The Quabbin reserve is in Belchertown, Massachusetts and is one of two sources of the City of Boston’s drinking water. Authorities tested the Quabbin within days of the arrests and discovered no threats to the public’s water supply.

Police have increased patrols in the area as a precaution but say they have found no connection between the seven trespassers and any terror related activity.

Requests from the East Hampshire District Court where the seven will be summonsed for trespassing violations for the names and court dates were denied. A clerk said the cases were “confidential” and deferred all questions to the Massachusetts State Police.

Chief Legal Council for the MSP Michael Halpin, did not return phone calls and a Freedom of Information Act request has been sent.

There have been no public statements from the group nor from authorities to explain why 7 chemical engineers from 5 different towns in the Northeast converged on the same location at 12:30 AM on a Tuesday in May to learn about the country’s largest man-made water supply facilities.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

Ali was rushed to a hospital, but Dr. Wasim Khawaja said that Ali died prior to arrival.

An assigned bodyguard was also wounded in the attack. The bodyguard was assigned to Ali after he recieved threats from the Pakistani Taliban according to police spokesman Javed Hussain.

The unidentified gunmen are still at large, police said.
-

Video Courtesy CNN

___

It is falsely claimed that:

1)      Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

2)      A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable.

3)      The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

4)      The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

5)      Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

6)      The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

Let’s deal with these myths one after another.

Myth #1: Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

The facts: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21^st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

megoizzy (CC)

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120-140 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

Myth #2: A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable. 

The facts: A world without nuclear weapons (“Global Zero”) is neither achievable nor desirable. Not achievable, because no other country in the world is following America’s disarmament “example” (and foreign countries don’t care about America’s “examples”; they care only about their self-interest). No other country is following the US on the road to “Global Zero”. Accordingly, there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia has recently declared it will not cut its nuclear arsenal nor enter into any negotiations to that end. It is actually building UP its arsenal (as allowed to do so by the New START) and modernizing it. China, which has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, is also rapidly building up and modernizing its arsenal, and refusing to even disclose its size or enter into any talks – let alone formal treaty negotiations – about it. Likewise, India and Pakistan refuse to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, disclose the size of their arsenals, or enter into any talks – let alone arms control treaties – pertaining to these arsenals. Ditto North Korea, which has recently announced it will NEVER give up its nuclear arsenal and that, if anything, it will INCREASE its size and restart the Yongboyng reactor to harvest plutonium from spent fuel rods.

So NO nuclear power wants to join the West in its suicidal nuclear disarmament quest. None whatsoever. Not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan, not North Korea. And, of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear power status.

Even Bruce Blair, a supporter of America’s nuclear disarmament, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee on March 19^th that even if America cut its nuclear arsenal deeply, e.g. along the lines of what his organization (Global Zero) proposes, NOBODY would reciprocate. (1:04:41)

Which is true – Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., are all refusing to even cut, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. Obama has NO followers on the road to his totally unrealistic goal of “global zero”. There will never be a “global zero.”

Nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be “un-invented” or banished from the face of the Earth, contrary to the unrealistic dreams of several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan (this shows that, alas, Reagan wasn’t perfect and had some flaws).

Nor would a “nuclear-free world” be safer and more peaceful than it is now, contrary to Obama’s false claims that the US should “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” On the contrary, it would be less peaceful and secure.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have not ended war completely – no invention will ever do that – but they have eliminated great power wars. All wars since 1945 have been either between smaller, non-world-power countries (e.g. conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors), or between a world power and a weaker country (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam), or between a country and an insurgency (e.g. the US vs the Taleban).

Such conflicts have a much smaller scale, body count, and destructive power than great power wars. Since WW2, there hasn’t been a conflict even approaching the sheer barbarity and destruction of WW2, and it is mostly, if not entirely, due to nuclear weapons.

Instead of seeking their scrapping, we should all learn to love them.

Myth #3: The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

The facts: The nuclear triad is NOT too expensive and is well worth the cost. The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

As Robert Kaplan says, “Don’t give your enemy too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Without the ICBM leg, the enemy would have to destroy only 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and any SSBNs that would be on patrol. WITH the ICBM leg still existing, the enemy would also have to make sure he destroys every single USAF ICBM silo; there are 450, and the USAF may have built decoy siloes.

Numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

Without a triad, the nuclear deterrent would’ve been much less survivable than it is. This will be even MORE important as the arsenal is cut to even lower, post-New-START, levels.

A nuclear triad is the most survivable and most flexible nuclear arsenal arrangement ever invented, which is why the US, Russia, China, and Israel all have it, and why India is developing it. The Air Force is also considering the development of a rail-mobile ICBM, which could be hidden in innocently-looking, civilian-style railroad cars.

Myth #4: The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

The facts: According to the Stimson Center, maintaining the US nuclear deterrent costs ca. $32–36 bn per year, including all the warheads, delivery systems, support facilities, personnel, and nuclear-related intelligence. This is a paltry 5.872% of the FY2013 military budget ($613 bn per the FY2013 NDAA). Modernizing the nuclear arsenal will, according to Stimson, cost up to $390 bn over the next decade, i.e. $39 bn per year on average. This is 6.4% of the FY2013 military budget. These are microscoping percentages.

So the US provides a large nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies at a cost of only 6% of its total military budget.

Furthermore, even if the ENTIRE nuclear arsenal were scrapped IMMEDIATELY and UNILATERALLY today, that would “save” a paltry $36 bn per year and thus fail to come even close to paying for sequestration, let alone balancing the federal budget.

No, the US nuclear arsenal is not siphoning money away from anything. As usual, it’s a scapegoat for liberals.

It is, in fact, other, more costly defense programs that are siphoning money away from nuclear deterrence and other defense priorities. For example, the development and acquisition of 2,400 short-range, understealthed, slow, sluggish F-35 strike jets will cost $400 bn. A single aircraft carrier costs $15 bn, yet is tragically vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and naval mines. Yet, the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are personnel programs (pay, benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc.), which, unless seriously reformed, will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by no later than FY2039. That means no money for nuclear deterrence or for weapons of any kind.

And while F-35s and aircraft carriers are increasingly and prohibitively expensive, they’re also increasingly vulnerable and useless for the threat environments the US military will have to operate in. Meanwhile, the next generation bomber will be able to strike from well over the horizon – even the CONUS – and submarines have always been stealthy. USAF ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, can strike any place on the planet, and may be replaced by rail-mobile ones (see above).

Myth #5: Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

The facts: Such claims are preposterous. None of these weapons have anything even close to the destructive, crippling power of atomic weapons.

Conventional weapons utterly lack such power. Even the most powerful conventional bombs – MOABs and the now-retired Daisy Cutters – have the explosive power approaching only that of the lowest-yield nuclear warheads, and MOAB is not even designed to penetrate anything.

Cyberweapons can shut down computer networks, but only temporarily, and can’t physically destroy anything. Buildings, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and humans will still exist. Cyberweapons can only complement other types of arms, but never replace them.

Nor can missile defense ever replace nuclear weapons. It has long been an article of faith among conservatives, including conservative think-tank analysts, that it can, but the truth is that it can’t. This truth will be uncomfortable for them, but my job as defense analysts is to tell people the truth, not what they want to hear.

Missile defense technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, one needs several interceptors to shoot down one missile. For example, to shoot down one Russian ICBM would take 7 ground-based interceptors of the type deployed in AK and CA. US missile defense systems (except the PATRIOT) have never been tested in massive missile barrages – the type of missile attacks the US will actually have to counter.

Furthermore, BMD systems’ ability to distinguish real warheads from decoys is yet unclear, and there are no systems available for boost-phase interception. But worst of all, BMD interceptors are far more expensive than the ballistic missiles they’re designed to intercept. A THAAD missile costs $9-10 mn; an SM-3, $10 mn; a ground-based interceptor, $70 mn. It is far cheaper to build and launch ballistic missiles than to intercept them. Furthermore, America’s enemies already have such huge inventories of BMs of all types – measured in thousands – that they are and will always be able to overwhelm American BMD systems through sheer numbers.

