The Terrorists Are Still Trying to Kill Us

So we take a few days off, and some idiot with low self esteem and an apparent inability to handle explosives sets fire to his crotch while trying to blow up an airliner landing in Detroit on Christmas Day. Of course, this means less convenience when flying for the rest of us, which I would happily exchange if I knew it would make us safer. Bottom line, I tend to agree with Bruce Schneier, who notes that the only real safety improvements since 9/11 are more alert passengers and reinforced cockpit doors (I can't recall if more armed marshals are flying, or if pilots are now permitted to be armed; if either is true, I'd add those to the list).

But the problem isn't the lack of convenience, or this terrorist in particular, or other guys trying the same technique. It's the fact that we came very close to having a massive tragedy in Detroit on Christmas Day, and we're not sure that we have a security protocol that will prevent the tragedy from occurring. What saved us this time was a brave passenger jumping in and the incompetence of the "alleged" terrorist, not some brilliant detective work.

Ann Althouse rips Janet Napolitano appropriately, and it's pretty clear that she's going to be clinging to her job in the New Year. That's entirely correct, because you cannot go on television and claim the system worked when it most emphatically did not; between the CIA's failure to circulate a report about the suspect in question and the fact that the guy's visa renewal was denied, we're looking at a systemic failure of a massive proportion. Hell, even Maureen Dowd has it right here (I can't believe I just wrote that)...

We seemed to still be behind the curve and reactive, patting down grannies and 5-year-olds, confiscating snow globes and lip glosses.

Instead of modernity, we have airports where security is so retro that taking away pillows and blankies and bathroom breaks counts as a great leap forward.

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back.

I don't know about that, although I recall that my initial idea after 9/11 was to have travelers arrive at the airport and strip down to fly naked. Video conferencing would become much more popular, and it would cut down on global warming emissions, don't you think? Megan McArdle is thinking the same way.

The politics of all this are theater to the underlying issue. Napolitano should probably be gone, and Obama's overly cool public statements are probably not what public wants. But the bigger problem may be the mindset of the administration -- it's PR effort/response time can be improved, but the underlying viewpoint informing it may not change...

The attempted bombing occurred at 11:30 a.m. Friday, Christmas. When finally Obama spoke after the weekend, he vowed to hunt down "all who were involved" and promised, as has become standard, to "use every element of our national power to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us."

Nothing less is required, and there can be no arguing with the stated mission.

Even so, Obama's description of Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist" was remarkable and disturbing. This radicalized young Nigerian is nothing of the sort. He operated, in fact, as an Al Qaeda-recruited, Al Qaeda-supplied, Al Qaeda-directed foot soldier - as, to put it directly, an enemy combatant, and not as the criminal "suspect" of Obama's description.

In similarly distant fashion, the President ordered up a "review" of how Abdulmutallab smuggled explosives onto the jet and a "review" of how he slipped through the government's various terror watch lists despite signals of clear and present danger.

Missing then was a statement about those obvious and unacceptable security cracks; the name, rank and serial number of the officials who would conduct the inquiries, and a deadline for completion and a report to the public. Tuesday, Obama filled in those rather basic blanks.

The systemic failure is a huge problem, and can only be solved by a leader who's engaged in the problem and considers it a priority, and also only by a leader who still has the trust and confidence of the public. Jim Geraghty is right on the final point...

In 2008, President Obama was elected with high hopes and very high expectations. He can say that no one, including himself, ever said any of his agenda would be easy, but he obviously didn't mind that so many voters saw him as a larger-than-life, miraculous "Obamessiah" character. This year has been a long series of disappointments as, by many indicators, America's circumstances have gotten worse. The unemployment rate has risen all year, the foreclosure wave has continued, the deficit has exploded, health care has proven much harder to deliver than expected, the cabinet was full of scandals, pork and earmarks continue with no hesitation, the stimulus web site is full of false data, cap-and-trade is dead, the Gitmo promise is broken . . . The right-track/wrong-track numbers are still pretty bad. Obama's job approval numbers are underwater, 50-50, or barely above. The public is losing faith in this guy on a lot of fronts.

A large chunk of the public grew weary of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, sometime in 2005; after Katrina and Harriet Miers, the public stopped listening to him and wrote him off as a failure. But the one thing they gave him credit for was preventing any further attacks on the homeland after 9/11. Perhaps if there is a successful attack, the public will not turn on Obama. But if two planes fall out of the sky, the public will lose faith in this president fast. And while I didn't vote for him, I don't want him to be seen as a useless joke with three years left in his term. I'm pounding the table over this because lives are at stake, and because I don't want to see a failed president running out the clock until January 20, 2013.

Take it seriously, Mr. President. Work the problem hard, at least as hard as you've worked on health care... and hopefully more effectively. Because it's probably the most important part of the job.

The President's Speech, and Why I Miss Bill Clinton

I think Barack Obama has succeeded in the impossible.

He's made me wish for the return of Bill Clinton.

I've never sat through a Presidential speech like last night's. Obama outlined a strategy that I largely agree with. Save for the decision to tell everyone the exact timetable we're on, which I consider a foolish concession to the leftist anti-war base that won't be satisfied with it, I can't quibble with what he said we'd do.

