The Failures of Post-Modern Collectivism in the EU

                                    Riots in Greece
Tampere, Finland

When I was an undergraduate student, I constantly heard about the effectiveness and benefits of European style collectivism. More and more interdependency and the theory of constructivism have become the politically correct way of viewing international relations. Realism was seen as outdated and an obstruction to progress. But how about now? It seems that collectivism is not the bulwark it was made out to be and neither is constructivism. The EU, which has served as the shining jewel of collectivism is on the verge of falling apart. Why, because states will always act according to their own interests on crucial matters, whether they are conscious of it or not. Collectivism and post-modern thinking has left the European Continent not only in tough economic shape, but also militarily weak.
  
Collectivism among nation states takes place when the nations involved decide to act multilaterally and place the actions of the group above the actions of the individual states. Hence the economic and social agreements (regulations) of the EU. The premiss for collectivism in the EU was that interdependent states are less likely to wage wars or brutalize each other either in a military sense or in an economic sense. The EU started off as economic agreements between France and Germany that were designed to prevent any future wars after WWII. This eventually grew into what is now the EU. For over a decade and a half, the EU has been strong and effective economically. Militarily countries have either relied on the US for protection or simply think that war is dead (example, Sweden).

                                       The Failures of Economic Collectivism in the EU

While this way of thinking worked in the short-term, the weaknesses of collectivism in the EU are beginning to appear quite strongly as the economic crisis in Europe grows. Even though collectivist thinking places the group above the state, states themselves do not act that way. (even if they think they do). For example Greece, during the current crisis has time and again shown that it will act as it seems fit. Last month they bought 400 main battle tanks with some of the bail-out money. Why? Well they were more concerned about the Turkish military than about the Euro. Now after days of hard work by EU leaders to hammer out a debt deal for Greece, Greece wants to put it to a public referendum and may simply reject it. Rejection of the deal may result in Greece's expolsion from the EU. If they vote the deal down, countries such as Finland have already made it clear that they see a rejection of the deal as a vote to leave the EU. If Greece leaves the EU or is forced to leave, it will defeat the primary goals of collectivism.

Another example of how collectivism is failing, is Germany. Germany is not a charity ward that simply gives out money to the poor. Yes, it is true that they are the biggest donator to the Euro bailout fund, but they also are attaching a lot of strings to the money the banks have lent to the struggling countries. What does that mean? It means that Germany will control for more of the European economy after the crisis than it did before. Nothing is truly free. The Greeks have been evoking images of economic Nazis as a result. But what is Germany supposed to do? Just shell out money with no guarantees? Germany is acting as a realist state, even under the guise of collectivism. Sure they will help, but it comes with a cost. Germany is maximizing its relative power in Europe. Just as Greece is acting selfishly with the money they have received, so Germany is acting as a realist with the money given out.

The fact is states will act in their own self interest on major issues no matter how much collectivism seems to be dominant. Many EU countries are furious at Greece for their mismanagement of the economy and even more so at Greece's waste of funds and their audacity to keep playing chicken with the economic deals. People are asking how dare they?! But, the question that should be asked is, why not? The real incompetents are the ones pouring money into Greece without strings attached or the ones who advocated to bring Greece into the EU in the first place. Greece is acting like a sovereign state and is taking advantage of EU generosity. Finland was made to look bad when they made Greece pay a 25% advance on the Finnish bailout loan. And yet Finland may be the only country to not take a 100% loss on Greece. You see, many EU countries are still acting like realists, and the ones who aren't are sitting ducks. This brings us a to a short discussion about the effects of collectivism on EU nations' militaries.

                                 The Failures of Collectivism in Relation to Defense
During the time immediately following the Cold War most of the western world took for granted the peace and prosperity that followed. Nations that have for years had been under the threat of the USSR were now free. The United States was the undisputed military power in the world and European nations capitalized on the lack of an enemy by building their economies and social welfare services at the expence of defense. At the time it made sense. During the Cold War the United Stated had protected Western Europe and the lack of an enemy after the USSR led to even more relaxed defense standards. Post-modern thinking began to take hold and countries drifted toward collectivism and the idea that war was dead in Europe was prevalent.  However, no good thing lasts.