The best way to protect against missiles of any kind is to kill the archer, not the arrow. Only “offensive” systems – strike systems – can do that. This includes ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, and theater strike aircraft.

Myth #6: The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

The facts: These claims are also completely false. No nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally. No nation in history has increased its security by indulging in arms reduction and disarmament – such policies have only weakened, and reduced the security of, the  nations practicing them.

Myth #6 is, in fact, an utter rejection of any principle or notion of deterrence or of peace through strength; it turns these principles upside down. Myth #6 is essentially a claim that weakness is good and leads to peace and security; that weakening one’s own military (and that’s what cutting its arsenals of weapons does – it weakens the military) makes one more secure and the world more peaceful.

Many variations of this myth have been uttered by the Left. For example, during the forementioned HASC Strategic Forces Subcommitteee hearing, its ranking member, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an ardent enemy of nuclear weapons, claimed that the biggest cut in America’s nuclear deterrent – made by the elder President Bush in the early 1990s – was “a good thing”, that it made America and the world more secure and peaceful, and that this is supposedly shared by the “mainstream” of American opinion. Another strident leftist, John Garamendi (D-CA), claimed that “whatever we can do to cut nuclear arsenals – here, in North Korea, around the world”  is a good thing.

Their claims are blatant lies, of course. As I’ve already stated, no nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself, and America won’t be the first. President Bush’s deep unilateral cut in America’s deterrent is a textbook example of that. He cut the arsenal by almost half, withdrew US nuclear weapons from Korea and from surface warships unilaterally, terminated MX ICBM production and B-2 bomber production at just 21 aircraft, terminated the Midgetman SRBM, and terminated warhead production and testing.

Yet, no one else has reciprocated. Since then, China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 warheads – while North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, India and these two countries have conducted nuclear tests, and Iran has made dramatic progress towards nuclear weapon capability. Russia has begun rebuilding and modernizing its arsenal.

So Bush’s deep nuclear cuts only weakened America’s deterrent (and confidence in it) while utterly failing to discourage others from developing or increasing their own arsenals. Two new states have joined the nuclear club, others have conducted tests, and Iran is well on its way there.

That’s because cutting America’s nuclear deterrent DOES NOTHING to prevent or even slow down nuclear proliferation or encourage others to disarm themselves. It is perceived (correctly) as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. It only emboldens America’s enemies while leading America’s allies to doubt the US umbrella. It does NOTHING, and will never do anything, to eliminate or even reduce the arsenals of other powers.

Other nuclear (and aspiring) powers don’t care about America’s “example” or observance of arms control treaties; they care only about their own military strength and see nuclear weapons as a key element of that. America has NO followers on the road to “Global Zero” – which other nuclear powers simply DON’T want to travel. Even Bruce Blair has admitted at 1:04:41 that even if the US totally disarmed itself, NO ONE would follow suit.

Thus, we have refuted all of the 6 most popular leftist lies about nuclear weapons. It is impossible (and not even necessary) to refute all myths that have been made about these crucial instruments of deterrence; and the vast majority of the lies about them fall under one of these 6 categories.

Nuclear weapons are NOT a threat to America’s or the world’s security; on the contrary, they are key to preserving it far into the future. They are irreplaceable instruments of peace and deterrence.

The US State Department is paying $70,000 to run a television ad in Pakistan.  The ad consists of sound bites from statements made by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the death of US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

The clips are reiterations by the President and Mrs. Clinton that the United States government had no involvement in creating and producing the film anti-Islam film that sparked riots, unrest, attacks, and the death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, Libya last week.

The statements are unaltered clips of the President and Secretary Clinton, but they are subtitled in Urdu, the predominant language in Pakistan.

(story continues below video)

.
Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters that the intent of this commercial is to get the message to the largest possible audience in Pakistan.  Pakistan is being targeted due to the swarm of protesters that attempted to attack the US Embassy last week, but were deterred by Pakistani police forces.

“The sense was that this particular aspect of the president and the secretary’s message needed to be heard by more Pakistanis than had heard, and that this was an effective way to get that message out,” Ms. Nuland said in Washington.

The ad will air on seven networks inside Pakistan, which have an estimated audience of 90 million people.  Nuland added that these ads will not air in other countries.