But dear God, that was painful to watch. I watched it late night on Tivo, and was heavily tempted to fast-forward. It was like watching a the favored high school senior deliver a limp speech in the speaking contest.

It's not the words, although I agree with those who think it would have been nice for the President to actually say the word "victory" once. It was the delivery -- Obama didn't want to be there. He doesn't want to be a wartime President -- that's not why he wanted the job. That showed, as noted by Tunku Varadarajan...

What has struck me most about Obama's Afghan enterprise—and his speech did not cause me to alter my view—is how obvious it is that he doesn't really want to do it. He wants to do health care. Obama has tried every delaying trick in the book—waiting for three months after Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops, having meeting after meeting after meeting, sending Gen. Jones to tell McChrystal not to ask for more troops, having his economic team say it will cost too much, framing the venture in terms of "exit strategies" rather than victory, etc. His ambivalence was on naked display tonight. Can you imagine Churchill delivering a speech like this, one so full of a sense of the limitation of national possibilities? No wonder Hillary—when the camera panned to her—looked like she needed a drink. No wonder the cadets all looked so depressed. Would you want Eeyore for commander in chief?

Oh, the cadets -- I felt sorry for them. Stephen Green drunk-blogged the speech. Amazingly, drinking didn't help make the speech better, which is a sure sign things were bad. Read his whole blog, but these parts were telling...

The officer speaking is having to remind the cadets to stand and applaud, because President Obama “is our commander-in-chief.” Think anyone had to remind cadets to be nice to the last president?

...I mean, he’s STILL going on about protocol. Reminds me of a story I heard at BlogWorld last month down in Vegas. I can’t give many details, but another Army officers had to remind his soldiers to applaud politely when Obama spoke. Not young, inexperienced cadets, but hardened battle veterans.

... “Our effort in Afghanistan.” “The scope of our interests.” He did finally use the word “war,” but not before framing everything in academicese.

...“July of 2011.” Congrats, AQ. Keep your head down until then, and you’ll do fine.

Again, these are not strategic decisions the President has made after ten months of review. This is kicking the can further down the road, but with a slightly bigger boot.

...Bad writing. Lame delivery. Tepid response — from cadets ORDERED to be nice.

And a strategic vision equal parts High School Essay Content and low-rent public relations.

I hope you had as much to drink as I did.

I didn't, but I needed it. We'll get back to the cadets in another post (Chris Mathews' outrageous and stupid comment about them included). Rich Lowry's got a great take on the speech...

Obama deserves credit for making this call, which wasn't easy given the inherent difficulties of Afghanistan, his own instinctive reluctance to use military force and the fierce opposition of his political base.

He stepped up -- but couldn't conceal his hesitations. It's a strange rhetorical trick to announce a policy and at the same time sow doubts about your own suitability to carry it out, yet Obama managed it.

...Obama constantly looked over his shoulder at his own restive party, and sounded dog whistles for the Left. He implicitly blamed Bush for everything short of the creation of al Qaeda, and cast his decision in light of his own reluctance to use force and his opposition to the Iraq war.

More importantly, he set out July 2011 as the month "our troops will begin to come home." This gave the speech an element of a Rorschach test: Some will see a stalwart re-commitment to the war effort; others, a promise to begin getting out in 18 months.

...Now, no matter what Obama's inner conflicts, McChrystal gets his chance to regain the initiative in the war. If he succeeds, the domestic politics of the war will begin to look different and at least one cause of Obama's psychic anguish will be alleviated.

Yes, it would've been better if Obama hadn't sounded at times like a premature Nobel Peace Prize winner shoved uncomfortably into a role of wartime leader. But, as Don Rumsfeld might say, you go to war with the president you have.

Ouch. Again, I have no earthly clue why some idiots are praising this decision -- Obama could have said we have a timetable for leaving, but the conditions will be dictated by what's on the ground. Even if he fully intends to cut things off in 18 months, there's no reason, other than domestic politics, to announce it. I understand that you're challenging the Afghans to start standing up for themselves. You're all convincing al Qaeda and the Taliban that if they can hang on for 18 months, they can indeed run out the clock.

Beyond that, the speech seemed passionless. The words as written were passionate, but the delivery was not. Obama's heart wasn't in it, and that's why the troops seemed tepid. As one of my good friends noted in an email, this needed to be a battle cry, at least a little bit. In sports terms, we needed Knute Rockne or Vince Lombardi or Bobby Knight. We got Jim Zorn.

Part of me wishes Obama would have gone with what he thought was right, even if I think he's wrong. I sense he wants out of Afghanistan, but won't do it for political reasons. That's not good -- not good for our chances of success, not good for the President, and definitely not good for those cadets and our other troops.

Clinton would have certainly made it more entertaining. And even if he would have been just as calculating and unsure, he never would have conveyed that in the speech. Even though the guy's a reprehensible human being in many ways, he understood political leadership has its time for expressing doubts, and that this would not be one of them. Obama betrayed that doubt throughout his speech last night.

But Lowry's got a point -- we're used to our troops pulling off miracles. Now they need to win a war with a leader who doesn't seem to want to fight the battle, after having told the enemy when we'll stop fighting.

God bless them.