September 1, 2017--Sonic Attack: An Audiological Tale (Final Part)

"'Mr. Anderson' made a special appointment to see me. He pretended he needed an urgent hearing aid adjustment. But in fact he wanted to talk about Cuba."

"About the sonic attack in Cuba?" Again Gary nodded. "I'm lost," I confessed, "And to think this also involves me is almost too much for me to assimilate. I mean, I . . ."

"Be patient and you'll see the connection. But first I need to tell you more about me and why my patient, 'Mr. Anderson' sought me out."

I resisted saying I'm all ears.

"When I was in my PhD program in audiology one of my interests was the interrogation of captives. Particularly suspected terrorists. Not that I thought I would ever be involved with that, but it was something that fascinated me. How to use sound as part of the interrogation process. Not as torture, of course. But to break down their resistance. Overwhelming them with sound which is the opposite of helping people hear better."

Warming to the subject, he continued, "All the doctoral students were encouraged to develop interests that were not strictly speaking about the techniques we would need in our practices. They felt this would expand us intellectually and, who knows, down the line maybe these interests might lead to new possibilities for us--like, for example, how the psychological dimension of hearing loss affects working with patients or, another example, from a cultural anthropological perspective how people from diverse backgrounds respond differently to hearing loss and its treatment. Including some deaf people who resist digital hearing devices altogether because they see spoken speech as inferior to the richness and, some would say, the linguistic superiority of sign language."

"Very interesting," I said, "I can see how these kinds of studies would appeal to you. You have such wide-ranging interests. But, again, Cuba? Sonic attacks? The CIA?"

"So, my 'Mr. Anderson' came to see me earlier this week. Monday afternoon. I knew something unusual was afoot since before sitting down he closed the door to the treatment room. Something he had not done previously. Before I could ask what was happening with his hearing aids he told me that nothing was wrong with them. As you can imagine I was puzzled, not to mention a little annoyed with him since I needed to juggle my appointment schedule to see him on an urgent basis. I don't need to tell you how complicated that was. It's the busiest time of the year."

Gary continued, "Anyway, he got right to the real purpose of his visit. He mentioned the sonic attack on our embassy, asking if I had been following it. I told him I had been, but not that closely. I was aware of the situation, though I had no idea why the Cubans would be involved in such a thing. My sense is that the leaders there are happy with the restored relationship. That it's in Cuba's interest. I mean in the Cuban leaders' interest. So why, I wondered, would they want to do something so aggressive, so seemingly crazy to jeopardize it? Especially with a new president--Trump--who has hinted he might withdraw from the agreement that Obama struck since Trump appears to be trying to undo all of Obama's initiatives.

"By then, Gary told me, he was becoming annoyed that 'Anderson,' or whoever he was, was taking up his time with this when he had a waiting room full of patients. Was it so urgent to be talking about Cuba?"

I didn't know what to say.

"When I mentioned Obama he said that he'd prefer not to talk about  him as he and I might have different opinions; and, for that matter, he didn't want to talk about Trump either. He said, 'He's not my favorite president.' So at least we avoided all political talk."

"Why then," I asked, "was he interested in talking about the Cuban's attack on our diplomats?"

Very little of this was making sense to me. And any involvement on my part was seeming even more improbable.

As if reading my mind, Dr. Schwartzberg, in an even lower voice, after a quick glance at the sleeping customer who was by then snoring audibly, Gary said, "I can't tell you everything he said since I suspect much of it is classified, but he did say that I, and one of my patients," he peered at me,"were potentially implicated."

"Implicated? This is getting crazier by the minute."

"Be patient," he said. I signaled that I would be. "He knew about my interest in prisoner interrogation, including the fact that after earning my PhD, while getting my practice started, I had done some contract work with one or two American national security operatives."

"You did? That's incredible, "You seem so . . . I don't know how to describe it."

"Boring? Conventional? A bleeding heart?"

"I wouldn't put it quite this way. But I . . ."

"It's OK. I'm happy to be thought of that way. It has at times, including this one, come in handy. But there's this other side of me. I'm not just an audiologist living in a small coastal town in Maine outside the Washington-New York axis. Remember what we said earlier about who's retired in this part of the world? It's not only a nice life style but has other advantages. If you know what I mean."

I shrugged, overwhelmed and exhausted by what he was sharing, not really knowing what he meant.

"Back in the 1990s there was a general increase in terrorist activity, which included the first time the World Trade Center was attacked by al Qaeda operatives. Terrorists who were funded by and led by Kahled Sheikh Mohammad. 

"I remember that. I was by chance downtown that day close to the towers and saw the smoke pouring out of the underground parking garage. It was sickening. Those bastards."

"Well, on a contract with one of our security agencies, I participated in the interrogation of a couple of the perpetrators."

"Really? This feels like an hallucination."

He ignored this and said, "Enough about that. There's no connection between that and Cuba. But it helps you see why 'Anderson' came to see me. I had been a player. Though not since 1995 or so. I guess you could say I'm a smalltime part of that retired community of agents of various kinds."

For the first time that day he smiled. It clearly felt good to him to be able to unburden himself.

"Then, if I may, what about Cuba? And, closer to home for me, my somehow being a part of this? I don't know how to put it, but this sounds ridiculous. I mean, minimally, my alleged involvement."

"I assume you still have that loaner hearing aid I gave you? From my patient, Mrs. Caldwell, who died?"

"Yes, you said I could use it until mine is repaired. Remember, I told you that it's the one that seems to have a mind of it own?" He nodded, "I was hearing what seemed like conversations through it. I thought I was losing my mind."

"You weren't. It's my fault that I gave you that one. The reason I'm so upset is that I feel terrible that I inadvertently dragged you into this mess. I was careless. Being so busy with patients is no excuse. I screwed up and hope you'll forgive me. The device wasn't meant to be used by a civilian."

"A civilian?"

"You know, someone not working for the Company. I was so busy I mixed up which ones were for clients and which for people who required extra-special devices."

"By special devices you mean like the stuff they prepare for James Bond in the movies?"

Smiling again, he said, "One could think of it that way."

"So how does this connect to what went on in Cuba?"

"We may have restored diplomatic relations but as with all countries a lot of surveillance goes on, in all directions, even with allies. Including, I suspect, to test surveillance devices and techniques for cyber- and sonic-warfare. That's probably what the Cuban secret service was up to with the attack. They had a new toy that the Russians probably gave them and were trying it out."

