4. Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?

It broke the back of our counterterrorism program.

This is interesting. However he seems a fan of the Taliban and he seems to have no problem with fundamentalist governments in the region. I'd prefer a middle east ruled by kings to one ruled by priests. Kings kill when its in their interest. Priests kill because its in their interest.

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security (Harpers.org)

A collection.

Schneier on Security: Airport Security Cartoons

What terrorism?

Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.

It is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda­like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year.

Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.

I think this article is too quick to dismiss in the impact that the invasion of Afghanistan had on Al'Queda, but the general thrust doesn't require this observation to be acceptable.

Is There Still a Terrorist Threat? | Foreign Affairs

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Olbermann blasting Rummy and the administration, with the video available.

Noteworthy responded:

Full text of Rumsfeld's speech at the American Legion Convention is available. Here are a few excerpts:

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

* With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?

These are central questions of our time, and we must face them and face them honestly.

This is so poorly argued that you almost want to let it stand for itself, but this is the Secretary of Defense!

Is there really a binary choice between the all the worlds problems either being caused by America or by America's enemies, wherein if one criticizes an American policy its tatamount to concluding that America's enemies are right?

Its obviously dishonest to compare terrorism to automotive theft. I mean, obvious to the point that I don't understand how a serious person could say such a thing or read it uncritically. What about murder, rape, pedophilia, and organized crime?

As for the earlier two points, he seems to be arguing that technology is too advanced for people to negotiate peace agreements. The majority of the states we're at peace with have better capabilities than these terrorist organizations.

It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

It's a strange time:

* When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
* Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces -- the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard -- as a "mercenary army;"
* When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief ... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Rumsfeld's Address at the 88th Annual American Legion National Convention

The authoritarian wing of the Democratic party has announced compulsary servitude as the cornerstone of their campaign. So many years of Republican style authoritarianism, I'd almost forgotten what Democratic style authoritarianism felt like. I don't know what scares me more, the fact that something as useless as this is the centerpoint of their plan, or the fact that there must be a huge number of voters out there who think this is a good idea and will vote on it.

The premier component of the new social contract The Plan promotes between citizens and their government is universal citizen service.

I was happy with the old social contract.

John Kennedy was right: A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them.

OK. First of all, Kennedy said that a person is defined by what they do for their country, not that a nation is defined by what compulsary services it requires of its citizens. Second, Kennedy had loftier things in mind than 3 months of disaster preparedness training. Third, by this logic the higher the taxes the greater the country.

If your leaders aren't challenging you to do your part, they aren't doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing for the first time an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. This is not a draft, nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose.

How does "do this community service or you go to prison" create an "ethic of universal citizen service?"

We're the sole superpower and biggest target in a world where the capacity for evil is more decentralized than ever before. For years, we have worked to remake the world in our image by spreading the gospel of democracy, freedom and capitalism. Doing so has been and continues to be in our national interest. But we should not forget: The more the world copies our strengths, the harder we must work to hone those strengths ourselves.

I dunno if you've heard, but disaster preparedness is not one of our strengths.

Emanuel: Time for a new contract on America

While you're waiting for Acidus to finish his book, read this one.

"If you're even thinking of doing any security engineering, you need to read this book"
-- Bruce Schneier

"Even after two years on the shelf, Security Engineering remains the most important security text published in the last several years"
-- Information security Magazine

Ross Anderson is my favorite security researcher.

Security Engineering - A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems

VeriSign, Inc. will acquire its leading competitor in the market for SSL certificates, GeoTrust Inc., for $125 million in cash, the two companies said today.

I have been doing business with GeoTrust for years specifically because I don't want to give money to the company responsible for SiteFinder (I own .com domains, but its a monopoly so I don't really have a choice). Is there another SSL certificate company that I can purchase from that isn't owned by Verisign? Anyone ever use Comodo?

Netcraft: VeriSign To Buy GeoTrust, Combining Top SSL Providers

k wrote:
I also get that telling people "Don't be afraid." isn't a tack the government can take easily; it's up to individuals to realize that their own fear is the actual problem.

