The Second Opinion

A missile launch? (pt II)

(pt I)

Michelle Malkin has an anonymous tip from an FAA official that the 'irregularity' reported by America West flight 17 was a flock of birds.

Shades of the Cold War!

A missile launch?

Michelle Malkin reports that a story is circulating that a missile was fired at America West Flight 17 from JFK on Sept 15.  She called Phil Gee, Associate Manager of Media Relations for America West, who told her that the captain reported an 'irregularity' to air traffic control.  Nothing is confirmed yet, but the FBI interviewed the passengers and crew on the plane when it landed safely in Phoenix.

At this point, we don't know if the story is true.  Who saw the 'irregularity'?  What, exactly, did they see?  Did anybody on the ground see anything?

We've been worried about missile-armed terrorists lurking around our airports for some time (here's a 2003 article by Rich Lowry on the subject).  Indeed, a British businessman was convicted just a week ago of trying to sell such missiles to an FBI informant in New Jersey.  Whether or not a shoulder-fired missile like a Stinger or SA-16 could shoot down a jumbo jet is a subject for debate, but what I think ISN'T a subject for debate is the effect such an attack would have on our already tottering commercial airline industry.  Who wants to fly in what is essentially a big clay pidgeon?  Next time, take the train...

Defending against such a threat is possible.  We can equip commercial jets with missile warning sensors and countermeasures such as flare launchers.  The Navy is working on an even better system called TAD-IRCM which uses a laser to burn out the infrared seeker of shoulder-fired missiles (SUH-WEET!).  Obviously, however, we don't even want to allow terrorists to get their hands on missiles, and we certainly don't want to allow terrorists to infiltrate the United States.  While much has been done to improve our security since 9-11, much remains to be done.  Unfortunately, political will seems lacking.  If somebody DID shoot a missile at Flight 17, it should serve as a wake-up call to Washington and every American that we need to redouble our efforts to protect us from terrorism.

The Islamic Bomb

Iran has decided to push the international community farther with regard to its nuclear program: Iranian president Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that his country will offer nuclear know-how to other Islamic countries.  Syria, Yemen, Libya... They could all get the Bomb if Tehran continues down this path.  According to the Washington Times' David R. Sands:

"The Islamic Republic never seeks such weapons of mass destruction, and with respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries," Mr. Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian press accounts.

He repeated his denials of Iran's intent to make atomic bombs in a get-acquainted meeting with U.S. reporters and editors yesterday morning, saying such suspicions put a heavy burden on his country.

"How do you prove you are not a bad person?" he asked.

In a rare display of good sense, even the State Department isn't buying his protestations of innocence:

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told a briefing, "Iran, as its record demonstrates, has a long history of trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, supporting terror.

"We view with concern any suggestion that Iran would seek to contribute to very destabilizing and unhelpful international behavior."

Britain, France and Germany have tried for months to cajole, wheedle, bribe and beg Iran into giving up the program.  The Iranians used the Euro's diplomatic overtures as an excuse to buy time.  When they completed their uranium enrichment facility just a month ago, they then did everything but laugh in the Euro's collective face.  Now the Euros are more willing to go along with our policy of taking Iran to the Security Council as a first step toward international sanctions.  Unfortunately, Condi Rice doesn't think we've got the votes even with Euro cooperation:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been trying to rally support for a vote next week by the United Nations' Vienna, Austria-based nuclear watchdog to refer Iran's nuclear programs to the Security Council -- a first step toward possible sanctions.

The tougher line had been backed earlier by European Union powers Britain, France and Germany, which have taken the diplomatic lead in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the standoff.

But Miss Rice conceded that the United States might not have the votes at what was supposed to be a climactic vote by the board of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Monday.

"If we get a referral that will be good, but I think the issue of a referral is something we'll be working on for a while," Miss Rice said in an interview with the Fox News editorial board conducted Wednesday evening and released in full yesterday.