____

 In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

What possible reason could one have for not killing Bin Laden?  Reasons that don’t include the typical characteristics of liberal academia, which usually revolve around the incessant reiteration of international law, moral authority, martyrdom dilemma, and outright weakness.  We don’t need notes from study sessions to be factored into the methodology for every executive decision. We killed bin Laden, his martyrdom hasn’t really galvanized the Arab world, and international law was kinda rejected since we did, in the end, violate the territorial integrity of Pakistan. No major backlash.  So what was the problem?  Valerie, we’re waiting on you.

….This post will be inspected by the US Department Of Homeland Security, I’m sure.  Because the words listed below raise “red flags” when used on the internet.

So, don’t talk about the illegal immigrant who gave you a denial of service at the deli when you wanted a pork sandwich….. just saying.

Download Full Document here: http://t-j.cc/KIKNMn

TERRORISM
Terrorism, Al Qaeda (all spellings), Terror, Attack, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Agro, Environmental terrorist, Eco terrorism, Conventional weapon, Target, Weapons grade, Dirty bomb, Enriched, Nuclear, Chemical weapon, Biological weapon, Ammonium nitrate, Improvised explosive device, IED (Improvised Explosive Device), Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces Colombia), IRA (Irish Republican Army), ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna), Basque Separatists, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, PLF (Palestine Liberation Front), PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), Car bomb, Jihad, Taliban, Weapons cache, Suicide bomber, Suicide attack, Suspicious substance, AQAP (AL Qaeda Arabian Peninsula), AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), Yemen, Pirates, Extremism, Somalia, Nigeria, Radicals, Al-Shabaab, Home grown Plot, Nationalist, Recruitment, Fundamentalism, Islamist

WEATHER/DISASTER/EMERGENCY
Emergency, Hurricane, Tornado, Twister, Tsunami, Earthquake, Tremor, Flood, Storm, Crest, Temblor, Extreme weather, Forest fire, Brush fire, Ice, Stranded/Stuck, Help, Hail, Wildfire, Tsunami Warning Center, Magnitude, Avalanche, Typhoon, Shelter-in-place, Disaster, Snow, Blizzard, Sleet, Mud slide or Mudslide, Erosion, Power outage, Brown out, Warning, Watch, Lightening, Aid, Relief, Closure, Interstate, Burst, Emergency Broadcast System

CYBER SECURITY
Cyber security, Botnet, DDOS (dedicated denial of service), Denial of service, Malware, Virus, Trojan, Keylogger, Cyber Command, 2600, Spammer, Phishing, Rootkit, Phreaking, Cain and abel, Brute forcing, Mysql injection, Cyber attack, Cyber terror, Hacker, China, Conficker, Worm, Scammers, Social media

DOMESTIC SECURITY
Assassination, Attack, Domestic security, Drill, Exercise, Cops, Law enforcement, Authorities, Disaster assistance, Disaster management, DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office), National preparedness, Mitigation, Prevention, Response, Recovery, Dirty bomb, Domestic nuclear detection, Emergency management, Emergency response, First responder, Homeland security, Maritime domain awareness (MDA), National preparedness initiative, Militia, Shooting, Shots fired, Evacuation, Deaths, Hostage, Explosion (explosive), Police, Disaster medical assistance team (DMAT), Organized crime, Gangs, National security, State of emergency, Security, Breach, Threat, Standoff, SWAT, Screening, Lockdown, Bomb (squad or threat), Crash, Looting, Riot, Emergency Landing, Pipe bomb, Incident, Facility

HAZMAT & NUCLEAR
Hazmat, Nuclear, Chemical spill, Suspicious package/device, Toxic, National laboratory, Nuclear facility, Nuclear threat, Cloud, Plume, Radiation, Radioactive, Leak, Biological infection (or event), Chemical, Chemical burn, Biological, Epidemic, Hazardous, Hazardous material incident, Industrial spill, Infection, Powder (white), Gas, Spillover, Anthrax, Blister agent, Chemical agent, Exposure, Burn, Nerve agent, Ricin, Sarin, North Korea