"How does my loaner hearing aid fit into that picture?"

"It was probably tricked out to transmit electronic signals over a considerable distance to interfere with potential sonic attacks on U.S. facilities. So someone wearing one like your loaner could hang out on the street by the embassy in Havana and zap people who might be trying to mount such an assault. Knowing my youthful history of black bag operations, they probably targeted me as someone they could use to provide cover for this cat and mouse business. They could use me as a conduit to those people on the ground who were in the thick of things."

"This is mind boggling," I said in a cold sweat, "I have questions about a couple of more things--about your 'Mr. Anderson' and of course how I fit in."

"I am supposing that even though he's officially retired 'Anderson' is still active and when his handlers figured out what was going on at the embassy in Cuba they took stock of devices like your loaner and discovered that one was with me. That it was turned in to me after Mrs. Caldwell died--it was probably her husband's who I suspect--well, you know--and that I then innocently passed it along to you. 

"They needed to know if somehow I was compromised, had gone rogue, and of course, since through electronic tracking they probably discovered that because of my error one of these special devices was with you, they needed to check you out. To see if I recruited you . . ."

"So therefore you . . . ?"

"Yes, since I'm feeling so guilty about dragging you into this, I took the chance to tell you most of the story since I suspect they'll be calling on you soon to check you out."

"That will be much more than a robocall," I said, trying to make a small joke to calm myself.

We both took deep breaths and for the first time that day, though when together we did it often, we laughed. 

This seemed to rouse the old man at the other table who had been in a deep sleep. He yawned and stretched and then reached down, groping for the tattered shopping bag that was resting on the floor next to his chair. He folded the newspaper and with difficulty managed to stuff it in the bag. From it, he extracted a phone and swiped the screen, which instantly became illuminated. He lifted it and held it a few inches from his face as if, without his eyeglasses, he couldn't see the time or if he had missed any calls. Satisfied, he returned it to the bag, struggled to get up, and shuffled toward the door.

When he was gone I asked Dr. Schwartzberg if he had taken a couple of pictures of us. 

Laughing loudly, he said, "I wouldn't be surprised."

US Embassy In Havana

January 24, 2017--Cortaditos at Bohio

Back to the road trip breakfast stories. This is the last in the series--

We were up at Bohio in Lantana, our favorite Cuban breakfast place where they serve a world-class cortadito--a scalding mix of dark Cuban espresso topped by a layer of steamed milk. It's worth the 10-mile drive up Federal Highway.

Before I could take my first sip, from the next table I heard someone say, "The news these days, man, is all about entertainment and distracting us from what's really going on."

Ah, I thought, there might be some good political conversation to go along with the cortadito.

"I couldn't agree with you more," I said, turning toward two men who were sharing the scrambled eggs special. "And I like your choice of food," I smiled to break the ice, "That’s my favorite. The onions and peppers and tomatoes and crisp pieces of bacon mixed in the eggs are wonderful."

"Man, what are they feeding us?" From his serious tone I knew he wasn't talking about the food. "And what do they take us for? They think we're children or something? I wish they'd treat us serious." I was nodding. "Now it's the Whitney Houston business. And contraception. How long do they think they can get away with those?"

"Until they have the toxicology report or gasoline is $5.00 a gallon," I suggested.

"In the meantime, man, look at Whitney’s record sales. Off the charts. And you know what?" He didn't pause for me to jump in, "they jacked up the prices. Doubled them. Can you believe that?"

"That I can believe."

"I'm all for capitalism, man. I don't have a problem with any of that, but I do have a problem with what the media are up to."

"What's that?" Rona asked.

"To keep us from knowing what's really going on." Neither of us said anything. "I'm in IT, man, I mean I used to be. I got laid off more than a year ago—it’s tough out there--but the things I learned I'm not sure you want to hear about on a beautiful morning like this." He gestured toward the east where the sun was shining through Bohio's wide-open windows.

"For example," he slapped his cell phone on the table, "they know where you are. From this." He tapped the phone. "Wherever you are on the planet. And I mean the whole planet, man.

"Why would . . . ?" Rona began to ask.

"Obvious, man. To control us better. Like I told you, I had this IT job. A big job down in Miami. Evaluating mortgage applications for a bank. One of the really big ones, man. No need for you to know just which. One day my boss called me in to let me know what the bank was really about. He said to me, 'Man, you've been here long enough and have proven yourself. I trust you, man, so you should know what’s going on.’ He told me my job, the bank's job, was to gain all kinds of information about everyone. Everyone, man. From the Social number and bank statements and taxes. From all of that and then to pass it along to the government, To a part of the government that you never heard of." He gestured toward me. "As I said, man, you don't want to know. You just want to enjoy the rest of the time allotted to you. To enjoy the sunshine and the good food and your lovely lady." He was smiling broadly.

"I can tell you from experience that the government knows everything,” he went on, “and I mean everything. And with that they control you and everything else."

"I find this hard . . ."

"I know, man, ‘to believe.’ Right?" I nodded again. "At first I too didn’t believe what they were telling me. So let me give you an example."

"I was just going to ask if you could do that."

"No problem, amigo. Do you remember the savings and loan scandal? From back in the 80s? You seem to be up on things. To most folks it looked like your typical banking scandal. The big boys, man, and this including a half-dozen senators, taking advantage of the government cutting regulations on the banks. And what happened? I mean from what you read in the papers?"

I tried to recall but while I was struggling to do so, he continued, now in part propelled by the two Cuban espressos he had downed, "Well, like recently, when these banks came crashing down and seemed to threaten the whole system, what happened?"

"The government stepped in to bail them out."

"That’s what they wanted you to think. The government I mean."

"I'm confused," I said. I truly was. "What did they want us to think?"

"That it was just another bail out. That's what they wanted you to believe. The truth is that this gave the government a chance to look into everyone's bank account. I mean of all these banks’ customers."

Squinting at him, Rona asked, "For what purpose?"

"It's part of a much bigger thing. About the government wanting to know, man, where we are every minute, who we're with, what we're reading, soon even what we're thinking. One of these days they’ll be able to plant a tiny chip in your brain,” he tapped his temple, “so they can know what you’re thinking. This isn’t science fiction, man. Remember, I’m from IT."

"Why do they want to know all this?"