In other words, diplomats are going to waste spend MUCH more time in Vienna talking about Iran's nuke program, giving the ayatollahs precious months to continue development of a Bomb.  Once they've got it, everybody's hands are tied.  There will be nothing to stop Tehran from building as big a stockpile as it wants (they've got plenty of money from oil, after all), and then nothing to stop them sharing the nuke technology with anybody the choose.  The real worry is that they might also decide that their friends - like Hezbollah or even al Qaeda - need a Bomb, too.

If this scenario plays out, what will we do?  What CAN we do?

Just War Theory

Dan Trabue of Payne Hollow and I have been exchanging views about the concept of a 'Just War', and rather then leave them in comments, I thought I would start a new post.  The concept interests me from both legal and historical aspects.

Just as peoples, cultures and nations develop laws to regulate their civil affairs, they also develop laws and codes and traditions that determine how and when they may make war.  Implicit in these codes is the concept of a 'just war', i.e. war that may be waged without putting a moral onus on the people / nation waging it.  In the Western tradition, the first systematic discussion of 'just war' was written by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.  He identifies three requirements for war to be considered just:

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior...

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good."...

More recently, St. Thomas' principles have been expanded to seven requirements by those who support the concept of a just war:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Within fairly broad limits, I accept these principals and believe that they have been upheld by the United States in most of our wars (the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are notable exceptions).  However, there are some points that I question:

Requirement (2) seems to prohibit guerilla / partisan warfare of the sort waged by Americans during our War for Independence, by the Spanish during their guerilla war against Napoleon, or by the followers of Mao during World War II and China's long civil war.  Further, "legitimate" authority may well be subject to interpretation.

Requirement (3) seems clearly to prohibit preemptive action.  I realize that this concept is especially controversial of late, but there are cases where preemptive action makes logical sense.  For example, if the US had detected the Japanese fleet steaming toward Hawaii on December 6, 1941, it seems reasonable that the United States could have attacked that fleet even though Japan had not yet taken any offensive action.

Requirement (3) also seems to preclude peace keeping or police actions.  For example, the Janjaweed militia committing genocide in Darfur has not caused any injury to the United States.  Therefore, we could not wage 'just' war against them even if we so desired.

Requirement (4) interests me because it hearkens back to the medieval concept of 'guilty in defense' (see The Life of King Henry V, Act III, scene 3).  The problem lies in who should decide when a cause has become hopeless.  Should Britain have surrendered along with France in 1940?  Her cause seemed hopeless.  Should the Soviet Union have surrendered when the Nazis were mere miles from Moscow?  If the USSR had launched a massive nuclear attack against the United States, should we have refrained from retaliation?

Requirement (6) is dangerous and, frankly, bloody stupid.  Use of minimum force will almost certainly prolong a war and ultimately cause more devastation and loss of life.  Further, it implies 'tit for tat'.  No nation or people can reasonably be expected to accept such a state of affairs.

Requirement (7) is a nice sentiment, but it is nearly impossible in the modern world because nation-states make war.  Thus, their civilians become targets to the extent that they support the state's ability to make war.  Workers in munitions plants, civilian members of the state's military apparatus, and even workers not directly employed in war-related industries (such as farmers, miners, railway workers, etc) can become legitimate targets.

Naturally, I do not believe that the United States should make war rashly or maliciously.  Diplomacy should be pursued to the greatest extent possible without sacrificing our national goals.  If diplomacy fails, there are other options such as economic embargoes and attempts to get other nations to align with us to bring pressure to bear on the offending party.  However, these methods have there limitations, and when they fail, force becomes the only remedy other than surrender. 

It goes without saying that the United States should wage war with as much charity and mercy as possible.  We should not set out to bomb civilians, raze entire cities, or inflict catastrophic damage on the enemy.  Further, we have laws and rules governing the conduct of our military personnel both on the battlefield and in occupied territory, and I believe that such rules should be strictly enforced.  However, the ultimate aim of winning cannot be sacrificed if the national security of the United States is at risk, nor should American lives be lost needlessly to spare the lives of the enemy.  Our goal should always be to establish a just and lasting peace, but we should always be the victor.