HEALTH CONCERN + H1N1
Outbreak, Contamination, Exposure, Virus, Evacuation, Bacteria, Recall, Ebola, Food Poisoning, Foot and Mouth (FMD), H5N1, Avian, Flu, Salmonella, Small Pox, Plague, Human to human, Human to Animal, Influenza, Center for Disease Control (CDC), Drug Administration (FDA), Public Health, Toxic, Agro Terror, Tuberculosis (TB), Agriculture, Listeria, Symptoms, Mutation, Resistant, Antiviral, Wave, Pandemic, Infection, Water/air borne, Sick, Swine, Pork, Strain, Quarantine, H1N1, Vaccine, Tamiflu, Norvo Virus, Epidemic, World Health Organization (WHO) (and components), Viral Hemorrhagic Fever, E. Coli

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
Infrastructure security, Airport, Airplane (and derivatives), Chemical fire, CIKR (Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources), AMTRAK, Collapse, Computer infrastructure, Communications infrastructure, Telecommunications, Critical infrastructure, National infrastructure, Metro, WMATA, Subway, BART, MARTA, Port Authority, NBIC (National Biosurveillance Integration Center), Transportation security, Grid, Power, Smart, Body scanner, Electric, Failure or outage, Black out, Brown out, Port, Dock, Bridge, Cancelled, Delays, Service disruption, Power lines

SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE
Drug cartel, Violence, Gang, Drug, Narcotics, Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, Border, Mexico, Cartel, Southwest, Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Torreon, Yuma, Tucson, Decapitated, U.S. Consulate, Consular, El Paso, Fort Hancock, San Diego, Ciudad Juarez, Nogales, Sonora, Colombia, Mara salvatrucha, MS13 or MS-13, Drug war, Mexican army, Methamphetamine, Cartel de Golfo, Gulf Cartel, La Familia, Reynosa, Nuevo Leon, Narcos, Narco banners (Spanish equivalents), Los Zetas, Shootout, Execution, Gunfight, Trafficking, Kidnap, Calderon, Reyosa, Bust, Tamaulipas, Meth Lab, Drug trade, Illegal immigrants, Smuggling (smugglers), Matamoros, Michoacana, Guzman, Arellano-Felix, Beltran-Leyva, Barrio Azteca, Artistic Assassins, Mexicles, New Federation

Unfortunately, that is part of life in Pakistan. We have seen it countless times on news clips. Sometimes one radical organization or another claims responsibility, sometimes not. On rare occasions, it is not the result of a bomb, but of an errant missile from a drone operated by the U.S. military. But that is assuming that the marketplace is truthfully only dealing in produce and household goods – it is silly to assume that weapons never make it to largely civilian marketplaces, making them a military target. Regardless, it is unlikely that the U.S. government would tell the truth anyway, because it doesn’t make the situation any better to do so. If anything, it would probably be worse if terrorists knew that the U.S. was aware of how they move weapons, so it’s better to call it a mistake, and offer a boilerplate apology.

The war on terror started in Afghanistan, and has shifted at least in part to Pakistan for obvious reasons – al-Qaeda has migrated there. It is no surprise that as the trial of five 9/11 conspirators begins at Guantanamo Bay, there is a video released of an American captive of Al Qaeda begging Obama for the release of terrorists in custody – presumably including the ones on trial.

I would like to say that I am certain that the President is preparing a letter of condolence for the wife of Warren Weinstein, instead of actually considering bargaining for his release. But given the fact that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators was literally hijacked by the defendants, turning what should have been a short arraignment hearing into a day-long affair, I’m not so sure. In the effort to be seen by the world as the better party in these proceedings, the U.S. is catering to the defendants. The unfortunate result will be depicting the U.S. yet again as the weaker party, at least to those in the Islamic world.