"To sell us things. You got to realize that's government's main job. To make it easy for those corporations to get their hands on what’s left of our money. That's the whole point, man. I know you're skeptical. I used to be too until I looked into what's really behind all the new technology--these phones, our computers, our TVs, our GPSs, everything electronic, man. It's all about controlling us by taking away our freedom. Freedom is the most powerful thing. To take control of us they have to take it away. In ways, man, so that we don't notice it’s disappearing."

He paused to gulp down another shot of espresso. "Let me give you another example. Remember that Ted Kozinski Unabomber guy?"

"I do," I said.

"Well, man, what do you think his real story is? And I'll throw in something else for you to think about, man, since you're looking at me that way again. To fill out the picture. There's also that Timothy McVeigh. The Oklahoma City bomber. Remember him? Supposedly these two dudes acted alone. OK, McVeigh had that stooge Terry Nichols, or whatever, working for him. At least that's the cover story that they want you to believe. If you really look into his case, McVeigh’s, you'll discover that he was part of a big network. Guys who supposedly hated the federal government because of Waco, man, and Ruby Ridge. Remember them?"

"I do."

"And did you read the long confession he wrote while he was waiting for them to execute him?”

“I have a vague memory of that.”

“I recommend it to you. But in the meantime, I can tell you that the official stories in their cases are about these terrorist types--supposedly American terrorists--acting on their own. Unabomber, right? You know, man, what una means. One or alone, right?"

"About that I don't know," I confessed.

"Well, you can trust me on that one. But here's the real story, man,” he looked around and then leaned forward to whisper, “they were actually working for the government."

"Really? I find that hard . . ."

He put a finger up to shush me, "I know you do. That’s the whole point. For you not to believe this. As I said, trust me on this one, amigo. I know from where I speak. It was the plan for the government to make it look like these were militia-types. Hating the federal government. Acting on their own. And after doing their deeds they gave the feds the justification they needed to take away more of our freedom. They provided the excuse to order up more surveillance.”

“This seems s little far fetched to me,” I offered.

Waving me off, he said. “And if you think this is far out, do you know that McVeigh and Kozinski were both working with the al Qaeda terrorists?” He paused for that to sink in and then continued, “I can tell by the way you’re both looking at me that you don’t believe this.” He was right about that.

“As I said, man, at first neither did I. But I came around because what I’m saying is true. It's all tied together because after al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 what happened?" Rona and I just looked back at him. "Well you know about that Patriot Act, don't you? That let’s the government listen in on our telephone calls and emails. You think Bush could have gotten away with that one if he hadn't allowed the Israelis to attack us?"

"The Israelis? Now you're going too far," I said. “Actually, that's been charged before, investigated, and dismissed as, frankly, anti-Semitic."

"That's not who I am, man. I love the Israelis and the Jews. To me they're the best people in this world. I wish we here in this country were more like them."

"But you just said the Israelis were behind 9/11." Quoting him back to himself, I asked, "How does that make them 'the best people in the world'?"

"Well, some of them, man, are involved in what I'm trying to explain to you. Like I said, Americans for the most part are good. And most Israelis too, But all these good people here--and that includes all of us--and in Israel are at the mercy of their governments. It's the governments that I have my problem with. Not the people, man. Get me?"

"I think I do," Rona said, wanting to begin to bring the conversation to a conclusion and to get back to her cortadito. It was getting cold. “I know we have our problems, but about what you’re saying I’m not so sure.” She picked up her cup and turned back to her eggs.

“Sorry if I got you all upset, man” he said, extending his hand to me. I shook it.

“That’s OK,” I said, “We like hearing all points of view.”

“One last thing,” he winked, “If you haven’t, you should read Kozinski’s Manifesto. Some of it’s crazy, that I’ll admit to you, but most of it's worth taking seriously. Especially how technology is taking away our freedom. And that McVeigh, who was in Desert Storm, was pretty liberal about foreign policy. He was against all these wars in the Middle East. Check them out, man.”

One the drive home, Rona wondered out loud, “How does someone as well informed as he come to such conspiratorial conclusions? You would think that after spending so much time reading he would see things in a much more balanced way. Sure there are problems with the government. Even most liberals would agree with that. But to see us and the Israelis conspiring to attack the World Trade Center just to help corporations make more money? I don’t get how someone that well informed would believe that.”

“I agree. We hear all sorts of anti-government things from people who really don’t know what they’re talking about. Who simply make things up and won’t accept any facts that contradict their beliefs.”

“Maybe the next time we run into him we’ll ask him about that—how he gets to his conclusions.”

“As for me,” I said, “the next time I think I’ll just pay attention to my cortadito.”

December 22, 2015--"Homeland": Spoiler Alert

After the first few episodes of this season's Homeland series, until after Carrie finally jettisoned her daughter and got down to the work she was born to do--chasing and eliminating terrorists--I could barely wait for Sunday nights.

This past Sunday was the season finale, and though I thought it weak and formulaic, I still loved it.

And after it was over, I ran downstairs to go on line, to check out Homeland on Wikipedia to see if there will next year be a season six. Thankfully, there will be, because I need to know if Carrie really pulled the plug on Peter Quinn (I think she did because I can see him starring soon in a series of his own as "Brody," Damian Lewis, is doing in the soon-to-be-released Billions after being literally crucified on a Homeland episode at the end of season four) or if Saul manages to re-recruit Carrie to the CIA after she, next year, spends a few unfulfilling months with her daughter (for sure, since without that there is no possibility that Homeland can go off successfully in a new direction with Carrie transforming herself into a stay-at-home mom.) In addition, Saul looms as Homeland's ongoing most interesting character. And as amazing as she is, there is just so much of Carrie's cry-face that one can endure in a full season.

So, spoiler alert, from the recesses of my frustrated-screenwriter imagination, here are a few other plot predictions--

Quinn as suggested is Homeland history, but Saul will remain and become an even greater focus of action in season seven.

Carrie will return to the U.S. and try to live a normal life. This will be short-lived since by episode three there will be a terrorist attack on America.

Just as the overall trajectory of Homeland has followed the headlines and real news from the terrorist front--the first few seasons were set in the Middle East where the actions was and this year took Carrie and company to Europe, to Berlin, just as terroristic activities in real-time shifted to the West--from Al Qaeda to ISIS-inspired terrorism. So, next year, as our focus and fears shift more to America, so will Homeland's.