"Wonderful Time to be a Soldier"

Sgt. Joe Roche, USA, published this in today's Washington Times:

I'm very proud to be a soldier of the U.S. Army because of the war on terror and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not alone either. I'm surrounded by soldiers who are re-enlisting and volunteering to go to units that are deploying. In fact, despite all the negative news and protests, I see everyday that our military is actually doing very well.

This is quite obvious, except for the fact that most of the media seems asphyxiated with defeatism. The message from most journalists would lead you to believe that we soldiers are getting out, that no one is joining anew and that we want to stop fighting. This simply isn't true.

Yes, recruitment is lower, but the caliber of those who are signing up and the rates of re-enlistment are both extremely high. All 10 of our major combat divisions are ahead of expectations for retention of soldiers. In my unit, there are soldiers who specifically went active duty from the reserves because they want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Before September 11, a lot of soldiers were happy to just enjoy the benefits. Since that day, those soldiers have left. That is fine and not the disaster that defeatist reports are making it seem. Such soldiers were never the types to want to go on long deployments and face combat. Yes, they were heroes for signing up and being in a job that could go that direction, but they had other priorities that made their service contingent on enjoying the benefits rather than serving in war.

That changed on September 11. Now, just as we are told to expect when joining, we are going to combat and many soldiers are getting injured and killed. This is our job, and it is what we know can happen. I don't know why the media insists on trumpeting the idea that all of us are tired and worn out and just want to stop fighting. I don't, and I am not alone.

The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat.

Injuries are high, but they are nothing compared to past conflicts. And most striking is how many are recovering well. I have been to both of the major military hospitals involved in this war, Landstuhl in Germany and Walter Reed in Washington, and I can tell you that there are many soldiers who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan and who want to return to their units and get redeployed.

Like I said earlier, though, the striking fact I see every day is that the soldiers who are joining now are of much higher caliber than those who joined before September 11. The senior commandant of the Marines recently testified before Congress that the same is happening with them. There maybe fewer than before, but those that do show up are willing and dedicated to being deployed and going to combat. These are also the types who are re-enlisting more than ever before. In fact, re-enlistment is up to 130 percent of expectations in some divisions.

My wife is in the National Guard. Theirs is an interesting experience right now in that there have been more casualties by accidents and reckless behavior off-duty than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are protesters not upset about that? Sadly it appears that much of the media are obsessed with defeatism. Even the message of the protesters — contradictory, false and confused as ever — is made front-page headline news every day. The few people they can exploit to push this defeatist agenda are made to appear to speak for all of us. That just isn't true.

Contrary to all the bad news, I see everyday that our soldiers are motivated and eager to contribute and participate in our nation's military missions. This is a very proud and important time to be serving. Considering that out of a population of 285 million, less than one-tenth of one percent are going to war right now, and considering the huge impact we are having on the world, this is a wonderful time to be a soldier in the U.S. Army.

Iran restarts nuke program

Honestly, is anybody surprised?  The Euros tried cutting deals with Tehran, tried other methods to get them to stop their nuke program (which the ayatollahs claim is for peaceful electrical production only; yeah, right), and in general came off like Robin William's take on British bobbies: "STOP!  Or I'll say 'STOP!' again!"  According to the Washington Times' Seth Rosen:

Iranian officials earlier rejected as "unacceptable" a European package of incentives meant to cajole the country into abandoning its nuclear program and ending the standoff.

So much for appeasement.  You'd think the Euros would have learned the last time...

This leaves the Bush Administration with a problem.  On the one hand, they suspect that the Iranians have one goal in mind: an Islamic Bomb.  They desperately want to keep this from happening.  On the other, they can't push Tehran too hard for fear of strengthening the hand of new Iranian president Mahmood Ahmadinejad, a hard-line nationalist who might try to prop himself up by 'standing up to foreigners', especially the United States.

But, hey, maybe the Bush Administration shouldn't worry.  The IAEA is on the case:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a U.N. nuclear watchdog, will discuss the action at an emergency meeting in Vienna, Austria, today. Agence France-Presse reported that the IAEA would likely issue an ultimatum demanding a suspension of Iran's nuclear-fuel work.

