Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Link Analysis and 9/11

In our paper Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining, Jeff Jonas and I pointed out the uselessness of data mining for finding terrorists. The paper was featured in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, and a data mining disclosure bill discussed in that hearing was recently marked up in that Committee.

On his blog, Jeff has posted some further thinking about 9/11 and searching for terrorists. He attacks a widespread presumption about that task forthrightly:

The whole point of my 9/11 analysis was that the government did not need mounds of data, did not need new technology, and in fact did not need any new laws to unravel this event!

He links to a presentation about finding the 9/11 terrorists and how it could have been done by simply following one lead to another.

Jeff feels strongly that Monday morning quarterbacking is unfair, and I agree with him. Nobody in our national security infrastructure knew the full scope of what would happen on 9/11, and so they aren’t blameworthy. Yet we should not shrink from the point that diligent seeking after the 9/11 terrorists, using traditional methods and the legal authorities existing at the time, would have found them.

Morbid Comparisons

On Monday, a student at Virginia Tech shot and killed 32 of his colleagues and then himself – the most deadly peacetime shooting incident in U.S. history. Many Americans are still grieving about this incident and are puzzled about what would lead a young man to such deadly behavior.

On Wednesday, terrorists killed 312 civilians in Iraq, including 140 civilians in a truck bombing across from the busy Sadriya market in a mostly Shi’ite neighborhood in Baghdad, only hours after Prime Minister al-Maliki committed the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for security by the end of this year. The deaths due to the terrorism in Iraq on Wednesday substantially exceeded the high level of recent terrorism. Terrorists killed 500 Iraqi civilians last week, including 47 civilians killed when a suicide bomber blew up a car at a busy bus station in Karbala.  A truck bomb destroyed a major bridge across the Tigris River, and a suicide bomber penetrated the fortress-like Green Zone, blowing himself up inside the parliament cafeteria and killing one member of parliament. Moreover, last week was not unusual in Iraq. Over the past year, terrorist attacks killed 73 Iraqi civilians per day, including those by the 17 bombings that killed 50 or more civilians. (These estimates are from press releases by Antiwar.com and are based on reports in the Iraqi press).

Most Americans have no comprehension of the level of terrorism in Iraq. Since the American population is 12 times the Iraqi population, the above numbers should be multiplied by 12 to understand the relative magnitude of terrorist activities in the United States and Iraq. At the recent rate of terrorist activities in Iraq, around 876 Americans per day would be killed by terrorist attacks! At that rate, Americans would be experiencing a level of grief and despair beyond our current comprehension.

I draw several lessons from this morbid comparison: There is every reason to improve our understanding of the motives that led to the massacre at Virginia Tech and the responses that might have reduced the number of fatalities, because the victims were Americans and these conditions are more likely to be under our control. At the same time, we should recognize that the presence of a substantial number of American troops in Iraq may have contributed to but, at least, has not reduced the extraordinary rate of terrorism, that more troops or different tactics are not likely to be more successful, and that the several civil wars underway in Iraq are not under our control. We have an important stake in reducing the number of future incidents like that at Virginia Tech and Oklahoma City. It is much less clear that we have an important stake in the outcome of the several civil wars in Iraq.

If You’re in North Carolina …

I’ll be speaking tomorrow at the Security and Liberty Forum hosted by the Privacy and Technology Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and the Department of Computer Science, UNC-Chapel Hill.

That’s Saturday, April 14, 2007 from 1-5 p.m., Chapman Hall on the UNC Campus.

It’s Official—Democratic Leaders Want a Third War

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) made clear what many of us have been suspecting for some time: the Democrats want to “redeploy” out of Iraq and into Sudan. Unfortunately, the full transcripts aren’t on Nexis yet, but here’s Biden:

“I would use American force now. I think it’s not only time not to take force off the table. I think it’s time to put force on the table and use it.”

“Let’s stop the bleeding. I think it’s a moral imperative.”

Whatever one’s views on the merits of starting a third war with an Islamic country in the span of six years, what was most alarming was Biden’s desire to look past the fact that what is going on in Darfur is essentially a civil war. There are two sides fighting, and multiple rebel groups that make up the resistance. Still, he practically begged US envoy Andrew Natsios (who, in fairness, doesn’t have the soundest track record) to overlook the fact that atrocities are being committed on both sides, and to reduce the conflict into Good Guys vs. Bad Guys so that we could get involved. Here’s a part of that exchange (link is to an audio clip):

BIDEN: Are the atrocities that are being carried out sanctioned by, cooperated with, or blind eye being turned by Khartoum, umm, not significantly greater than the atrocities that are occurring at the hands of the rebels?