I don't agree.

In World War II we faced threats to our way of life that far surpassed what we see today, and the attitude of politicians at the time was defiant and strong. This sort of leadership contributed to a society that was not afraid and was ready to do what they could to contribute.

Our present approach is pathetic. Buearucrats covering their assess by unleashing the wolves on the general public evertime a pin drops. A terror alert system informing the people of the government's best prediction of when they are going to die, something they can do absolutely nothing about. These forces contribute to the pressures on the people, already loaded with our service men and women being in harms way overseas for long periods of time, and by the occaisonal successful terror attack. The pressure pushes them closer and closer to the point where they'll yearn to fix the problem quickly and easily by letting the nukes go.

Meanwhile our myopic leadership picks away at every legal institution, both international, and domestic, that keeps our society from flying apart at the seams. The people who established the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, the Separation of Powers, and the Fourth Amendment did so because they learned through years of bloodshed that these things are absolutely nessecary. Some might need to be modernized, but to simply cast them away wholesale is suicide.

To make matters worse, it turns out they didn't welcome us into Iraq by throwing flowers at our tanks, and we fired the guys who had accurate cost estimates for that adventure, and Israel just bought Iran's sucker punch lock, stock, and barrell and has thereby emboldened all of the people who seek to kill us.

The only thing I hate more then looking at this situation with dismay is the fact that I'm not convinced the "other team" has a better plan for dealing with it. We have not men fit for the times.

RE: Stratfor: Al'Q wins in London even though the attack was foiled.

Stratfor: Terrorism Intelligence Report - August 29, 2006

Airline Incidents: Fear as Force Multiplier

By Fred Burton

During the past month, since British authorities announced the
disruption of a bomb plot involving airliners, there has been a
worldwide increase in security awareness, airline security measures
-- and fear among air passengers. At least 17 public incidents
involving airline security have been reported in the United States
and parts of Europe since Aug. 10. Most of these were innocuous,
but many resulted in airliners making emergency landings off their
scheduled routes, sometimes escorted by fighter aircraft.

The spate of incidents -- each of which rings up significant
financial costs to the airline company and governments involved and
causes inconvenience and delays for travelers -- is a reminder that
terrorism, philosophically, is not confined to the goal of filling
body bags or destroying buildings. At a deeper level, it is about
psychology and the "propaganda of the deed." And as far as al Qaeda
is concerned, it is also about economic warfare: Osama bin Laden
personally has stated that one of the group's strategic objectives
is to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy."

To say that the governments and industries targeted by terrorism
face difficult choices is a gross understatement. The problem lies
in the fact that decision-makers not only must protect the public
against specific groups using known tactics (in al Qaeda's case,
bombs and liquid explosives) but also must protect themselves in
the face of public opinion and potential political blowback.
Officials naturally want to be perceived as doing everything
possible to prevent future acts of violence; therefore, every
threat -- no matter how seemingly ridiculous -- is treated
seriously. Overreaction becomes mandatory. Politicians and
executives cannot afford to be perceived as doing nothing.

This powerful mandate on the defensive side is met, asymmetrically,
on the offensive side by a force whose only requirements are to
survive, issue threats and, occasionally, strike -- chiefly as a
means of perpetuating its credibility.

The Impact to Air Travel

Following the thwarted U.K. airlines plot, security measures in
Britain, the United States and elsewhere were tightened. These new
regulations have included a ban on liquids and electronic items in
the passenger compartment, more stringent baggage checks and
tighter scrutiny of prospective passengers.

These new security measures already have had a financial impact on
the airline industry. On Aug. 25, Irish discount airline Ryanair
filed the lawsuit it had previously threatened against the
British Department for Transport. The lawsuit represents an effort
to change the new restrictions... [ Read More (1.4k in body) ]

The government is preventing a native-born citizen of this country from returning home to the USA from overseas.

The Practical Nomad blog: USA denies its citizens their right of return