While it would be counterproductive to stoop to the point of engaging in intentional bombings of civilians abroad, and summarily executing 9/11 terrorists, it is equally harmful to bend over backwards to accommodate those defendants. The female defense attorney that attended the hearing wearing the hijab should be censured, and if she still insists on appeasing her client in that regard, she should be removed and replaced either with a male, or a female that will not do the same. It may seem petty, but it is important. To those defendants, her actions show that she acknowledges her “place” in their world. They are not entitled to that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Back to Weinstein, if he is still alive, it is insane to assume that he will ever be recovered alive. Given his health problems, it is quite possible that he is already dead. If he isn’t, there is no reason to think that al-Qaeda would release him regardless of what the U.S. would do. On the contrary, it is in al-Qaeda’s best interest to kill him on video, and release that footage after detainees had been released, to further prove their supremacy over the “weak” Americans. No matter how sad it may be, one American life is not worth giving in to al-Qaeda, period. Such bargaining would only serve to strengthen the resolve of terrorists, and most likely lead to more American deaths from future attacks.

Contrary to what the U.S. has hoped, killing leadership of al-Qaeda has not lessened the threat from the organization significantly enough to render it irrelevant. Pakistan is not a reliable U.S. ally in combating al-Qaeda, and it is foolish to think that it will become one. Without the aid of that nation, putting an end to the terrorist organization once and for all is virtually impossible. The mere fact that there is still a U.S. military presence in the region is fuel for Islamic terrorist organizations in general, so attempts to eradicate radicals is necessarily leading to the creation of more radicals. It has been argued ad nauseum whether or not “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture, and more importantly whether or not that has lead to more potential members of organizations like al-Qaeda, hell bent on waging war on America.

slagheap (CC)

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal.

Pakistan closed a needed route for supplies into Afghanistan, and is currently requesting public apologies for the deaths of the 24 Pakistani soldiers last November. The U.S. is standing by its investigation of the incident, that claims the guilt lies on both sides, so it is unlikely an apology is forthcoming. Additionally, the U.S. wants the ability to continue launching drone attacks over Pakistani soil – the Pakistanis not only want them to stop, but also contend that they are causing “mental trauma” to their civilians.

Beyond Pakistan’s problems with the U.S. lie its problems with India. While the U.S. may be the country that is most likely to be able to cause the most damage on Pakistani soil if provoked, India is the country Pakistan seems to fear more. Unlike the U.S., China is the most likely candidate on the world stage to provide Pakistan with the protection it desires from India. And even better in Pakistani eyes, is the fact that such an alliance would not have strings attached.

So what does this all mean for the Obama administration and NATO? While leaders from both the U.S. and Pakistan are publicly stating that they are working hard to mend their differences, the reality is that the U.S. needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the U.S. Anti-American sentiment is growing on the streets of Pakistan, and the current government is under scrutiny for corruption. There is building pressure calling for early elections, and based on the history of that nation, that is the herald of regime change. The “war on terror” is becoming increasingly unpopular, not only here, but over there as well. And the U.S. is increasingly being perceived as a destabilizing force in the region by the Pakistanis.

But don’t worry. If there was anything going really wrong in the AFPAK theatre, Obama would come out and tell us right away. He certainly wouldn’t let such news get buried under headlines about a shooting in Florida, or any other problems he might be having, with say his landmark legislation coming under scrutiny by SCOTUS, right?

Reporters spoke to approximately 80 villiagers in an area of Pakistan, typically a hotbed sancturary for militants, that was the location of 10 recent attacks. Villagers informed the reporters that of 194 casualties, at least 138 were militants. Even though 70 percent of casualties were enemy combatants it’s still the widspread perception of mass civilian deaths fueling anti-American feelings.

That strike aside, which was the largest amount of civilian deaths in single strike since the drone program began, villagers told reporters 90 percent of deaths were militants.

Pakistani Political Commentator Zaid Hamid Threatens the US and India: We Are a Nuclear-Armed Islamic Army; “Your 150,000 troops Will Be Slaughtered and Butchered”

Some interesting rhetoric considering the current tension between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Clip and transcripts provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

A crucial tool in the U.S war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S.drones provide critical intelligence and precision airstrike capabilities that have proven to be effective in searching out and killing Taliban insurgents and assorted Al- Qaeda operatives operating near the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Now the Pakistani military says it will shoot down any U.S aircraft invading their airspace, severely limiting the U.S. coalition forces efforts to control the region.