NATSIOS: There is no equivalency whatsoever, Senator.

BIDEN: Well, I wish you’d stop talking about it–

NATSIOS: Well, I’m talking about it, Senator, because the rebels think they can get away with it. And it’s getting worse, and what’s happening is no one’s saying anything about it because it’s politically sensitive. We can’t let any civilian get–

BIDEN: No, it’s not politically sensitive, I mean, why won’t you just say, is genocide still the operative word?

NATSIOS: Yes.

BIDEN: So genocide is occurring in Darfur?

NATSIOS: Yes.

This is illustrative of the nature of so many foreign policy debates in Washington. If someone can get the other side to agree to a slogan of their side (“Saddam is a threat to global security,” say), then the debate ends. If “genocide” is occurring in Darfur, fire up the B-2s. And never mind all the “nuance” about the nature of what’s actually going on and who’s killing whom over there. If Biden had been reading his New York Times more closely, he would know that things aren’t so simple.

Biden’s unrelenting attempt to interpret a highly complex civil war where America has no discernible security interest through the lens of Bush-style Manichaeanism doesn’t inspire much confidence in the Democrats’ vision of U.S. national security policy. (And to the extent we do have a security interest, it’s probably in acquiescing to Khartoum, since they’ve sporadically cooperated with the war against al Qaeda and would probably be less likely to continue doing so if we start a war with them.)

The whole thing harkens back to when Howard Dean was simultaneously standing against the Iraq war and favoring U.S. military action in, umm, Liberia.

I Thought the President Was the “War Czar”

The lead story in today’s Washington Post reported that the White House is trying to find a “high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.”

Much of the story focuses on the fact that three retired four-star generals have declined the job, and many of the people quoted in the story opine on why it has been so hard to find someone willing to take it.

But the whole premise strikes me as odd. Why is such a new position even necessary?

Veteran reporters Peter Baker and Tom Ricks explain:

The administration’s interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.

Isn’t that what the president is supposed to do?

Drilling down further in the story, the responsibilities of the “war czar” are discussed. According to Baker and Ricks:

The highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O’Sullivan, who … does not have power to issue orders to agencies.

But the president does.

The new czar would also have “tasking authority,” or the power to issue directions, over other agencies.

The president can do that.

Last, Baker and Ricks report, the new Czar should have

enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Presumably, the president fits the bill there, too. So what am I missing here?

Carlos Pascual, former Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at State, and now a vice president at the Brookings Institution, a man with whom I have numerous disagreements, seems to have hit the nail on the head: “An individual can’t fix a failed policy…So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong.”

Enemy of the People … ?

Below, Sigrid posts Walter Murphy’s much-blogged about claim that he has been watch-listed because of a speech he gave criticizing Bush’s constitutional record. Those interested in the story should also read the skeptical questions raised by Wired’s Ryan Singel, a Watch List critic, about Murphy’s story, which are available here:

Woe be it for this blog to defend the country’s foolish watchlist system, but after having spent more than four years reporting on watchlists, filing Freedom of Information Act requests, and talking with persons flagged by the lists, I have never seen a single case of a person being put on the list for activities protected by the First Amendment. …

I’m not even certain that in this case Murphy’s name matched or was similar to a name on the list - which is what has snagged nearly every David Nelson in the country and what got Senator Ted Kennedy a dose of handheld wanding.

In this case, I would guess that Murphy was singled out randomly. He himself says he wasn’t flagged on the way back, which he almost certainly would have been if he were on the ‘selectee’ list. (The ‘selectee’ list directs airlines to single out that person for extra screening, while a related list, the ‘no-fly’ list directs airlines to keep a person off a plane.)

I’m open to any evidence that the government has watchlisted American citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights, but I’ve never seen it.

The left wants to believe it is living in some version of Orwell’s 1984. … Around these parts, we prefer to see the world through a Kafka and Gilliam kaleidescope.

Enemy of the People!

Prof. Walter F. Murphy’s Letter, originally published on Mark Graber’s blog, 3/7/07:

On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.

When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.

I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.

After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: “I must warn you, they’re going to ransack your luggage.” On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was “lost.” Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this “loss” could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I’m a tad skeptical.

I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture’s argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had “had other priorities” than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush’s false claims by “outing” his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. …

I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration’s conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach.