Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 29, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Well despite statutory mandates US still does not have cargo screening ability so these problem packages must have been picked up by some kind of screening overseas. Will be interesting to see how that came about?

Comment by Dan O'Connor

October 29, 2010 @ 6:30 pm

Apparently the Saudi’s provided the tracking numbers. . .

Will be interesting how this unfolds.

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 31, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Reread the GAO report cited in Phil’s comments. Maybe I missed something. Perhaps my earlier comment missed the point also. Seems the issue is foreign origin cargo planes not domestic origin. But neither the GAO report or Phil’s post addresses the difference or status of screening of foreign origin cargo planes cargo. I did find an OIG/DHS report quite old that addressed the situation although some redactions. Sent to Phil.

So could a CBRNE device now be planted on an aircraft without being screened if originating in a foreign nation-states airport? Most of African airspace has no air traffic controls for example, much less screening. Yet there are majority Islamic states with fundamentalist factions in Sub-Saharan Africa unless I am wrong. Believe this is in fact a bigger issue that the XMAS Bomber of a year ago. But maybe I am unclear–was this a cargo plane exclusively or a passenger plane with cargo?

Phil–request you keep up this thread for a while.

Comment by John F. Morton

November 1, 2010 @ 8:17 am

I believe we should ascribe significance in John Brennan’s widely reported statement that “‘They’ are still at war with us, and we are very much at war with them.” I doubt he would have used the word unintentionally. Could his statement be preparing the ground for a policy shift? Is he speaking on behalf of some quarter of the administration or the administration itself? Either way it would suggest a shift from the idea that terrorism is a “law enforcement” issue to something approaching the GWOT, the term which the Obama administration had banished when it come to power. While GWOT was a rhetorical term, and in my view poorly chosen (It prompted the statement one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, while failing to rally and engage fully the American people.), precise identification of an enemy or enemies with whom are at war is far better for drawing lines between “co-belligerents” and “neutrals.” Rather than a vague congressional vote in support of the president, should lawmakers vote for a declaration in response to an act of war, indeed a war declared? And would that engage and rally the American people—or not? Precision here makes for definable outcomes and the possibility of an end-state—at least against “that” enemy. So, should we “declare war” against AQAP, and if so can we make the case for and conduct a war against a “non-state actor?” I think we can. By acknowledging a state or war, as Brennan appears to be doing, then can we say to Yemen, hey, are you a co-belligerent or an ally? Same for Pakistan, who harbors another “enemy” who has declared war against us. And at the same time, we should be pulling the American people together with some leadership that tells them what the heck their representative national security leaders are doing. Maybe we all should be asking Brennan what does he mean when he says “we are very much at war with them.” We need to start a national dialogue that yields not just responses but leadership and direction.

Comment by William R. Cumming

November 1, 2010 @ 8:41 am

Seems to me that non-state actors can cause nation-states to spend billions and trillions based on the 1% problem. If my conclusion is accurate the current nation-state system already largely engaged in an open currency war, caused by the waste, fraud, and abuse of the FIRE sector domestically and internationally could be the tipping point into a new dark ages. Yet no one addresses the sense of proportionality or defective but very expensives systems that don’t deal with current analysis of INTEL and wondering what this bodes for the future? Do the bomb makers actually rule as opposed to the leaders of various nation-states? Descent into apocolypse?
Beware the well-meaning man without understanding?

Comment by Philip J. Palin

November 1, 2010 @ 9:39 am

Mr. Morton, Your comment deserves a substantive response. But before doing so, I will report an annoying side issue. Your quote of Mr. Brennan is referenced — twice — in a USA Today story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-31-whitehouse-mail-bombs_N.htm) and in several other media stories. The USA Today report indicates Mr. Brennan said, “They’re still at war with us, and we are very much at war with them,” on both Fox News Sunday and ABC’s This Week. This suggests an explicit talking point and reinforces your judgment that the war reference was intentional. But neither of the preliminary transcripts for either of these shows — so far (10AM Monday) — shows the quote. I would like to read the quote in its full context, but have not yet been able to do so.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-john-brennan-sens-cornyn-menendez/story?id=12015597

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/john-brennan-mail-bomb-plot-sarah-palin-and-chris-van-hollen-preview-elections

Comment by John F. Morton

November 1, 2010 @ 10:35 am

Well, I really don’t have insight as to whether the Brennan choice of words was intentional or not or whether there was a lot of policy discussion around whether to phrase the statement as he did. But that too deserves substantive investigation. But my personal belief is that it had to be intentional. On the other hand, maybe he was using “war” in the same sense as the Bush administration used war in the GWOT, in which case we are wasting our time discussing this.

As to the earlier comment on currency war as being the real global issue, I emphatically agree, to the extent that we have a real continental-sized, geo-strategic adversary analogous to the Cold-War USSR who has much more subtle capabilities other than conventional/nuclear military that can bring this nation down, via blinding its military/naval/space-based sensors and generating cascading failures throughout its power grids, computer networks, financial system/financial trading system with a few key strokes. Or indeed by simply facilitating the end of the dollar-based international currency system through a variety of hand-shakes and strategic transactions, etc., etc. Since we really don’t have a competitive, borders-in techno-industrial base, the only hegemonic cards we have to play in this “Pax Americana” are our military (and we know how little we have and will to pay to keep that capability going) and the dollar. So yeah, and that’s another point which leads us back to leadership and direction vice responses to the media cycle, threats and such.

Comment by William R. Cumming

November 1, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

The US military has not been equipped or trained to deal with non-state actors. Attempts to do so have largely failed.

Comment by John F. Morton

November 1, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

True, as long as DoD and the defense industry lawmakers continue protect big platform programs and BMD to the degree we do. Re training, I think we are moving toward training for the Pentagon’s new map, and I can point to the communities that a rising proportion of USNA grads are entering these days, e.g., the USMC, SEAL and EOD communities, as evidence of this change.

Comment by William R. Cumming

November 3, 2010 @ 4:55 am

Men should not be measured solely by the size of their “toys’! Nor women either!