all depends on the willingness of the particular Taliban group to accept a deal with the Pakistani military. To date, two major Taliban organizations have come to terms with the Pakistani military incursion into Waziristan. The quid-pro-quo is, “You don’t bomb or shoot at us and we don’t shoot at you.” And maybe, just maybe, this will wind up being the best deal possible. To the best of our knowledge, al Qaeda was not a participant in this arrangement.

What about the training and arming of Afghan military and police units to the degree they are able to deal with the insurgency. Would that constitute success? There is always the attraction of finding parallels with our Vietnam experience. How many thousands upon thousands of South Vietnamese military, police and paramilitary members had we trained? And they lasted how long against the NVA incursion into the South after we pulled back our combat elements? What reason do we have to believe the picture would be any different in Afghanistan?

Let’s get back to the original question, to surge or not to surge. My take on this is as follows. We dare not leave U.S. and coalition forces in such a predicament that we are endangering their safety. We must ensure they have what they require by way of support to protect themselves. However, we might best delay the full complement of the surge, up to 40,000 additional troops, until we’ve decided on the definition of success. When will we be able to state, “Job well done; bring the troops back home.”

Afghanistan - A Run-off election or Power Sharing Arrangement

2009-10-19T11:15:00.005-04:00

A run-off election or a power-sharing arrangement in Afghanistan—what will it be? Reportedly, this is what is occupying our national security folks; a matter they must decide before our government can discuss any surge in military personnel.

To no one’s surprise, President Karzai will dig in his heels and refuse any national election between him and the runner-up, Abdullah Abdullah. The latter, a Tajik-Pashtun, has the ethnic-tribal affiliations that would serve him well in leading his people out of the Taliban embrace. Furthermore, having served as a close advisor to Ahmed Shah Masood, the Tajik hero, would add significantly to his credibility and electability. Could this be the reason that Karzai had expelled Abdullah from his cabinet?

And so the likely outcome will be a decision to go for the power-sharing option. In my opinion, this would be a grave mistake. First, Karzai would remain as president—a president who won in a fraudulent election. As president, he is certain to insist on retaining control of those governmental ministries and agencies that really count. Plus, he would retain the power to install his people as governors in the most significant regions. Second, we have to look at the power-sharing arrangement of another country where the president won by fraudulent means—Zimbabwe. Even after achieving a power-sharing arrangement, the runner-up, Morgan Tsvangirai, has failed to achieve a true sharing of power with President Robert Mugabe. Tsvangirai, the country’s prime minister, from the very beginning, has been unable to resolve disputes with the president. Furthermore, the internal security forces, under Mugabe’s aegis, continue to arrest Tsvangirai’s supporters on bogus treason charges.

Afghanistan - Let's get it right this time

2009-10-17T13:45:00.004-04:00

We hear nothing from the generals. They’ve spoken out in the past, telling us of the need for a surge of between 2000-6000 troops if we are to be successful in Afghanistan. But now they are silent. It is time for the politicians to do their thing.

Wisely, our political leaders are discussing among themselves two issues: What would constitute success in Afghanistan? What shoring up of the Afghanistan political structure would be required for the American and coalition forces to neutralize the Taliban and the al Qaeda remnants in that country?

The first challenge is to undo the fraudulent election that returned Karzai to the presidency. Current polls suggest, were new elections to take place in the near term, Karzai would be unlikely to receive even fifty percent of the vote. How would a non-Pashtun president sit with the majority of the Afghan people? Would it be better to seek out a Tajik or even an Uzbek in order to find a non-controversial figure from a non-entity tribe á la Kenya?

It will be a long, hard slog but this is the only way to proceed. More later on the subject of what constitutes “success” in Afghanistan.

Our Afghan Policy - Redux

2009-10-12T12:11:00.001-04:00

In my last post on our Afghan policy, I stated I was confused. Let me state for the record: I’m no longer confused. I’m just angry. Every one accepts the principle that, until there is an effective government in place in Kabul, nothing else is going to work. There is no effective government in Kabul; there is only the weak, ineffective and corrupt Karzai government. And its power barely extends to the Kabul city limits. To top it all off, this government is the result of an admitted fraudulent election.

General McChrystal says the Taliban are winning and, unless he receives anywhere from 20,000-40,000 additional troops, the game is over. We will have lost Afghanistan. Now, the good general, along with his boss, General Petraeus, are students of asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric—a fancy name for fighting against an insurgency. But didn’t General McChrystal say, just the other day, that until and unless some entity cleans up the current Afghan regime, and converts this corrupt cabal into an effective government, there’s very little military forces can hope to accomplish in ther struggle against insurgent elements.