"It is clear that Iran is in default of its obligations to the IAEA, and there is a legal basis for taking action against Iran," said Gary Milhollin, the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington. "The question is whether there is the political will."

Such 'legal action' may include sanctions (which worked so well against Saddam, right?), and the US is giving serious consideration to denying Ahmadinejad a visa to attend the annual UN General Assembly meeting in September (that'll learn him!).  Frankly, this last is a no-brainer: Ahmadinejad is suspected of having participated in the 1979 takeover of our embassy in Tehran.  The only reason we should let him into the country is to place him under arrest.

Sigh...

This problem has been building for years.  The only thing that's REALLY going to stop Tehran from trying to build a Bomb is a change in government, which means either revolution by Iranians fed up with life in an Islamic theocracy, or 'regime change' brought about courtesy of the US armed forces.  In any event, we can't dither around for too long.  If the ayatollahs get a Bomb, we've got a major problem on our hands.

Russians and Chinese to carry out joint military exercises

The Russian and Chinese militaries are about to start a large joint exercise called 'Peace Mission 2005'.  According to the Washington Times' David R. Sands:

The Chinese defense ministry said this week that the exercises are designed to "strengthen the capability of the two armed forces in jointly striking international terrorism, extremism and separatism."

Note the term 'separatism'.  Sounds like Taiwan to me.  The Russians deny this:

Russian officials have been wary of being dragged into the Taiwan dispute, insisting that the war games are not directed against any third party.

US Pacific Command will be monitoring the exercise closely, as well it should.  I'm not worried so much about the Russians as I am the Red Chinese.  They want Taiwan, and are quietly but constantly building up the forces they need to take the island... and deter us from going to Taiwan's assistance.  I hope that the Pentagon and Congress are waking up to the Chinese threat, but given how lax they were in being aware of the al Qaeda threat, I'm not optimistic.

Thinking about the unthinkable

Eric of Another Unknowledgable Hack and I have been having an exchange about certain aspects of the War on Terror at his site.  Though we agree on the most important idea - that we both want to defend the United States and preserve those liberties and unalienable rights that make our great nation what it is - we don't often agree on how best to go about it, or which party or candidate is most suited to lead our country.  Despite our disagreements, I've found his comments both at his site on on mine to be well-reasoned and well-stated.

Our discussion prompted me to think about the old Cold War term 'thinking about the unthinkable'.  Back in the good bad ol' days when all we had to worry about was annihilation by a few thousand Soviet missiles, the 'unthinkable' was the circumstances under which the United States would use its strategic nuclear forces.  Would we launch on warning?  If the Soviets exploded only a few nuclear weapons over the United States, would we respond with full retaliation?  What if the Soviets used nuclear weapons on one or more of our NATO allies, or used tactical nukes against our forces in West Germany?

Now, the 'unthinkable' is related to terrorists, and it isn't limited to discussions about nuclear weapons.  Rather, the 'unthinkable' is starting to concern those things that we hold very dear as Americans: our rights.  Not only do we have to concern ourselves with the military and political considerations of dealing with extra-national terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor them, we also have to consider how we can meet the threat of terrorist attacks within the United States.  Shall we employ racial profiling?  Shall we put surveillance cameras all over our cities, transit systems, and shopping malls?  Shall we order our police to shoot suspected suicide bombers on sight and without warning, accepting the risk that they may shoot an innocent person as did the London police?  What interrogation techniques are we prepared to use?  Should we deport or intern people based on their religion, ethnicity, or national origin?

These are hard questions, and the answers can be pretty damned scary.  I hope that we never reach the point where the 'unthinkable' becomes our national policy.  But I think that the best way to avoid making the 'unthinkable' real is to plunge into the horrors of worst-case scenarios and think about how we can avoid reaching those precipices.  Luck favors the prepared, and if we want to avoid the possibility of some terrorist setting off a nuke in one of our cities, we'd better be VERY prepared.