To date, only a few countries in the EU have conscription armies. Due the the small size of many European countries mandatory conscription has historically been the best means of defense and enabled a trained population. This is increasingly being fazed out. The only counties of consequence that still have conscription for longer than 6 months are Finland, Estonia and Greece. The most recent country to drop conscription is Sweden. This is their last year. The past decade has effectively seen the demilitarization of much of Europe. Some think this is a good thing and yet times are changing fast. It is true that the UK and France can still foot modern armies, but these are small and inexperienced.

While Europe has been in a post modern dream, countries on the continent's periphery have been growing stronger and US protection is growing relatively weaker. The old bear of the north, Russia, is rising again (maybe only temporarily and yet dangerous) and the Muslim south east is on the march. Recently, Russia has deployed large quantities of offensive military units to the boarder of Finland and the Baltic states. Offensive ground forces are stationed between Saint Petersburgh and the Finnish and Estonian boarders. In the north, right about in the middle of Finland, Russia has built up a huge amount of attack choppers. Historically, when Russia invades Finland it has tried to cut the country in half. It is now posed to do so. This is not to say that there is an impending Russian attack on Finland, but it does raise the question of why offensive units are there. In modern warfare there is a huge difference between offensive and defensive units, so one can gather that Russia doesn't have them there for defensive purposes.

The point of all this, is that while Europe has been disarming, the rest of the world has not. Russia is attempting to regain its old glory, Muslim demographic seems to signal unrest, and China is becoming an undisputed great power. Post-modern thinking combined the end of the Cold War has made Europe dependent on the US and exposed to possible aggression. In the unlikely event of a Russian attack on north-eastern Europe, no one except the Finns would be able to put up a fight and Finland would not last long. All of Scandinavia could fall with the drop of a hat and the same could happened in the Baltic states. It is unlikely that this will happen and yet, what if the US was tied up somewhere else (maybe Asia) and not prepared to defend Europe? Russia might size the opportunity to attack one of its European neighbors.

The sad truth is that the EU nations are not ready to defend themselves and in the event of aggression by one nation, would be forced to watch until one of the old powers such as the UK, France or Germany was threatened. Peace and prosperity has lulled too many nations into a false sense of security. The future remains to be seen and in the words of Winston Churchill, "I cannot Forcast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, rapped in mystery, inside an enigma… The only key is the national interest of Russia." 

                                                         Collectivism is Not Dead 
Some ideas die hard and still others never really die at all. So, it is unlikely that the current crisis in the EU is the end of collectivism. In fact the EU and the Euro in my opinion will continue. However, it seems that if economics in the EU continue to get much worse, some countries may be cut loose and collectivism will be dealt a hard blow. The same can be said for any military aggression against an EU member state. While Collectivism seems like a great idea, is neglects basic human nature and eventually ends up exposing its followers to danger. 

Turkey and Israel: Diplomatic Positioning or a Dangerous Game of Chicken?

Last week Turkey expelled Israel's top diplomats and ended all military cooperation. After 9 Turks were killed in the flotilla incident last year Turkey threaten repository action. Now that the UN recently declared Israel's actions at the flotilla were excessive but legal, Turkey has begun a series of diplomatic moves to show their discontent with Israel's actions. First, they expelled Israel's top diplomats and then threaten to move some naval assets into the Mediterranean. Next Turkey announced that is might use those naval assets to provide a military escort for the next flotilla that attempts to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza. The entire episode has been very unfortunate. Turkey has been a partner with Israel for years and their joint military ventures has provide Muslim-Israeli cooperation. So one has to ask, what does Turkey's recent positioning really mean and what do both sides have to loose or gain?

First, any attempt by Turkish battleships to breach the Israel blockade would be an act of war. The international community has declared the blockade legal which gives Israel even more incentive to confront any move by the Turkish Navy. Turkey has more to loose than Israel in starting a military altercation. Turkey has been attempting to join the EU for years and confirmation with the Israeli navy is certainly not going to help their membership bid. Also it would most likely result in both a military and international embarrassment. Given that it is extremely unlikely that Turkey would attempt to forcibly breach the blockade, one can ascertain that the statements about a flotilla escort are meant as rhetoric to appease the Turkish public and to send a message to Israel. The exposition of diplomats is also a symbolic move. The countries still have diplomatic ties, which means Turkey sees its relationship with Israel as productive.

