Hello, Pot? This is the Kettle.

Ahmadinejad calls Israel the worst racist. Islamists call Jews "Zionists" for wanting a Jewish homeland. And yet at the same time Islamists are calling Islamic Caliphate while living in Islamic states that discriminate and denigrate people who don't practice the state authorized brand of Islam. I realize that one is more or less about race and the other is about religion, but the net discriminatory effect is the same. And yet in the Jewish state of Israel, non-Jews have greater freedom and prosperity than those not of the "proper" brand of Islam have in Islamic states. In Islamic states not only do they discriminate against non-Muslims, they discriminate against Muslims from other sects.

Hello, Pot? This is the Kettle.

Nancy Pelosi complains "One good place to start would be to enforce the laws that are on the books right now," she said on Feb. 26. "And I think the evidence points this out, that the Bush administration was not enforcing law." This regarding gun law issues. And yet, as I recall, she expressed vehement opposition to enforcing immigration laws, going so far as to call enforcment of those laws "un-American." I guess Nancy must think she gets to choose which laws should be enforced and which laws are "un-American" to enforce.

This is what happens when you don't keep score

I read an article about the recent uptick in mass killings. The conclusion is that these people are suicidal and seeking revenge for some perceived wrong. The thing is the perceived wrong is usually a normal everyday occurrence that all of us experience sooner or later: loss of a job, loss of love, loss of what ever. This inability to cope with loss should come as no surprise. People are raising their kids in an environment where there are no losers, everyone is always a winner, and everyone is always right. Some people want to protect their kids from disappointment and coddle their self-esteem. The problem is that in the real world everyone loses sooner or later and sometimes you're wrong. So it should come as no surprise that when kids have never had to learn to cope with disappointment growing up, they will be unable to deal with disappointment constructively as adults. The difference being that as children we can help direct them in constructive directions and help them learn to cope with disappointment whereas as adults, they are on their own to deal with it, which can easily result in catastrophic results by not having the skills or parental support and guidance.

Keep score in kids sports. Losing is an important life lesson in how to roll with it and use it constructively as motivation to work at improving for next time. Learn that you aren't always right. Learn that sometimes it is you and not the other person to blame. Learn this as kids when the disappointments are trivial and the repercussions minor in order to be able to constructively handle the major disappointments that life throws at us as adults when the stakes are higher. Self-esteem built on being shielded from real life is not self-esteem but a recipe for disaster when eventually reality is inescapable.

Message to Somali Pirates

You say we are now your number one enemy? So who's fault is that? Your pirates were killed after attacking a US vessel and kidnapping it's captain and this is somehow our fault and you are blameless? A US ship was legitimately and legally conducting business (taking relief aid to your impoverished continent by the way) and your pirates tried to hijack it and then kidnapped it's captain. That was a choice the pirates made, not us. Those pirates made it the United States' problem so the United States dealt with it. If you don't like the consequences of your actions then maybe next time you will think twice about hijacking a US vessel or a vessel with US citizens. And by the way, the pirates were offered a way out with their lives which was rejected. So not only once but twice the pirates made bad choices with negative consequences. Consider this a lesson learned. This is not some game or joke and this has serious consequences which your compatriots learned the hard way. If you don't like the consequences then maybe it's not a game you should be trying to play. You mess with the bull you get the horns.

Are we going to tolerate piracy or are we going to stop it?

How long are we going to allow Somali pirates to operate before we act to put a stop to it? There are many things that can be done but the problem must first be correctly viewed for what it is. One problem is that we tend to view the problem through the lens of terrorism. For example, there is debate about arming ships with weapons and/or armed guards. An argument against this is that it could lead to escalation. This is a valid concern; however, it belies a misunderstand of the principles involved. If these were militants out to make a point at any cost, even sacrificing themselves in the process, then this could certainly be a factor. The thing is that these pirates are not terrorists bent on death,even their own, but rather people out to make a living. They are not interested in making a point but rather interested in making money. Anytime someone is looking to make money, the chosen plan of action is evaluated in terms of a cost/benefit or risk/reward analysis. Currently, that equation for the pirates entails virtually zero cost or risk with a significant benefit and reward. They stand to make millions with very little cost or risk to themselves risk of being killed, captured, or injured, but they stand to make millions with Now, we can't really impact the reward side any differently than already occurs once negotiations begin. However, we can have a significant impact on the cost and risk side of the equation. What we can do is increase the cost and risk to a point where they must reevaluate the choice to engage in piracy. If we were to arm vessels, now the pirates must consider if the reward is worth the reward is still worth the much greater cost and risk that they could be captured or killed. And we must evaluate any increased risks to ourselves compared to the reduction in acts of piracy.

Of course the best means to put a stop to the piracy is for Somalis to get their house in order and develop legitimate alternatives to piracy. However there do not appear to be any credible signs that this is going to happen in the foreseeable future. So we must ask ourselves how long are we going to allow this to continue and what are we going to do about it? If we continue on the current path, this is going to continue to spiral out of control, and perhaps that ship has already sailed. At present, the only way to change the situation is by forcible acts. We have see that patrols and convoys are futile. The problem is that it is simple impossible to impose any security out in the vast seas. The answer lies in the fact that ultimately the pirates must make landfall somewhere. While we cannot have a security presence in any meaningful fashion on the open seas, it is possible to have a meaningful presence where pirates make landfall. Currently there are two or three harbors where pirates operate with virtual impunity. While it is not possible to interdict pirates on the open seas due to the vastness of the territory involved, it is possible to interdict pirates in or near the harbors. An effective interdiction regime would serve to raise the stakes on the cost and risk side of their equation. The problem is that this certainly cannot happen with Somali forces and currently there is no provision in international law for international patrols in Somali waters. However, in the given situation, it is my belief that arrangements could be made with the Somali government. The Somali government has already shown an interest in making unilateral concessions on matters of maritime sovereignty vis a vis acts of piracy. It would certainly be in the interest of the Somali government to obtain international support in subduing the piracy problem and I would think the Somali government would be amenable to making arrangements with international naval forces.

So what might such an undertaking look like? Certainly we don't want any programs that entail any land operations. We already know the futility of that. Any operations must be naval based where the international navies have the tactical upper hand.This probably means that operations would of necessity be conducted at some standoff distance from shore or the harbor in order to be out of reach of their land based support structures. Also of paramount concern would be have minimal and, if at all possible, positive impact impact on the fishing trade. Great effort must be made to protect this or we will only create more problems for ourselves. We must also be prepared to deploy forces to other parts of the coast as there is potential for some degree of "wack-a-mole." The goal is not to apprehend or to stop "gang" activities but rather to make the prospect of piracy prohibitively costly for would be pirates. At some point when piracy has been pacified, the landscape must be reevaluated to determine a course of action that will serve to permanently eliminate the threat of piracy. This will depend on the resulting socio-political landscape.

To Habeas or Not To Habeas?

Not to justify Guantanamo or Bagram or denial of habeas corpus, but they are many factors that cannot be simply glossed over.

While there is a cost of denying habeas corpus to these people, there is also a concomitant cost to extending habeas corpus. The decision to deny habeas corpus does not occur in a vacuum nor out of some sort of malicious disdain for habeas corpus but out of due consideration of what is also the very real cost of extending habeas corpus. We have already seen that when some of these people are released, innocent people die as a result. This raises the question of how many innocent people are to be sacrificed on the altar of "habeas corpus?" In the specific case of Guantanamo, a majority of the inmate population has already been released. What is left is a cadre of the hard core militant extremists. If these inmates are released it is not a question of if they will go on to kill innocent civilians, but when. It is fine and good to call for their release due to being denied habeas corpus, but at what cost in innocent life?

In calling for Constitutionally robust trials, the issues of national security cannot be glossed over. What people fail to appreciate is that presenting the incriminating evidence in open court can have devastating implications to national security. People think that if you are reluctant to present evidence that is proof of lack of evidence. The very real problem that people fail to appreciate is that revealing the evidence will reveal how the evidence was obtained which will render those methods ineffective in the future.When the methods of obtaining information are revealed, the bad guys can takes measures to stop that. It is not necessary to explicitly reveal the methods (exploit) used as this can be inferred from the evidence. Consider a conversation presented as evidence. Once that is revealed, the phone that was tapped is also revealed and it is no longer useful to gather information in the future. Usually this is not a problem for a normal criminal case but if you want to continue to gather information from the exploit in question, this is a problem. Thus the problem is that revealing evidence in court can eliminate our ability to detect future terrorist activity to prevent future terrorist attacks. This in a nutshell is the motivation for denial of habeas corpus. It becomes a choice between prosecuting a known terrorist or preventing future terrorist attacks. If we insist on habeas corpus, sacrifice the ability to prevent innocent civilians dying in future terrorist.

I am not saying what is the right answer, but apparently both GWB and Obama have decided it is better to sacrifice habeas corpus than to sacrifice innocent lives on the altar of habeas corpus. It is easy for us to criticize that choice from the comfort and safety of our homes when it is not us that will be responsible for lives lost in making that choice. Suppose someone presented you with a captured terrorist and this choice: you can invoke habeas corpus but in doing so here are the faces of 100 people who will die as a result. What would you choose? What if it were 1000 or 10,000 or 10? My guess is that now that Obama carries the responsibility for this choice this is how he now sees it with regard to Bagram. It's one thing to stand for an ideal and another thing when that ideal carries with it very real cost in human life. Just like it was apparently one thing for Obama to call for habeas corpus as a presidential candidate and yet another thing now that he would be the one responsible for the cost of that choice.