I recall, when preparing for Vietnam duty back in 1968, the rubric was, “The power of the emperor stops at the village gates.” The central government of the then South Vietnam exercised only minimal control over the regions of the country. And this is what we now see in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has nominated a new general officer to oversee all training activities. But how do you train a police force that is composed of young men who have bribed their way into the force? These men will continue to have their salaries raided by the recipients of graft. And, once they become fully fledged police officers, they will begin making up for those payments of graft by demanding “fee for service” from the citizenry. The same principle exists within the justice system. Lesser judges have paid graft to senior judges to become seated magistrates and judges. They, in turn, like the police officers, will have to collect from those who seek justice in their courts. Thus we have “justice” awarded to the plaintiff or defendant depending on who pays whom and how much.

And the White House is dithering over how many more troops they should send to Afghanistan. Go ahead and send another 20,000. Send another 30,000—no, make that 40,000. It will make no difference. We will kill a mess of Taliban and we shall certainly experience more American and allied casualties and coffins. Unfortunately, nothing in Afghanistan will change. In the end, the Taliban will remain the only organized national element prepared to step up and govern the country.

DOJ and the release of classified materials

2009-10-06T15:18:00.003-04:00

According to President Obama, any question as to what data, classified by the originating agency, may be released to the public will be deferred to the Attorney General and/or his minions. I spent better than 30 years working with the CIA. I handled highly classified materials almost every day. To think that someone, totally removed from ongoing intelligence operations, will decide whether these classified materials may be declassified and released to some outside uncleared body boggles the mind. On what basis will these outsiders make this decision? If the DOJ folks operate true to form, they will base their decision on “political advantage.”

Two key questions: Will the release of this data be advantageous or disadvantageous to the administration? Can the administration exploit the release of this information to its own advantage?

Naturally, the originating agency, CIA, DOD, NSA for example, can submit its input, can provide arguments in favor of not releasing the classified material, but as we have seen in the case of the president’s reworked health insurance programs, the president wants a public option and he shall have it, in one form or another. He will play havoc with Medicare, if he has to, in order not to add to the current budget deficit, but he will have his way. Going back on his word and ordering his attorney general to prosecute CIA officers engaged in following interrogation protocols earlier declared legal by the attorney general’s predecessor, makes no difference. The president needed a show to take the people’s eyes off the horrible mess he’s made of the stimulus program.

Our Afghan Policy

2009-09-20T14:48:00.005-04:00

I am confused. Our policy makers tell us that we must pursue the war in Afghanistan lest that country become a nest of terrorists bound and determined to strike the United States. They also tell us that another reason for pursuing the war is to prevent Islamic extremists (i.e., terrorists) from taking control of the Pakistani government and thereby obtain access to their nuclear capability. This makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

There is no evidence that the Taliban, a purely Afghan movement, poses any threat to the United States. If the Taliban obtained control in Afghanistan, there is no evidence it would automatically cede authority to al Qaeda. Prior to our Iraq invasion, Vice President Chaney assured us that Saddam was harboring al Qaeda, offering them both sanctuary as well as support. We now know there never was any intelligence supporting this claim (other than the two fabricators, CURVEBALL and Chalabi, beloved by the V.P.). Where is either CIA or military intelligence suggesting a similar arrangement would exist between the Taliban and al Qaeda? Why would home-grown Afghani nationalists cede authority to a foreign Arab element? Makes no sense.

Our troops carry on military operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban. We are having only limited success, our military command tells us, because the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have taken refuge in Pakistan. Now I understand. We are fighting Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan to keep them from gaining political control in Pakistan. At the same time, our military commanders admit that our operations are driving them out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. Why, for heaven’s sakes, aren’t we basing our operations in Pakistan, driving the insurgents into Afghanistan, a country that poses no real threat against the United States?

To restate my first sentence, I am confused.

IG Report on Interrogations

2009-09-16T10:58:00.003-04:00

If anyone is interested in the CIA Inspector General's Special Review of the CIA's Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities from September 2001 to October 2003 (heavily redacted), check it out at the following URL

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/IG_Report.pdf

Orders Are Orders - Befehl ist Befehl

2009-09-14T10:05:00.004-04:00

Now, where have we seen this defense before? I remember. It was in Nuremberg, Germany, right after WW-II. This was the defense of the Nazis accused of the most ghastly crimes imaginable. "Orders are orders," they claimed, one after the other.

That was Germany under the Nazi regime. Those crimes could not possibly happen here in the U.S. We Americans respect individual rights. There is no way a Nazi-like nightmare could occur anywhere in the world at the hands of U.S. employees—civilian or military.

The Bush administration declared certain interrogation techniques to be legal. The U.S. Justice Department did not consider such "enhanced" techniques torture under U.S. law. So, CIA employees—staffers and contractors—who participated in such interrogation techniques were not engaged in torture.