The end of military cooperation is a little more complicated and has more negative consequences for Israel. Turkey has gained a lot of new military technology from Israel, including many types of UAV drones. Some have speculated that now that Turkey has successfully purchased weapons from Israel it has little incentive to keep up the relationship. I am not sure this is true. The move to end military relations might also be diplomatic positioning. However, Israel is the one to loose here. Not only has Israel sold advanced equipment to Turkey, but Turkey can also provide airspace for Israel in the event of a confirmation with Iran. If Turkey denies Israel access to their airspace it would make if more difficult to bomb Iran. In addition to denial of airspace, Israel has to consider loosing and important partner in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Hamas recruits from Turkey and loosing help in that area will serious damage Israel's efforts to curb Hamas.

Most of Turkey's actions in the last week can be seen as attempts to follow though on theirs threats following the death of nine of their citizens. Israel has not apologized and that is probably a good thing at this points. An apology right after the fact would have gone a long way, but now would make Israel appear weak visa v Turkey.  Right now the best thing is for both Turkey and Israel to take a time out more or less. Miscalculated moves to could lead to more than symbolic action and for Israel that would not be good in the long run. Turkey would be crazy to continue to push relations with Israel in negative direction, because Turkey has a lot, both economically and military, to gain from partnership with Israel. The events of the last week have really be nothing more than diplomatic positioning, but too much rhetoric may lead to foolish actions. However, I don't see Turkish leadership being stupid enough to engage Israel in a game of chicken over the blockade. Israel doesn't play chicken. Israel responds to military threats by destroying the opposition.

How al-Qaeda Sees Us..

Last week I attended a lecture by a security adviser from the RAND Corp. and I was intrigued by something he said and I would like to relay that here. The speaker discussed why it is important for us to understand the way al-Qaeda sees us and gave the following example. I would also like to touch on how and why al-Qaeda thinks they can and will defeat the US.

Before the US invasion of Iraq, but after the invasion of Afghanistan, bin Laden released a statement decrying the Bush Administration as "worse than Hulagu Khan." Most US officials shrugged this off and said, "who on earth in Hulagu Khan?" Arabs never asked who he was. For them Khan was the symbol of everything destructive and threatening to Islam. Hulagu Khan was the grandson of Genghis Khan and he conquered much of South East Asia. In 1255 Hulagu demanded that the Islamic Caliphate in Baghdad submit to the rule of the Khan's. At the time Baghdad was the center of Islamic power. The Caliphate refused to comply and the Khan rallied his army and completely sacked Baghdad and then as an act of defiance he stabled his Calvary in the most important mosque. the Khan then plundered one Muslin country after another, sacking Damascus, and marching through Palestine. He was on his was to Ciaro when a death in the Khan's royal family forced him to return home.

What is interesting about this story is that this is how bin Laden and many other Muslims view the actions of the United States. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq a picture surfaced showing US soldiers in the same mosque that Hulagu Khan had stabled his horses. This irony seemed to underscore bin Laden's claims and perpetuated the idea of the America as a destroyer of Islam. In other words many of our enemies see us as the new barbarians. This comparison is  clearly not reflected in reality, and yet it is a powerful part of their identity and political dialogue. This view also leads to the justification of terrorist attacks. Lastly, it is important for the United States to understand just how they see our actions. Not so we can accommodate them, but rather because we need to promote a counter narrative in the Arab world and utilize this understanding to defeat them. When Gen. Patton defeated Gen. Rommel in the first Allied armor victory in North Africa, Patton stood up in his jeep and said, "Rommel you glorious bastard, I read your book!" (Rommel had written a book on tank warfar) We need to be able to read al-Qaeda's book.