“Any object entering into our airspace, including US drones, will be treated as hostile and be shot down,” a senior Pakistani military official told NBC News. Islamabad has closed the border crossings in Pakistan that the Western military alliance uses to transfer fuel and other supplies for the US-led forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan also called on the United States to vacate the Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan province. Pakistani forces took control of the base on Saturday after most of the US military personnel left. While U.S. military commanders have downplayed the significance of these developments, even of the most casual of observers can see that Pakistan has now become increasingly hostile to the U.S. simply by taking these actions at face value. This hostility actually became evident when U.S Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan right near the Pakistani Military Intelligence headquarters, which has also been downplayed by the U.S State department. This has become a very volatile situation that has been completely mishandled by the Obama administration and the State dept. due to the lack of any rebuke when it became evident that the Pakistani government had been harboring the world’s most wanted terrorist for years. Now Pakistan has not only closed down critical supply routes on the Afghan-Pakistan border, they are refusing to allow the U.S. to use drones to enable maximum control of the area. Meanwhile our State dept. and the Obama administration continue to directly fund the very same Pakistani military that are threatening to shoot down any U.S aircraft that gets near the border region.

On Friday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani warned the US and NATO that any future cross-border attack would be met with a “detrimental response”.

Update: Now the Taliban just announced they are in “peace talks” with the Pakastani government.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough!

The facts have been slow to come out in the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers on Saturday, but new reports are surfacing that detail a different course of events than has been reported over the weekend.

A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border.

According to Afghan security officials, their commandos were engaged with U.S. Special Operations troops in a nighttime raid against suspected Taliban insurgents when they came under cross-border fire and called in an airstrike.[1]

While the U.S. has not yet responded to demands for an apology, the administration has expressed condolences for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers.

Supporting the stance that perhaps U.S. troops were attacked over the border by Pakistani forces, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States General Martin Dempsey refused to apologize.

Gen. Dempsey says that while they Pakistanis “have reason to be furious that they have 24 soldiers dead and that what killed them was the ordinance of a partner,” as far as the U.S. having anything to apologize for: “absolutely not”.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace took a few minutes to have Rep. Paul tell voters how he would shape American foreign policy – specifically on Iran.

Keep listening past the Iran segment and you’ll also get to hear his thoughts on a third party candidacy.

The U.S. knows that members of the Pakistani government and military have ties to Islamic militant groups, many of which the U.S. State Department considers terrorist organizations. Some of these militant groups (created by the Pakistani government itself) are utilized in guerilla warfare along the Pakistan-India border. The Lashkar-e-Tabai (LeT), for example, claimed responsibility for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks and is widely believed to have been supported by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The U.S. is also aware that the Tribal Areas of western Pakistan have been used as safe havens for fugitive Taliban fighters and as staging areas for cross-border attacks by Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even remarked during a May 2010 interview that members of the Pakistani government likely know where Osama bin Laden was hiding. Thus it was no surprise when the May 2nd kill/capture mission revealed that Osama bin Laden had been living for five years in a compound near Pakistan’s premier military academy. Underscoring the distrust of the Pakistani government were revelations that the U.S. purposefully kept Pakistani intelligence in the dark during the top-secret operation.

Referring to the successful operation as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, Pakistan quickly condemned the mission to kill/capture the mass murderer. Echoing this sentiment are poll figures recently released by the Pew Research Center showing 63% of Pakistanis “disapprove of the operation that killed bin Laden,” while 69% of Pakistanis view the U.S. as “more of an enemy than a partner.”

As of FY 2010, the U.S. (more enemy than partner) has appropriated or reimbursed more than $18 billion to Pakistan for security operations and economic aid, with nearly $4.5 billion contributed in 2010 alone. All this begs the question: “With so many red flags, why should the U.S. continue its strategic relationship with Pakistan?”

Logistics

At least 60% of the supplies required by coalition forces in Afghanistan are currently moved through Pakistani terrain or airspace. Although the Northern Distribution Network (agreements to cross the borders of certain Asian countries) was created to handle some of the supplies, many of the agreements do not allow for the transport of troops, weapons and other sensitive items. Through various political pressures these routes are ultimately at the discretion of Russia. An agreement between President Medvedev and President Obama last summer supposedly allows for all manner of cargo to move through the region. However, Radio Free Europe reports that as of July 2, 2011, only two flights have taken place. The only other alternative is an overland route through Iran – a contigency only expected to be used when Hell reaches its freezing point.