That is, until the U.S. Congress and the Justice Department retroactively did declare such techniques to be torture. How is this possible? Doesn't our constitution protect U.S. citizens from ex-post-facto legislation? Apparently not—at any point in the future, the U.S. Congress could declare illegitimate any currently legitimate orders issued by our executive branch.

We saw this many years ago during the Iran-Contra crisis. CIA chiefs of station received orders from CIA Headquarters to conduct certain operations. These operations supported the Executive Branch's policy of covertly aiding the Nicaraguan Contras. Not one CIA chief believed for a moment that these orders were anything but legal. The CIA does not select its chiefs of station on the basis of their ability to engage in legal parsing. The CIA expects its chiefs of station to manage the conduct of espionage operations.

I know of Latin America-based chiefs of station called to Washington. They went, expecting to receive applause for their operational successes. Upon arrival, CIA lawyers told them to prepare to hire legal defense; they were likely to be indicted for violating U.S. law—Congress had passed legislation making it illegal to support the Nicaraguan Contras. And this was precisely what CIA Headquarters had required of its Latin America stations. CIA chiefs of station lost all their savings; they lost everything they had saved for their kids' college education, for their retirement. They lost it all. That the Justice Department did not indict any of these chiefs of station was little satisfaction. These CIA employees were completely broke. They learned a lesson the hard way. CIA lawyers existed for one purpose only, to defend the Agency, not its employees.

The CIA Director recently announced that the Agency lawyers will defend any CIA employees charged for having employed enhanced interrogation techniques against al Qaeda terrorists. Let's hope this will cause our attorney general to rethink his effort to indict CIA employees. How can we have one agency of the U.S. government defending its employees against accusations brought by another U.S. government agency?

Bread and (CIA) Circuses

2009-09-07T11:44:00.000-04:00

Bread and (CIA) Circuses

The ancient Romans had a term for it: panem et circenses. This referred to the ancient tradition of party politicians mollifying the populace while stealing their wealth and rights. Bread and circuses—that'll keep them happy. Today, panem et circenses has a totally new application. The Obama administration is using bread and circuses to misdirect the American people.

After vowing to look forward and not back at the Bush administration, Obama has unleashed his attorney general to declare war on the CIA for activities undertaken during the Bush years. Officers who had been assured by the attorney general their interrogation techniques did not constitute torture now risk being charged with crimes and sentenced to prison. Yes, these officers who risked death every day while working in Afghanistan and Iraq are now being pilloried as common criminals. Look at these pitiful people, America; do not look at rising taxes, socialized medicine, 'death panels', unvetted White House czars and counselors, government takeover of private banking instuitutions and corporations. No, focus instead on these men and women, working in the most dangerous parts of the world seeking to learn the secret plans and intentions of our enemies. Only by knowing what our enemies are up to can we hope to keep the Homeland safe. Yes, these men and women, toiling on behalf of the American people, we now label criminals.

Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, is offering to pay for the costs of legal counsel in the event CIA officers are charged. But, only up to a point. These days lawyers charge by the clock. They earn in one hour what many Americans earn in a week. Accused CIA officers risk losing all their savings for retirement for their kids' college education, for family emergencies. I guess our president believes this is their just reward for government service.

You can't have it both ways. You can't castigate the CIA for being risk-averse and, at the same time, prosecute as criminals those officers who had been aggressive in their operational pursuits. You want operations officers to stick their necks out, to take calculated risks? Why should they, when this possibly can result in being brought up on criminal charges at a later date? And all this just to direct the minds and the eyes of the American people away from legislation the administration hopes to sneak past them.

Imad Mughniyeh - no tears will be shed

2008-02-14T15:16:00.000-05:00

Imad Mughniyeh perfected the employment of the car and truck bomb as the terrorists’ weapon of choice. It is therefore only fitting that this weapon be used against him. Yesterday, a car bomb blasted this mass murderer into the arms of either seventy-two virgins or 28 pre-pubescent boys. I suppose it will be his choice - one of the benefits of the Islamic paradise he cited as a means of motivating young Palestinians to become suicide bombers.
Let’s not forget - one of Mughniyeh’s explosive laden vans driven by one of his suicide bombers destroyed the Beirut American embassy back in April 1983. Only six months later, in October, Mughniyeh sent a pickup truck filled with explosives against the barracks housing U.S. Marines, killing 241 Americans.
And it was Imad Mughniyeh who ordered the kidnapping of Bill Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut. It is a mark of this man’s barbarity that he personally took part in Buckley’s torture. Then, when Buckley began to succumb to this horrible treatment, Mughniyeh refused him any medical treatment thereby causing his death.
No, Mughniyeh will not be missed. Unfortunately, the ranks of Hizballah and other Iranian proxies are full of equally brutal monsters only too ready to cause death and destruction within the ranks of the innocent whether by sending rockets into neighborhoods or suicide bombers into malls and supermarkets.