The next thing I would like to discuss out is how and why al- Qaeda thinks it can possibly defeat the United States. Al-Qaeda and most other Arab jihad terror groups draw on the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan as proof of their ability to defeat the United States. From their perspective the war was dragging on between the Aghan fighter and the USSR when the Arab volunteers arrived. Despite the fact that the Arab mujaheddin were completely useless and despised by the Afghan's, Muslim Arabs saw themselves as warriors defeating a super power. When the USSR eventually withdrew from Afghanistan and shortly after collapsed, the Muslim Arabs saw this as a victory for Islam and a restoration of Arab strength.Arab Muslims bought into the fallacy that the Arab volunteers had somehow brought down the USSR. In reality it was the hard work of the Afghans, a crumbling USSR, and American stinger missiles that really defeated the USSR. Internal issues and crisis brought on the end of the USSR and nothing else. However this myth of Arab warriors in Afghanistan defeating a super power lives on. Bin Laden used to invoke the defeat of the USSR as evidence of al-Qaeda's ability to not only defeat the US but also the West in general.

The above is just two examples of al-Qaeda's thinking. I think it is good food for thought and would like to hear what you, as the reader, think about this instead of me presenting analysis. Does al-Qaeda's views surprise you? Does it play into our hand? What can we learn?

Keys Points from the US 2011 Counter Terrorism Strategy

In June the Obama Administration published the 2011 Counterterrorism Strategy and  I have outlined what I consider to be the major points.

It is Not Over-
A reoccurring theme throughout the strategy was that the effort to defeat Al-Qaeda is not likely to be over soon. However, Al-Qaeda has been weakened and remains vulnerable.


War on Terror vs. War on Al-Qaeda-
The strategy was careful not use the term "War on Terrorism," which it considesr to be a war on a tactic rather than against the real enemy. The administration prefered to use the term "War on Al-Qaeda." This is a significant difference from the Bush administration's use of the term war on terror and effectively limits the scope of US efforts to combating Al-Qaeda affiliates and adherence.

Civil Liberties vs. Security-
A major focus of the strategy was the preservation of civil liberties.  It acknowledged that America's values are what makes the nation strong and better equipped to fight terrorism. Torture in any form was rejected as being in conflict with our values and as being an ineffective tool. Seeing so much attention given to the preservation of civil liberties is in my mind important. What remains to be seen is whether those values are upheld in practice.

Areas of Focus-
Something else important that stood out was the attention given to certain countries. Pakistan and Afghanistan still top the list of high priories, which is  unlikely to change for a long time. Other countries though, such as Yemen and Somalia, were pinpointed as countries of critical importance to defeating Al-Qaeda. Limited resources dictate that we cannot be everywhere, so focusing resources on Yemen (home to AQAP) and Somalia (home to Al-Shabaab) is wise.

International Cooperation-
Lastly, the strategy places importance on working with other nations. The US will continue to work with other nations that do not share any of our value or interests other than defeating Al-Qaeda.This is not any different than previous strategies, but bears mentioning. In essence, reality dictates these temporary alliances.


What is missing?-
While the strategy as a whole is sound and on the right track, one thing appeared to be missing to me. There is no mention of de- radicalization initiatives or whether on not the US needs to start developing one. It is implied that the US is working with global partners in their de-radicalization programs, but there is no mention of them directly. I think this issue of de-radicalization should have been mention and a need or lack of a need for a program in the US discussed briefly. Or, it could have said that the government does not view these programs as successful. Other western countries are beginning to feel the need for de-rad programs and I think that the US would be wise to articulate a position or at least see if we have a need.

Link to the 2011 Counterterrorism Strategy

Call it Like it is: Yemen is Experiencing Full Blown Civil War

As the crisis in Yemen grows worse every day, the main stream media has beat around the bush when describing this violence. No major media outlet (CNN WSJ, NYT, and others) are willing to call the conflict a full blown civil war. They prefer to continue to describe events as moving it closer to civil war. My question? What do you have to do to earn the title of a civil war these days? Simply stated, Yemen is engaged in civil war. The mobs and rocks have given way to militias and bullets. Here are a few reasons why Yemen is in the middle of a civil war.

To begin, the riots that began in Yemen should be understood within the context a revolution. A revolution takes place when civilians revolt against the government to rapidly change the structure and power of that government. This is in contrast to a civil war where war breaks out between two or more organized groups within the same nation state. The later is what is currently taking place in Yemen. In the past few weeks the Hashid Tribal Alliance and, as of June 1, the Bakil Tribal Alliance have been fighting pro-President Salah forces and captured key areas in the capital of Sana. While the fighing has been ravaging the capital city, other militant groups are taking advantage of the situation. On May 29th al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) asserted their strength by capturing the city of Zinjibar.  The fact that AQAP is brazenly raising their head in Yemen, to the point of actual seizing a city, reveals that the central government of Yemen is imploding (not that it has ever been strong).

More significant than the tribal attacks within Sana or AQAP capturing Zinjibar is Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar one of Yemen's major generals. He defected from the government last month, and has now sent soldiers to fight pro-Salah troops in the capital. When major generals defect and send regular soldiers to fight presidential troops, there should be no question about whether or not a country has collapsed into civil war. To put things in perspective Gen. al-Ahmar has at least 40,000 soldier loyal to him (including mechanized units) and the tribes have tens of thousands more. President Salah has at least 50-60,000 loyal soldiers. So ignoring all the other armed tribes and generals in Yemen, as of today over 100,000 soldiers are at odds with one another. There is a civil war in Yemen and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. No one gains from this situation, except groups like AQAP and I would put my money on Yemen becoming the next Afghanistan (severely failed terror state) unless something changes and changes quickly. President Salah has been a good friend of the Unites States and has worked to fight AQAP and any loss of control means an opportunity for our enemies.

Let me know if you think Yemen is experiencing civil war by checking out my poll at the bottom of this page!

After Bin Laden, Part 1 of 2: Why it Matters

On May 1st a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was raided by US Navy Seals and a fire fight ensued that left American's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, dead. As crowds fill the streets in celebration, we are left with many questions about the future of al-Qaeda and America's operations.  Some are saying that the death of bin Laden is no longer important. On the other hand some seem to think that the War in Afghanistan or the war on terror, for that matter, is over. Both views couldn't be farther from the truth. To put it bluntly, the killing of Osama bin Laden is the most significant victory yet in a 10 year war, but it is not the end. To really understand the significance of the death of bin Laden and why it matters, it is necessary to look beyond the last few years or even beyond September 11, 2001. However, due to the amount of information to be cover, I will write it in two parts. In part one, I will present my analysis on why this event is so important. In part two, I will discuss what it may mean for the future of al-Qaeda and US counter-terrorism efforts.

Why it Matters That Bin Laden is Dead
Bin Laden is the linchpin both financially and symbolically for al-Qaeda and for many affiliated Islamic terror organizations. After a victorious bin Laden returned from waging Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980's he became a symbol for many Muslims of what Islam should be: righteous, simple and victorious. Soon after returning to Saudi Arabia he began to lash out against the corrupted Arab Regimes and then against the United States, who he saw as the oppressor of Muslims worldwide. Unlike others who hated the United States bin Laden took action and formed al-Qaeda. Also, unlike many other terrorist leaders, bin Laden had the millions to fund his organization and whatever country that offered him safe haven (Sudan and then Afghanistan). In the past 18 years, bin Laden has been able to create a massive global terror network (including cells in many western countries and has carried out several catastrophic attacks against the US and her allies.

Within the study of terrorism most scholars refer to the leadership of al-Qaeda (those that surrounded bin Laden) in Pakistan and Afghanistan as "al-Qaeda Central." Al-Qaeda Central suffered severe organizational and personal damage after the US invasion of Afghanistan. However, in recent years it has been making a comeback. While al-Qaeda Central does not exercise direct commend and control over its global franchises, such as al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, it serves as a financing, training, planning, and ideological head. Killing bin Laden deprived al-Qaeda Central of its number one leader, and essentially decapitated the global network. This in and of itself if very important from an organizational standpoint.

As bin Laden launched successful attacks against the US, he lost some support from moderate Muslims, but gained a dedicated following of radical Muslims, especially youth.  He served as a symbol of a man standing up against yet another superpower. The fact that he killed thousands only made him more attractive. Use of the internet and person recruiting pulled in these radicals and strengthened al-Qaeda. Now that bin Laden is dead, that symbol severely damaged. It is true that he will now be revered by his followers as a shaheed (martyr) and still as a symbol, but the demoralization effect must be huge. It is no longer true, that bin Laden will defeat the US or another superpower. He was shot in the head like so many terrorists before him. It shows that even the best will get killed. Bin Laden was a strong symbol to rally around and now that is gone, without a likely replacement. There are experienced leaders who can take his place, but none have the charisma or respect of bin Laden.

In the same way that Bin Laden's symbolism and charisma motivated Jihadists worldwide, his money has enabled al-Qaeda to weather many hard times when other terror organizations have failed. In fact, many analysts believe a major factor that drove al-Zawahiri (al-Qaeda's number 2 man, now number one) to merge his Islamic Egyptian Jihad to al-Qaeda was because of a lack of funds. The millions that bin Laden personally used for terrorism, and his donor connections in the Gulf states proved vital to the longevity of his organization. Now that this jackpot is gone, funding is likely to be looming obstacle for whoever takes over. Rich radical Muslims will still donate to jihad, but that is already happening and won't replace the loss of bin Laden. Above and beyond bin Laden's money, he also brought expertise. As a businessman and construction operator, bin Laden self-financed and self-built infrastructure, defense systems, and businesses. Again these key organization components that bin Laden personally brought to al-Qaeda will now suffer.


To sum up, the death of bin Laden hurt al-Qaeda in a way that nothing else could. Despite this huge loss, I firmly believe that al-Qaeda will live on, at least in the near future, as will radical Islam. However, the significance of removing bin Laden from the picture is monumental from the standpoint of defeating al-Qaeda and bringing stability to Afghanistan. I have not even mentioned the justice factor. Even Americans who were not directly effected by the September 11th attacks, were attacked emotionally and psychologically, as the terrorists intended. Now justice has been served, and for many Americans and even people worldwide this event brings some kind of closure and relief. This leads me to part two: what killing bin Laden may mean for the future of al-Qaeda and US counter-terrorism efforts.

P.S. Be sure to fill out my poll at the bottom of this page on how you felt about bin Laden's death!

Bin Laden is Dead!

I have much to say on this matter, but for now I will just post the text of the President's speech (Link to CNN Video). I also want to thank all of America's service men and women who have sacrificed to make this possible! The fight is not over, but this is clearly the biggest break yet for the US, and hardest blow against our enemies.

President Obama: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world, the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must --- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not --- and never will be --- at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Democracy Finnish Style: The 2011 Election and a Conservative Surge

Tampere Finland

Yesterday Finland held elections for the House of Representatives and I had the opportunity to be a casual observer here in Tampere Finland. After working for more than seven years in US domestic politics I was surprised at the similarities, but mostly the contrasts. I went with my wife and brother-in-law (both Finns) to the polls when they voted. Finland regulates campaigning far more than the US does and I was surprised at the orderliness, silence and complete lack of excitement that accompanied the election. As we walked to the polls the only sign of an election was a few billboards with a list of pictures, names and election numbers for the leftist Social Democratic Party. Finnish flags also appeared on many buildings where they had been absent the day before, but there were no yards signs, rallies, activists, door-to-door campaigning, or phone banking. We simply went to a high school where eight workers monitored the voting.

As I lingered in the lobby waiting for my family to cast their votes, I analyzed a sample ballot and counted 15 parties running candidates. This represents over twice the number of parties I saw on the ballot back home during the past US election. Finland has a hybrid government structure that is something between a presidential (US) and parliamentary (UK). This is called a semi-presidential system. Out of the 15 parties running, winners and loosers will have to form a coalition government (normally the top three parties are the only ones that matter).

One of the similarities between the past 2010 US election and the present Finish election was the shift from left to right on the political spectrum. The headline of the Finnish newspaper Aamulehti read, "Revolution" (Vallankumous). Just as the Tea Party and Republican Party swept away the liberal Democratic Party in the US, a similar phenomenon took place here yesterday. With 70.4% of the eligible voters voting, and with 98.8 % of the votes counted, the numbers are:

National Coalition (right of center) 20.1%, down from 50 to 44 seats, but now largest party
Social Democratic Party (left of center) 19.2%, down from 45 to 42 seat, second largest.
True Finns (right of center) 19.1%, from 5 to 39 seats and had the largest gains by far (similar as a "political phenomenon" to the Tea Party movement in the US, but organized, established as a party, and pushing different issues).
Center Party 15.9% (moderate to right of center) down from 51 to 35 seats, representing the greatest loss.
Left Party 8.2% (leftist) down from 17 to 14 seats.
Green Party (leftist) 7.2% down from 15 to 10 seats.