Carrie will take up life in Virginia or wherever and when there is an attack in Washington (did that in season one) or thus more likely in New York, Carrie, under pressure from Saul will agree to return to her true calling and become engaged in tracking down domestic terrorists. As a Mom, how could she say no.

Or at least that's my hope.

I've given up on Girls, Good Wife, and Younger so please, producers and writers, keep Homeland focused on tracking down evil. If we can't seem to figure out what to do in real life, I need the escape of Carrie's preternatural ability to keep us safe.

Or baring that, I'll be left with streaming Mozart On the Hudson and Master of None.

Then there are books. I'm determined to work my way through the 900 pages of City On Fire. Lots of luck. I read the first 50 pages and set it aside.

November 19, 2015--By the Numbers

I noted here previously that the true horror of Paris is not equal to the number killed and wounded.

Yes, 129 were killed outright and another 350 wounded, some critically. And another 224 were killed last month when ISIS brought down a Russian charter jet over the Sinai Desert.

But in other, earlier terrorist actions about as many and sometimes more were slaughtered and maimed.

Thus, in an attempt to keep emotions from overwhelming us, including policy makers, government officials, and the public, it is important to keep things in perspective. I suspect, though he wasn't overt about it, this attempt to contain heated calls to rush to declare World War III, one explanation for President Obama's tepid response is that he was trying to keep his head while others about him were losing theirs and beating the drums of war.

Me included.

Here then is the bloody scorecard--

The terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 killed 161 Americans. Ronald Reagan promptly withdrew all forces from the region. And, tellingly, was not widely criticized for doing so.

In 1998, simultaneously in Tanzania and Kenya two American embassies were bombed. 224 were killed. It was the first time al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were brought to the public's attention.

During the peak of the Madrid morning rush hour, in March 2004, four commuter trains were hit with ten bombs by al Qaeda-inspired terrorists. 191 were killed and another 1,800 wounded.

And then of course, on September 11, 2001, four passenger jets were taken over by al Qaeda jihadists and deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and, when passengers fought back, a field in Shanksville Pennsylvania. 2,996 in the planes and workers in the buildings were killed. Another 415 first responders lost their lives.

And then there are deaths of a different sort--

22,000 die annually of drug overdoses. 32,000 die on the highways in car crashes. Another 41,000 commit suicide. 12,500 are killed with legal handgun and assault weapons.

In the latter cases there is no panic, no calls for dramatic action, and certainly no rush to either judgement or retribution. We accept these fatalities as we accept the inevitability of the sun rise and tides. As if they were natural, unremediable phenomena.

November 16, 2105--ISIS in Paris

I may have a different perspective after I, perhaps, cool down.

God knows there have been much worse cases of barbarism, evil during my lifetime. Even quite recently. By the numbers, ISIS's blowing the Russian plane out of the sky over the Sinai killed more innocent people than the seven or eight coordinated attacks in Paris.

Numerically, the terrorist bombings in Mumbai, Spain, Beirut, and of course on 9/11 killed and maimed more people, but there is something different about ISIS than al Qaeda. Something different for me about Paris than even New York.

That tells you how in a rage I am about what happened Friday night.

OK, I used the e-word. Evil.

All of these terrorist atrocities, including the pubic beheadings, are more than "cowardly acts." If there is such a thing as evil, this is it. Have there been worse examples? Of course. Including in France.

The French, among other "civilized" people, during the Second World War rounded up and shipped many thousands of their Jews to certain death in Nazi Germany.

A special definition of evil is necessary to categorize the various holocausts of the 20th century.

But what was perpetrated Friday still qualifies as dastardly. Unspeakable. All too human in its inhumanness.

Words fail.

French president Hollande says this was an act of "war." The Pope said we are in "World War III." Both may be right.

If we are, what then does that mean?

France is a linchpin of the NATO alliance. NATO's charter in effect says that "an attack on one is an attack on all." That includes us. The United States.

That charter was written well before al Qaeda and ISIS existed. It was for a time when there were credible threats of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. What does it mean now when the definition of war had shifted? Does it mean that the U.S. is also at war? That because France was "attacked," that it experienced more than an evil act of terrorism, we too have been attacked and thus are obligated to act accordingly? To join them in waging war?

I do not know how to think about this. What I do know is that this has struck me deeply. I have even been gathering information about going to France, Paris, this week. As an act of solidarity and defiance.

Rona thinks I'm crazy. She's right. I am.

Minimally I am trying to think about what France should do, more appropriately, as an American citizen what we should do because I do think we are at war.

Yes, I know how we got there. Not solely as the result of President Obama's weak leadership--though he has been weak and that hasn't helped, feeling that the "Arab Spring" would help bring about versions of democracy to the region. This just as naive in its own way as George W. Bush's delusion that toppling Saddam Hussein would do that for Iraq and surrounding dictatorships.

What matters now is what to do going forward.

Drone-guided bombings will not get the job done. Depending on lightly-armed Kurd forces on the ground will not defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia's involvement, even if it shifts to confront ISIS rather than Syrian rebels, will not get the job done.

Nothing this simple, this limited will work.

I can hardly believe I am thinking this, but only a massive, boots-on-the-ground force of American troops has any chance of succeeding. Perhaps 100,000 are required. Maybe more.

This would mean many casualties, even the beheading of captured U.S. soldiers. But does anyone have a better, more realistic idea?

I hate this. Hate all of it. But I am feeling radicalized.

ISIS has to be shown to be a failure in order to stem the flow of young lunatics to its "cause." Disaffiliated youth from the Islamic world as well as from Europe and the United States are partly drawn to ISIS because it is perceived to be winning. This encourages those with distorted minds to believe that the apocalypse they seek is near at hand. Defeat ISIS, devastate it, and that belief system will crumble.

I am sorry. I wish I could believe in the effectiveness of diplomacy and financial warfare, including bombing the oil fields and petroleum distribution system in ISIS-controlled territory.

I don't.

As long as they feel they are winning, ISIS fighters can live on fumes. They are that motivated and tenacious.

So they have to be killed. All of them would be ideal. As many as possible is imperative.

Again, I can't believe these worlds are coming from me. I have up to now considered myself to be moderate, essentially pacifistic. Not any more.

Paris on Friday changed that.

When will we too again feel the pain and fear?