Chinese general threatens US with nukes

The Washington Times' Bill Gertz reports:

A senior general in the Chinese army threatened to use nuclear arms against the United States in a conflict over the Taiwan Strait, prompting the Bush administration to call the remarks "highly irresponsible."

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu said in yesterday's editions of the Financial Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Zhu later claimed that his remarks were not official Red Chinese policy, but rather his own opinion.

RIIIIGHT.

China also is set to conduct its first joint military exercises with Russia this fall that will include the use of Russian strategic bombers, another indication of China's preparation for a nuclear conflict. Several years ago Russia and China conducted simulated nuclear exercises that involved a conflict with Taiwan in which the United States used nuclear arms and Russian forces retaliated with their nuclear arms, according to intelligence officials.

The statements contradict China's publicly stated policy that it will not be the first nation to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. Gen. Zhu was quoted as saying he believed the no-first-use policy applied only to nonnuclear states [i.e. countries at war with Red China who themselves do not have nuclear weapons - dj505] and could be changed.

...

China's current nuclear arsenal is believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to include an estimated 45 to 57 missiles that can reach American cities. However, China's military is rapidly building up its forces and is developing at least three new strategic missile systems, including the DF-31 and DF-31A road-mobile missiles, and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

As I've written before, we face a serious threat from Red China, and should keep this clearly in mind with regard to our own defense budget.

Torture at Gitmo: NOT!

I was listening to Rush this afternoon, and during a commercial break, CBS news announced that, while a military report has found that there was no torture at Gitmo, one detainee was (gasp!) made to wear women's underclothes AND had dogs barking at him!

I'm glad that our men in Japanese, North Korean, and Vietnamese and Iraqi prison camps didn't have to endure such horrible treatment!

According to the Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough (i.e., a RESPECTABLE news organization),

A military investigation of interrogations at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found no torture occurred, but one high-value al Qaeda operative was subjected to "abusive and degrading treatment" when he was forced to wear a brassiere, do dog tricks and stay awake for 20 hours a day.

"We looked at this very, very carefully -- no torture occurred," Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt testified yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Detention and interrogation operations across the board ... looking through all the evidence that we could, were safe, secure and humane."

...

FBI agents assigned to the prison complained of what they considered abusive treatment. Based on 26 e-mails sent in 2002 by the agents, the Pentagon ordered U.S. Southern Command, led by Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, to investigate.

Gen. Schmidt said the e-mails, and surveys of all 493 FBI agents who worked at the camp, boiled down to nine purported cases of abuse out of 24,000 interrogations. Two were unsubstantiated; five were substantiated, but authorized by the Army Field Manual or by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and two were substantiated as unauthorized tactics that resulted in abuse.

Mr. Rumsfeld later rescinded his authorization for stress-inducing tactics after Pentagon lawyers objected.

Of those two substantiated incidents, in one case, a detainee was chained to the floor briefly for the protection of guards; in the other, an interrogator placed duct tape on the mouth of an inmate who refused to stop chanting.

The Schmidt report depicted a clash of cultures: the FBI agents were seeking to gain information in accordance with criminal investigative procedures for court cases; the military was seeking to acquire hard intelligence on which authorities could act to thwart more planned al Qaeda attacks and capture or kill terrorists still at large.

Well, well, well...

Only nine cases of abuse out of 24,000 interrogations.  And the 'abuse' wasn't even torture!  I mean, for cryin' out loud, I had to wear a bra when I was a fraternity pledge (believe it or not, it was a badge of honor!).  For a bunch of thugs allegedly worthy of the Gestapo, the NKVD, and the Khmer Rouge, our guys at Gitmo are amateurs.  After the hysterics from Dick Durbin and Amnesty International, I expected at least a few fingernails were pulled out and a cigarette burn here or there.  NOT!

Wonder if Dickie and Amnesty will apologize?

NOT!

By the way, can I arrange for a woman to touch ME suggestively???  Legally, I mean; the local cops take a dim view of paying for that sort of thing.  What do you say?

NOT!

Sigh...