Without a doubt this election shifted politics in Finland to a more conservative position with conservative parties taking at least 118 seats. The major issue that seemed to really drive this election was discontent with Finnish membership in the EU. Many Finns now feel that is was a mistake to have joined the EU in 1995. The True Finns Party that swept in this election from a place of obscurity to the third largest party, campaigned mainly on the principle of leaving the EU. Many Finns are angry that Finland is bailing out the economies of other EU members and see many political leaders as having no plan if the EU fails, leaving Finland without even so much as a central bank. Another issue was opposition to current immigration policies. The rise of a new right-of-center-party like the True Finns  draws a striking similarity to the past US election when discontented Americans were attracted to the Tea Party and more conservative stances.

Bomb Hits Jerusalem After Several Years of Quite

Two days ago (March 23) a bomb exploded across from the central bus station in Jerusalem. This marks the first attack of this kind in many years. One person was killed and many dozens were injured as a result. This horrific event brings back images of the unrelenting terror attacks of the Second Intifada. For me this atrocity strikes home because last year I frequented that bus stop and I stopped to catch a bus there just a few weeks ago.  I find myself asking several  critical questions: who is responsible and why attack now?

While no terror organization has claimed responsibility at this time, I believe the perpetrators to be the  Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Several factors point to the PIJ as the culprits. First, the only other group that is likely to carry out this kind of attack in Jerusalem is Hamas. It is unlikely, that Hamas is responsible, because Hamas normally claims responsibility and more recently has been trying to gain international legitimacy and has limited itself to rocket and mortar attack from within Gaza (this week they have dramatically increased these artillery attacks). In contrast, the PIJ prefers to act behind the scenes and does not always claim responsibility for attacks.

When answering the question of why, I have several feasible answers. Recently there has been competition between Hamas and PIJ (Over, who is the more viable Palestinian organization in Gaza) and this recent attack may be PIJ asserting its influence and ability to attack Israel. Another alternative explanation is Iranian Influence. PIJ receives the majority of its funding from Iran and from time to time Iran seeks to directly influence PIJ operations in order to forward Iranian regional goals. A terror attack in Israel may do two things for Iran. First, it places stress on the Israeli security apparatus and may start another Israel military operation in Gaza. This will distract Israel from the pending Iranian nuclear threat. Second, if attacks continue or Israel responds with too much violence or kills civilians, it may lead to a third intifada. A third intifada would destabilize the entire region more than it already is. Iran is already capitalizing tremendously from the unrest in the Middle East and is gaining influence as Shia Muslims stage protests and open revolts (against Sunni regimes).

Whatever the reason or motive for the bombing, I hope this horrific and tragic event is isolated and that will not lead to more terrorism and violence. The best thing the the Israelis can do is attempt to find the perpetrators and continue to damage both Hamas and PIJ ability to conduct terror operations. However, overreaction or rash decisions by the Israeli government or IDF could escalate of violence and renew terror attacks (For example, in response to Hamas mortar attacks in southern Israel yesterday, the IDF hastily conducted a retaliatory mortar strike which killed four Palestinian civilians). At this point proceeding only with good intelligence and caution is best.

Be sure to check out the poll I am conducting on the current unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page.

Wisdom or Weakness: Libya, Obama & and the Next Steps

We are now entering the third day of the US intervention in Libya. Some are saying that the US is doing too little and acted too slowly, others claim any intervention is unwise and doomed to failure. Obama has come under fire in the past weeks and many have claimed he is showing weakness in his response to the civil war in Libya, and that he is following the women (Hillary Clinton) to war.Despite the rhetoric several things are sure. First the United States has opened up a third war front that happens to be in a Muslin majority country. Second, inaction by the United States and our allies would have result in the slaughter of innocent Libyans and an even more dangerous and delusional Gaddafi. I would like to argue that Obama is not displaying either weakness at this point and that is remains to be seen if he will display wisdom, but rather indecision and lack of a clear plan. He fault has been allowing himself to be pushed by others. Compounding this is his indecision which may have had the same result as weakness (innocent people dead). Lastly, if the US is to be involved in Libya there are certain guidelines that we should abide by.