May 26, 2015--Osama bin Laden's Instructions to Applicants

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security published a list of the books and papers Navy Seals found in Osama bin Laden's bunker in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In the press, most attention was paid to his books. Even Michiko Kakutani, the New York Times chief book reviewer, wrote about his reading habits, especially taking note of his obsessive interest in the United States and the West.

She noted how bin Laden was particularly interested in American foreign policy. Among other volumes, on his bookshelf were the report of the 9/11 Commission; Bob Woodward's Obama's War; Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Powers; and Noam Chomsky's Hegemony of Survival: America's Quest for Global Domination.

Mention was also made of a job application form that job seekers were required to fill out if they wished to be considered for al Qaeda. Little was said about it beyond the question about which next of kin should be notified after recruits were blown to smithereens in a suicide bombing. The role most likely to be assigned to Westerners.

Here are other questions from the actual application--Osama's "Instructions to Applicants." Including how it might be filled out by an eager Western al Qaeda follower--

Date of arrival in the land of Jihad:

I do not yet have my airline ticket. I am waiting for a sale or to use frequent flyer miles and when an aisle seat is available. If accepted by your organization I will keep you informed of my plans. I assume a one-way ticket makes sense.

How long do you plan to stay in the Jihadi theater?

I did not know it was a theater. But that sounds cool. The timing, of course, is up to you. I imagine your associates set the schedule for training, propaganda videos, and suicide bombings.

Are any of your friends in the Jihad theater?

Maybe my college roommate. He took a course in Islamic history and one summer his parents took him on a trip to see the pyramids. I haven't been able to reach him lately. He doesn't respond to my texts or emails so he may already be in the theater.

Education Level: Primary . . .  Elementary . . . Secondary . . . College . . . 

Forgive me, Imam, but in my country "primary" and "elementary" are the same thing. So as not to confuse recruits who, unlike me, do not have college degrees, perhaps eliminate one or the other. I was a communications major in college, had a GPA of 3.40 and 1,450 SAT scores.

When did Almighty Allah bless you with this gift?

I decided what to do with my life while watching a rerun of Lawrence of Arabia on Netflix.

Have you researched or invented anything in any domain?

After college, since there were no jobs available, I worked on developing apps for iPhones. And I have this idea for a Jihadi video game that maybe could be used for training purposes. It's called Doorway to Paradise. If you'd like, I can send it to you by email.

List the countries to which you have travelled and the purpose of the trip(s) . . .

One summer after my junior year I went to France and Italy to take in the sights. My favorite place was Venice. I loved all the canals.

How many trips have you taken to Pakistan and for what reason(s)?

None yet but I am looking forward to visiting. There's a great Pakistani restaurant near my apartment that I go to all the time. I always have chicken tikka and saag paneer.

List the experience or expertise you have in any area.

I know Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram. Also word-processing, Photoshop, and Excel. And I have a drivers license with no moving violations and know how to use a stick shift which I assume will be useful if you decide to accept me into al Qaeda.

April 6, 2015--The Iran Deal

I just heard this on Face the Nation.

Without blinking Senator Lindsay Graham said that the deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program is not acceptable because it was negotiated by Barack Obama. He didn't cite one specific disagreement with the outline of the agreement (he didn't appear to have read it), rather he said that if Obama had anything to do with it by definition it is flawed and that we should not do anything regarding Iran until we have a new president. He mentioned that Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates except Rand Paul could do a better job.

Not do anything, I assume, means that before president-elect Cruz is inaugurated it would be OK if Obama decided we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. That is, if Graham's favorite chief executive, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now running the Republican Party, offers his approval. And of course his bromantic pal John McCain gets out his bomb, bomb, bomb Iran dancing shoes.

Netanyahu, also, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to attack the agreement, revealing that he as well hasn't read it since everything specific he mentioned was either not true or, in true demagogue fashion, totally made up by Bibi.

Republicans led by Graham are foaming at the mouth that Obama may very well have pulled off something historic. First the historic Obamacare, then a substantially restored economy, and now this. Something no one thought possible. What if half-African Barack Hussein Obama were to go down in history as a near-great president. Not just the first President of color. What will Lindsay and all the over-50-year old white boys think about that? Nothing good.

We used to be closely allied with Iran. It was one of Jackie Kennedy's favorite places to visit and all Republicans until Ronald Reagan couldn't say enough nice things about the Shah and his dictatorial leadership--just what was needed to keep those Wahhabi extremists in line. And recall, Reagan almost got himself impeached when his administration got caught playing footsie with the Ayatollahs in order to get arms sent illegally to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Whatever one thinks of the Shah and the current leadership, Iran is a real country (not created by colonial powers after the Second World War) with a proud history as Persia. Persia which back in the day dominated much of what we now refer to as the Middle East or the Islamic world. And, not so between the lines in the agreement just negotiated are allusions to that remarkable history and the unexpressed hope that if Iran behaves itself in regard to ratcheting back its nuclear program, and thereby is once again welcomed back into the community of nations, maybe, just maybe they will begin to step back from funding al Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah.

Hidden in the details of the proposed agreement between Iran and the group of nations that negotiated it is a note about what is to become of the centrifuges in Fordo, Iran's most secret, best protected nuclear fuel concentration facility. Most of the centrifuges will be deactivated (and inspected regularly to avoid cheating) but some 1,000 will continue to spin.

Here's what's revealing--though they will remain on line they will not contain any fissile material. They will continue to spin and spin impotently but, for the sake of Iranian pride will not produce anything but continue to fuel Iran's image of itself as a great and powerful nation. Which it was and is.

Hopefully over the decade, in other ways, Persia will act more and more that way.

So it's time for the big boys, the few adults in Congress to step up, swallow their hatred of President Obama and grab a bit of history for themselves. Our security and future may depend on it.

Fordo

November 28, 2014--Best of Behind: The Poppies of Tora Bora

First posted on November 30, 2006, this sadly is still timely. There have been reports that the opium poppy crop in Afghanistan last growing season was at record levels and recently Barack Obama revealed that he is ordering more troops to that godforsaken place and that, in spite of promises, they will be allowed to engage again in direct combat. What's old is new again--

Literally buried in the very lowest left-hand corner of page A14 in yesterday's New York Times was a four-inch-long column titled, "Opium Crop on Rise in Afghan Province."

It summarizes a UN-World Bank report that concludes that not only will it "take a generation to render Afghanistan opium free," but also notes that opium cultivation rose by 59 percent this past year. Yes, by 59 percent! 6,100 tons of poppies were produced which yielded 610 tons of heroin. This constituted fully 90 percent of the world's heroin supply.

