One would have thought that after the notorious breakdown of intelligence among the CIA, the FBI and local law enforcement (among others), which allowed the Al Qaeda operatives to plan, rehearse and execute their horrific 9/11 crimes by stealth, that we would not have seen the kinds of intelligence breakdowns in the case of the (alleged) Fort Hood mass murderer/terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan. The official story from the FBI and related government apologists is that Major Hasan's reported contacts with radical Islamic groups (in particular, Islamic cleric Anwar al Awlaki, whom advocated attacks against soft targets, exactly the case in the Fort Hood tragedy) were not substantive in nature and wholly consistent with his information-gathering responsibilities as an Army psychiatrist. Nevertheless, the Pentagon claims that relevant piecemeal intelligence on Hasan (whom had made emotional, ideological arguments, reported to authorities, against Muslims in the Armed Forces participating in military operations against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan) had not reached its own level of awareness.
I'm not interested in playing the blame game. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" and Monday morning quarterback. The Democrats attempted to play that game with Bush in terms of an August 2001 briefing prior to 9/11 and in reaction to last year's financial tsunami. The fact is that the concept of using a plane as a weapon is not a new idea (for example, Japanese pilots did that during World War II); neither is the concept of hijacking an airliner. If the CIA can infiltrate a radical group, why is it unthinkable that a fundamentalist Muslim might infiltrate the US government and simply bide his time? The investigations I've heard to date seem to focus only on the justification of specific communications, out of context. We don't need a conspiracy theory of whether Nidal Hasan received orders from Al Qaeda or other radical Islamic organization; the concept of a vigilante certainly is not new, either. What bothers me is not so much any one thing as the confluence of related details. The fact that Nidal Hasan was warning about "adverse effects" to not providing Muslim soldiers conscientious objector status would have been an immediate red flag to me to check this guy out, especially given the context of the well-known fact that Major Hasan was objecting to his prospective overseas assignment.
Let me make myself clear: The intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense are not responsible for this war crime: Nidal Hasan, and Nidal Hasan alone, bears responsibility. What I am tired of hearing, though, is this defensive whining of professionals that they were simply following rules and regulations, and they are not responsible for the shortcomings of the existing bureaucratic system. Each federal employee and contractor has one overriding mission: the defense and safety of our nation and her people. It is time for patriots to step up and take responsibility, to go the extra mile: how can we ask our brave fighting men and women to step up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq and make, when necessary, the ultimate sacrifice, when our federal bureaucrats fail to fight the good fight to make the government bureaucracy more efficient and effective? I'm not impressed by excuses, e.g., "I was just following orders." Last century's Holocaust was caused by people "just following orders." It is time for some initiative and proactive management in the government sector focusing on its existing mandates--not the Obama/progressive "let's grow the bureaucracy" empire-building, pouring more of our grandchildren's money into leaky buckets (versus first fixing the buckets).
The real lesson is that the federal government has grown too large and complex for managers to adequately manage it (and as Ronald Reagan noted, the best managers are in the private sector). This has the effect of diminishing accountability and responsibility, just like in the financial tsunami where there were multiple points of failure.
Politicization of the Afghanistan Surge Decision
We are hearing the same kind of pushback on an Afghanistan surge that we heard from the Democrats' rationalizing a proposed unilateral Iraq withdrawal in early 2007, i.e., the troop surge should be delayed until Afghanistan President Karzai addresses necessary government reforms. I am sympathetic to the point of view that we should not be propping up a corrupt regime at the expense of American blood and treasure. However, the Obama Administration should not be governing from progressive talk points. Obama needs to distinguish between nation-building in Afghanistan and our own national interests. I can understand where Obama might want to pressure Karzai into political reforms with economic aid. But political reforms are easier said than done, and the point is that the military is arguing that the current staffing levels for the existing mission are inadequate. Either we modify the ground forces mission or we staff it at necessary levels. Combat staffing at inadequate levels is not a true option; you are then essentially putting the lives and health of American soldiers at risk for political, not military reasons. Our American soldiers deserve better than Obama's analysis paralysis.
Political Cartoon
Lisa Benson does a great job mocking Obama's dithering on Afghanistan, using the analogy of Regis Philbin's nationally televised hit game show, "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?", from the turn of the century. (The game show presents a series of increasingly difficult multiple-choice questions; contestants are allowed a finite number of "lifelines", e.g., a contact with mentors, relatives or friends whom can be asked for his or her advice in answering a relevant question.) Now let us join with Regis and Lisa in asking, if and when Obama makes a decision (remember, it took him months to come to a decision about the family dog): "Is that your final answer?"
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Jimmy Webb Song
Jimmy Webb is easily one of the best pop songwriters of my lifetime, enough so when he finally released an album covering his songs made famous by other singers (notably Glen Campbell, the Fifth Dimension, Richard Harris and others), I bought a copy. How do you choose a favorite from his classics? "Galveston" was a subtle anti-war song of a soldier in Vietnam longing to return to his Texas coastal home with the lady in his life. "MacArthur Park" was a monster pop hit both in the 1960's (Richard Harris) and in the 1970's (as a disco hit by Donna Summer). "All I Know" is Art Garfunkel's signature tune, beautifully produced and sung (I found Webb's liner notes on the tune, stemming from his unrequited relationship with a British woman, rather intriguing). But if I have to choose a song from this pop music genius, it has to be "The Moon's A Harsh Mistress", which I first heard on a Glen Campbell hit compilation I purchased following his "Rhinestone Cowboy" period. This song has been recorded by a number of other noteworthy performers, including Joe Cocker and Linda Ronstadt.
I really love the way the producer of this video, featuring the singer/songwriter's own vocal performance, put together a look and feel for this emotionally stark song.
See her as she flies
Golden sails across the sky
Close enough to touch
But careful if you try
Though she looks as warm as gold
The moon's a harsh mistress
The moon can be so cold
Once the sun did shine
And lord it felt so fine
The moon a phantom rose
Through the mountains and the pine
And then the darkness fell
The moon's a harsh mistress
It's hard to love her well
I fell out of her eyes
I fell out of her heart
I fell down on my face, yes I did
And I tripped and I missed my star
And I fell and fell alone
The moon's a harsh mistress
The sky is made of stone
The moon's a harsh mistress
She's hard to call your own