When the UK and France pushed for military intervention in Libya I could not have been more happy. It is true that the US is the leader of the free world, but we are not, nor do we have the resources be to, the sole protector of liberty and democracy in the world. It is great to see some European powers stepping up and being willing to shed some blood to uphold and protect innocent lives. It is true that both the UK and France have vendettas against Gaddafi, but who doesn't? I believe that Obama's decision to let the US take a more support role is wise (fueling planes, using navel batteries etc...). To be sure the role of the American military has been huge, but limited in nature. The President has assured us that no boots will be on the ground and this will hopefully be the case. See above video .... There is a difference between weakness and knowing ones limitations. However, the President should have been clear on his stance and should now put a time limit on US involvement. Also, by continually stating that "Gaddafi must go..." he may be committing the US more than he really wants to.The US needs to be clear that it will not be pushed into playing a larger role than is wise. This is up to Obama and time will tell if he will be the strong leader we hope he will be.

Nation building is something the international community has not got a clue about, the US included. The wars and Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the complications of failed states and attempts to rebuild them. At the end of the day the US is writing the how-to manual as we go, and there is no guarantee of success. The costs of putting US soldiers on the ground in Libya or even intervening longer than a few months in a support role are huge. Billions would be needed and the US simply cannot afford that right now. Let the UK and France put people on the ground instead of letting them hid behind the US or as most recently suggest behind NATO. Lastly, there is no legal ground for a ground invasion and if one happens we can expect tribal insurgency from Gaddafi's tribe and supporters, and more than likely terrorism as a tactic.

I support the decision for an American intervention in Libya. Gaddafi is a murdering sociopath and the Us should not stand by and let him massacre his own civilians with 21 century weapons. That being said there are certain guidelines that the US needs to stick to or we may find ourselves in another war with unpredictable long-term consequences. First the US needs to only play a support role.That means letting other nations or the international coalition take the lead. I know it goes against the American mentality to follow anyone, but let's face it, is just a matter of pride and everyone knows that America can wipe out any military on the planet. Second the US needs to stick to having "no boots on the ground." Thirdly, we need a clear exit strategy and some kind of time line.  Lastly, no matter how much we may want to we really need to not take a leading role and we need to limit ourselves to preventing Gaddafi from killing people and to destroying his army so the rebels have a chance. If we become more involved we risk entanglement and undercutting the grassroots revolt.

This support role is on the strategic level. On the tactical level it should involve much of what we are currently doing: using navel batteries, fueling planes and supplying technological and logistical support such as satellites. I would  also issue a world of caution on the use of to many American combat aircraft operating in Libya. Yesterday an American F15 cash-landed as a result of technical issues. Both pilots ejected and are okay. However, we should think about two things. One, even though it may be nitpicking we already have American boots on the ground as a result of this crash. Two, captured American pilots could be a disaster and would certainly result in American ground forces entering Libya. For those of you who are familiar with the American intervention in Somalia you know what I mean.

In conclusion, I believe the US intervention in Libya along with our allies was the right thing to do. Whether or no Gaddafi lives through this is not a concern of mine. If he is killed, good riddance, at least the chances of us getting someone worse are about nil. Right now the US needs to play its cards well and not get entangled in a protracted conflict. We can be sure the rebel army will try to entangle us as it is in their best interest. Having a very limited and clear mission is key. I pray for the safely of our troops and God Bless America!

Remember to check out my poll on the unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page!

Hey Everyone

Hey everyone! I will be periodically posting my thoughts, observations and analysis on US politics and world affairs. My studies and time abroad have given me unique insights on current affairs which I wish to share. Sometimes current international and domestic issues are quite black and white, but I have found that most of the time they come in shades of grey, hence the name of the blog. I am still in the process of getting the blog ready so bear with me. Right now check out the poll I am conducting on the current unrest in the Middle East at the bottom of this page. Also I have set up relevant news headlines on the bottom of the page as well. Please follow my blog and recommend me to your friends that you think may be interested. Thanks!