So here's my question--What the hell is going on over there?

Along with a legitimate coalition of NATO allies and others (unlike the phony Coalition of the Willing in Iraq), the U.S. has been a major presence in Afghanistan for about five years. We defeated the Taliban, destroyed the al Qaeda sites which in fact were used to train the 9/11 terrorists, and helped set up what appears to be a version of a stable, reasonably democratic government.

True, Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden are still above ground, in a manner of speaking, and there is concern about a Taliban resurgence. But I ask again in regard to the poppy situation--What the hell is going on over there?

Aren't we also waging a War On Drugs? If so, it seems made in heaven that almost all of the opium is produced in the very same place where we have tens of thousands of troops on site and where we presumably control the situation in the air and on the ground.

So how about hiring Halliburton to get rid of the poppies? I know this in and of itself would bankrupt the poor farmers who depend on poppies for their livelihoods, but maybe in addition to plowing the poppy crop under we could subsidize the former poppy farmers the way we subsidize corn and wheat growers right here in America. I'm making an issue of this, even though I would vote in a second to decriminalize drugs including heroin, because it is such a good bad-example of our inability to get anything accomplished even when we have declared it a national priority.

We can’t rebuild New Orleans; we can’t teach our kids math; and now we can’t get rid of the poppies.

October 1, 2014--60 Minutes With Professor Barack Obama

So he went on TV and told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that the situation in Syria is fraught with contradictions--"I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance."

Yes, he actually said that. Much appreciated Professor Obama.

Among the contradictions, he acknowledged, is the fact that we (really, he and his administration) did not know in advance that ISIS (or ISIL as he obstinately insists on referring to them) was going to turn out to be such a threat to the Middle East and ultimately us.

After 9/11 and the failure to connect the dots that should have warned us about an imminent, cataclysmic threat to the U. S. homeland, one would have thought, with that dark lesson in mind, that something as elaborate as ISIS's emergence and, yes, remarkable barbaric capabilities, would have shown up on someone's Oval Office radar.

Al Qaeda was a relatively small band of terrorists incubating in an under-scrutinized part of the world (the forbidding mountains on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border) compared to the thousands of ISIS jihadist warriors arming and preparing themselves to operate even captured American tanks in plain sight right in the middle of the civil war in Syria.

All one needed to do was go to the Internet to learn directly from ISIS itself what they were about and were intending to do. Undoubtedly and appropriately humiliated, Obama told Kroft that we (he) blew it and so now we're involved in another war in the Middle East that we can't win that will soon cost billions and the lives of more of America's finest young people.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, literally closer to home, there was that embarrassing and dangerous event at the White House. An armed intruder jumped the inadequate and unguarded fence, ran across the lawn, entered the ground floor through the unlocked North Portico, raced left to the East Room, and then, still alluding the Secret Service, entered the Green Room where he was finally tackled.

It would not be my favorite thing to have seen him shot well short of the mansion, but allowing him to make it into the building, where, if he knew the layout better, he could have raced up the stairs to the living quarters, I'd opt for the security forces taking him down.

The Secret Service is far from what it used to be--which might serve as a metaphor for much of our federal government and, alas, much of America--but this latest incident is so pathetic as to render one almost speechless.

We learned in the process that, with Obama family members in residence, in 2011 a sniper hit seven windows in the living quarters, firing armor-piecrcing bullets from hundreds of yards away and that that information was withheld from the public and the Obamas, including the distressing fact that it took White House security forces four days after the attack to even know it occurred!

Under questioning by members of Congress yesterday, Julia Pierson, director of the Secret Service, took responsibility and promised that it won't happen again.

Well it already did happen again, and on her watch. There was the shooting incident in 2011 and then the intrusion 12 days ago. I call that happening again.

And another thing that will happen again is that she will not be fired just as no one was fired for the Veterans Administration or IRS scandals or for that matter the Obamacare website rollout fiasco.

As our professor president said, ours is a contradictory land and what we are seeing are contradictory circumstances.

September 2, 2014--ISIS

Most objective historians contend that George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton ignored the many early signs that Al-Queda represented a deadly threat to the U.S. homeland.

Famously or infamously, President Bush was cutting brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and didn't want to be disturbed by a National Security memo that warned of an imminent attack by Al-Qaeda on America.

It was a failure to "connect the dots," both critics and apologists said retrospectively. It was at least that. Worse--why did citizens and our government have to learn about the reach and power of Al Qaeda for the first time on 9/11?

Which brings me to today to ISIS, the even more radical successor to Al-Qaeda.

ISIS, the jihadist faction that has recently swept out of Syria, where it was incubated, and is rampaging through central Iraq, slaughtering Shiites, Kurds, and Christians as it expands the borders of its self-procliamed Caliphate is now commanding the attention of Western leaders. President Obama as well as British Prime Minister Cameron cut short their vacations to pay more attention to this dangerous movement.

Where did they come from seemingly so quickly? How did they develop the capacity, apparently overnight, to take on first Syria's army and then roll back Kurdish and Iraqi armed forces? Armies that we equipped and trained for years to be self-sufficient retreated across Iraq with hardly a fight in the face of ISIS's self-trained militias.

Why does it appears that the president and other world leaders are just now learning about ISIS and finally taking action to halt its advance? Including, President Obama implied late last week, seeking them out at their sanctuaries in Syria.

Did we again forget to connect the dots when we began to notice that scores of Americans and hundreds of Europeans were making their way to Syria to join the rebels fighting the Assad regime and then to enlist in ISIS's brigades?

It is understandable that we did not want to get directly involved in arming the rebels in Syria much less supplying air cover or, worse, boots on the ground. The situation is a quagmire, best to remain uninvolved; but if we had evidence that the situation there was an incubator of jihadist terrorists who might ultimately threaten us directly, maybe we should have reconsidered keeping our hands off.

Perhaps we should have learned some lessons from our own history of involvement in the region. First, how we intervened in a surrogate Cold War confrontation with Russia in Afghanistan. How we armed the Mujahideen who in turn defeated the Russians and then, without pausing to thank us, using our weapons, transformed themselves into the Taliban who shortly thereafter supported and provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda fighters. As a result there was 9/11.

A version of the same thing is now happening in Syria-Iraq.