Stabilization of Afghanistan

A stable government in Afghanistan will require the assistance and cooperation of Pakistan. In the early stages of an independent democracy in Afghanistan, the government will be especially vulnerable to coups and Taliban sympathizers eager to inflitrate the new government (not to mention chaos from narcoterrorists and cartels). Pakistan will be invaluable in providing tactical support during any sudden Afghani uprising, as we saw when Saudi Arabia sent 1000 troops to support the Kingdom of Bahrain in March of this year.

Efficacy of Counterinsurgency Operations

Without the current contributions to the Pakistani government, future counterinsurgency incursions by the U.S. military may be regarded as an act of war. The U.S. took a lot of heat for its unilateral kill/capture mission of Bin Laden. This week the Pakistani government ordered U.S. personnel out of the Shamsi Airbase. Shamsi airfield serves as a critical staging area for immediate drone strikes in the Tribal Areas. While it appears the demand was a ruse to placate the Pakistani populace, U.S. personnel must maintain its presence inside of Pakistan in order to react quickly on actionable intelligence.

Increased Chinese Influence in Pakistan

Although Pakistan regularly faces nationwide power outages and serious economic issues, its government believes that acquiring submarines and nuclear capabilities from China has been the most prudent use of its resources. Such irresponsible deals have allowed China to gain a major economic foothold in Pakistan – some sources claim $20 billion or more in investments. With increasing Chinese domination will come attitudes against free society and the American way of life.

Suppressing Future Islamic Threats

Finally, as one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, Pakistan is essential in preventing and suppressing future Islamic terrorists. A serious concern is that the domestic militancy in Pakistan will become regional insurgency, and regional insurgency will become global terrorism. In this age, the U.S. must maintain a strategic presence in South Central Asia. Maintaining a working security relationship with Pakistan will go a long way toward preventing the next Islamic attack.

Kristof’s post asserts that Republicans’ strategy will amount to turning the United States into a backwards, military-led, middle-eastern-like country (emphasis mine).

With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling, let me offer them an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals.

It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country:fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.

This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.

The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.

So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it’s Pakistan.

Now obviously Sarah Palin and John Boehner don’t intend to turn Washington into Islamabad-on-the-Potomac. And they are right that long-term budget issues do need to be addressed. But when many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services — slashing everything but the military — well, those are steps toward Pakistan.

Riiiiiight. Absolutist argumentation. If we cut government spending – at all – we will be living in squalor with a military-run government.

The truth is that Conservatives do not want to remove all government spending, in direct contradiction to Nicholas’ post. But, we don’t need to spend Americans’ tax dollars on abortions, art festivals, Libya, research on shrimp on treadmills, NPR, the NLRB, over a trillion in stimulus that went to fund Unions and democratic campaigns (and brought no jobs), Obamacare, and so much more.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans disagree with the Times columnist. 73% believe government spends too much on programs and only 22% believe the government takes in too little in taxes.

Government has been the only answer to almost every problem since 1965 and it’s being proven wrong. The postal system is going broke and can’t fix itself, Medicare can’t handle its costs and will be bankrupt in a matter of years, Social Security has been robbed by the spend-happy liberals for decades and their answer is to keep the status quo. That’s not an answer, that’s restating the problem and pretending it is its own solution.

No one disputes the facts that Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will go broke if they are allowed to continue as-is. There simply isn’t enough money in the economy to pay for benefits when less than half of Americans pay income taxes. Conservative Republicans have led by offering multiple solutions – all of which the Democrats have simply defeated or refused to vote on. The only plan coming from Democrats is to keep things as they are.

The liberal assertion is that we can’t reform any entitlement programs because we will be heading down a slippery slope that will end in America turning into something resembling a third-world country. The truth is that bankruptcy is upon us and if we do nothing to reform our spending to levels that our economy can support – we will be envying those third world nations.