After we brought down Saddam Hussein, with the full participation of the American occupying forces, we agreed with the Shiite majority to rid the government and, more importantly, the military of any Sunni Muslims who were members of Hussein's Baathist Party. We took the lead in the de-Baathification of the country and placed our support behind the Shiites who, in the process, disenfranchising this talented group of government officials and military leaders, also doing all they could to publicly humiliate them.

So it should come as no surprise to find them now in leadership roles within ISIS. A major reason ISIS is so effective, so able to fight with discipline and precision, is because of their Baathist allies, who, as in Afghanistan, have taken possession of massive amounts of American arms and weapon systems that they seized from the retreating Shiite forces.

As a consequence, again because of inept American and European leadership, expect to see us engaged soon in various forms of combat in the lands now controlled by ISIS--in Iraq, Kurdistan, and even Syria, where, as a result, ironically, we may wind up helping Bashar al-Assad to keep his grip on power.

June 12, 2014--Where's Saddam?

Here's a multiple choice question for you now that Sunni militants in Iraq have stormed and taken control of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and Tikrit, only 60 miles from Baghdad. This after overrunning and seizing Fallujah six months ago.

In these cities the black flag of the jihadi group, The Islamic State of Iraq, flies over public buildings. The lawless border between Syria and western Iraq is virtually obliterated, and these al-Qaeda linked factions are on their way to redraw the map of this region so that it reverts to the nation states that existed until the end of the First World War when lines were drawn in the sand to carve out European and American spheres of influence.

The Iraq police force and army that we spent hundreds of billions training so that the Iraqi government could protect all citizens and the country from just this sort of internal, virtual civil war are in various states of collapse, with soldiers and police deserting in droves, shedding their uniforms and abandoning their weapons in attempts to blend into the civilian population.

With the current situation as dire as it is, and only promising to worsen, here is the question--

With things as unravelled as they appear to be, what would you prefer:

(a)  The United States should not have withdrawn its combat forces and should have committed to remaining in Iraq indefinitely as we are in Korea and Germany.

(b) We should intervene directly in Syria, including arming the rebels and, if necessary, placing American boots on the ground, since most of the jihadists in Iraq were trained, armed, and launched from Syria.

(c) We should exhume Saddam Hussein, revive him, and place him and his repressive henchmen back in power.

(d) If none of the above, what?

I'm inclined to (c). You?

And, while struggling to answer the question, we should again remind ourselves that this dangerous mess is the true legacy of George W. Bush and his neo-con and congressional enablers.

April 23, 2014--Obama's Drones

Five days after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released an audacious video of a daytime militant rally in southern Yemen, President Obama authorized a drone strike that killed at least 55 Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

Putting aside for the moment the legal and ethical issues, in many ways this was a good thing. These men are among the world's most dangerous people and drone strikes are a good way to get at them with little risk to U.S. or Yemeni forces.

The openly-flaunting way in which Nasser-al-Wuhayshi, head of AQAP, organized the rally and brazenly made videos of it public, not only emphasized the level of the threat he and his fighters represent but also was a way to humiliate his enemies, especially the United States. He brashly seemed to say, "Catch me if you can."

So Obama was quick to rise to the taunt. At least three drone strikes were carried out over the weekend and as a result dozens were killed.

One thing even fierce critics of Obama's concede is that he not hesitant about authorizing drone strikes against bad guys, including an occasional American citizen.

Putting tactics aside--drones' ability to respond quickly to threats--it is striking to see Obama acting so decisively about . . . anything.

The very same Republican critics who poke him about "leading from behind" give him begrudging credit for being so aggressive about the use of drones. But I suspect Obama is uncharacteristically decisive and forceful when it comes to the deployment of drones for other than just military or political reasons.

Political-Psychology 101 would suggest the unfettered use of drones is the one arena in which Obama has undisputed power and can act out his frustrations.

For a president who knows that at least half the reason conservatives oppose everything and anything he initiates or even supports is because he is African American, for a president who is reluctant to play the race card much less even openly confront this political bigotry, fearing being characterized as an "angry black man," having a means to act out his frustrations and, I am sure, rage about this must be irresistible.

The giveaway that this is not a preposterous notion is that authorizing the use of drones without seemingly endless cogitation--a quality for which Obama is known and not-entirely-unfairly criticized--is the one area of leadership in which he clearly leads from the front and is expeditiously decisive.

In Freudian terms--this is an example of displacement theory.

As a close reader of the Constitution, he knows that much of this is extra-legal or, minimally, questionable; and yet, time after time, instead of being cautious or timid, he acts boldly. And, it would appear, successfully.

It may be unfeeling to suggest that ordering the killing of people--even terrorists--is in some ways therapeutic, but considering the circumstances in Washington and in Red-State America, on some level it is understandable.

April 16, 2014--Stupider

"Here's my new favorite example of things getting stupider."

"Stupider?"

"Yes. You remember our conversation in the car about how I nurture my inner curmudgeoness to inure me from things getting stupider?"

"'Inure'? Vaguely."

"Here's a perfect example of what I mean." Rona rolled her eyes.

"Did you hear about the teenage girl, Sarah, who tweeted American Airline last week pretending to be a member of Al Qaeda?"

"I did hear about that."

"Let me read you her tweet. 'Hello. My name is Ibrahim and I'm from Afghanistan. I'm part of Al Qaida and on June 1st I'm going to do something really big. Bye.'"

"I'm impressed she knows where Afghanistan is and knows how to spell it."

"But when she heard back from American that they take these threats seriously and that they were going to pass her tweet to the FBI, she pleaded with them, saying it was just a joke and that she 'just a girl' and only a teenage 'white girl.'"

"Stupid, indeed."

"I gather the Dutch authorities have arrested her--she Dutch--and though she's miserable about that she is also excited that as a result of her tweet she now has thousands of new followers."

"Why am I not surprised."

"Here's the worst part."

"There's something worse?"

"Yes. As a result American Airlines reports they are now receiving thousands of threats from teenagers worldwide."

"At least there's one thing to feel good about."

"I'm listening."

"American teenagers are not the only stupid ones."

"Touché."

November 20, 2013--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Bomb Iran

Here's what has me worried--

As dramatically weakened Barack Obama confronts three more years of his presidency, with the unlikelihood of anything, anything being approved by Congress (it will get even worse after Republican victories in the upcoming midterm elections), as with other presidents who had second-term problems, he will likely be tempted to do something dramatic in foreign affairs where as commander in chief he has considerable independent authority and the ability to act without congressional approval.

This is not in itself a bad thing--plagued by sex scandals, Bill Clinton almost pulled off an historic deal between the Israelis and Palestinians; Ronald Reagan negotiated significant disarmament agreements with the Soviets; and even Richard Nixon made progress in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

But then there is the wag-the-dog problem--the temptation to get involved in overseas adventures to distract the public or repair tarnished presidential reputations. If was thought, for example, that to change the subject from Monica Lewinski and her blue dress, Clinton was itching to go to war in the Balkans.

Obama is on the ropes. The botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act is just the most recent in a string of failures that has ruined his political reputation and seen his approval ratings sink to George W. Bush levels.

On that list of failures and blunders is his now infamous pledge to draw a red line in Syria--if Bashar al-Assad crossed it and used chemical weapons against the rebels, Obama forcefully stated, the United States would take military action against the regime.

Assad did cross that red line and Obama backed down. He ordered lots os saber rattling but no intervention. The situation was saved by Russian President Putin who put pressure on his Syrian allies to give up their WMD program, which they are proceeding to do under UN supervision.

This failure to follow through has ruined Obama's reputation in that region.

Not only do the Israelis distrust him--if he failed to act in Syria what is his word worth when it comes to Iran where he has drawn another redline about Iran's nuclear capabilities?--now our other allies, the Saudis, Turkey, and Jordan, wonder if we will come to their assistance if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons or there are threats to their survival.

Clearly Obama wants to make a deal with the new, seemingly more moderate Iranian leaders. In fact, an initial, interim agreement may be struck as early as this week. This is not just a good thing for Obama's political reputation but a good thing in itself. We have to find a way to pull back from the brink. If Iran goes nuclear, it is virtually certain that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks will as well. This is not a part of the world where we want to see a nuclear arms race.

But beyond diplomacy, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu marshaling local as well as U.S. congressional opposition to any deal with Iran, threatening to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, the political pressure on Obama--at this vulnerable time in his presidency--is almost beyond calculation.

The temptation to show that his word is good--especially when it comes to staking out positions in the world where there are threats to our allies and to our own security--may impel President Obama to want to show some muscle.

He hasn't done very much of that with Congress and other than killing Osama bin Ladin and numerous al Qaeda leaders with drones (which is generally commendable), Obama has been a disengaged, passive leader more including to deliver speeches than exert forceful leadership.

One place where he can take a form of forceful action is in Iran where he can join the Israelis in bombing their uranium enrichment facilities in an attempt to set back their nuclear clock.

This could in time be necessary. But diplomacy may now be working and it will require considerable courage from Obama to fend off pressure from Israel and Congress to keep talking and dealing with the Iranians.

May 9, 2013--Tea Party in Syria

I suppose, flushed with the delusion of success in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two senatorial amigos, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have been turning up the heat on Barack Obama to get militarily involved in the civil war in Syria.

Even the justification is the same--as with Saddam, it is being trumpeted, Syrian president Basha al-Assad, possess weapons of mass distruction (WMDs) that he is deploying against his own people. They should recall that after we toppled Hussein, we found none and it may be that the evidence in Syria is just as ambiguous--yes, chemical weapons appear to have been employed but maybe not by Assad. It is emerging that it might have been the Syrian rebels who used them on themselves, perhaps to incite war mongers such as McCain and Graham, and to impel President Obama to too casually talk about how their use would be a "game changer" that crossed a "red line." Meaning . . . meaning, I am not sure what. And it sadly appears that Obama himself didn't have a clear plan in mind when he uttered these macho clichés.

McCain and Graham are on Senate committees that provide access to information about what is actually going on in Syria, and it is not a pretty picture. But just from reading a decent newspaper--if they don't have time to do their committee homework (after all it takes up hours and hours to appear on TV every day)--they would see that in addition to the hideous bloodshed, al Qaeda forces are taking more and more control of the fighting, and to arm them would only provide these jihadists with weapons to turn against us and our allies after they inevitably take over. Another lesson from Afghanistan--when we armed the Mujahdeen who were resisting the Russian occupation of their country, after Russia lost (a further lesson) they used those weapons, are now using them, against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The French ambassador to Afghanistan soberly said recently that as soon  as the western presence is further reduced (by 2014) things there will revert to Taliban control and girls and women will once again be forced to wear burkas. No wonder, then, that President Hamid Karzai desires to see the suitcases of CIA-supplied cash continue to be delivered so he and his family can sock away their blood money in Abu Dhabi. The good news for the Karzais--they have been assured by the U.S. government that these bribes will keep on flowing. One less thing for them to have to worry about.

Meanwhile, in McCain-Graham's other favorite Middle Eastern conflict, Iraq, we are seeing evidence of an incipient civil war. In this case, as in many other parts of the region, the roots of the conflict are religious and cultural, with faction pitted against faction.

In Iraq it continues, as it has for many centuries, to be Shiites versus Sunnis. Saddam's regime was run largely by the minority Sunni community through the Baath Party. When he was taken down, in spite of our efforts to see a diverse, democratic government replace his brutal dictatorship (at the time it was called "nation-building"), this policy pipe dream lasted for just a few years because all the while the majority Shia, having taken control, slowly and deliberately squeezed out the remaining Baathists.

So what in response have the displaced and discriminated against Iraqi Sunnis been up to? As we see in Egypt and Syria, they are turning for support to the most extreme Islamist elements who, if left to their own devices, would turn the entire region into a series of Islamic republics.

Let us not be naive about this agenda. Over time we will see the Muslim Brotherhood here; al Qaeda there. Jordan could be next and, who knows, maybe even Saudi Arabia after that, where the ruling dynasty has been paying off Osama bin Laden's Wahhabis in order to keep them from overthrowing the the House of Saud.

But the trajectory in this extremest direction is clear. And unwittingly we have been helpful in encouraging it by the very fact of our involvement After all, how would we feel, what would we do, where would we turn if a powerful outside force invaded and occupied our country? Don't you think that extremist elements in our own country--in the NRA or Tea Party, for example--would attempt to take control of the situation? I suspect the militias and dead-enders would be more effective in grabbing power than our political and economic elites.

If all else fails for McCain and Graham, there's always Benghazi. Who would have thought I'd be missing their third amigo, old Joe Lieberman.