Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Terrorism Analysis

I was about to say we do a very bad job at analyzing terrorist networks, but then I thought about it and realized we do a lot of very good analysis. We have lots of amazingly smart analysts who do some great work and undoubtedly save a lot of lives.

Unfortunately, the record is spotty, however. We have done pretty well at breaking the back of al Qaeda in Iraq, probably because the counterterrorism analysis was integrated with a broad strategy of counterinsurgency, civil affairs, political action, foreign internal defense, and direct action. Our performance isn't bad in other areas of the middle east, where there are few barriers to all-source collection, analysis, and dissemination.

It's only when you come back to CONUS that things get really ugly. Within our own borders the political correctness disease has substantially crippled our otherwise-reasonably-competent capabilities.

This situation opens an obvious opportunity for our adversaries: come here and be safe. The evidence is clear that they did just that.

Understanding that phenomenon is the key to understanding what happened with Nidal Malik Hassan.

The evidence is abundant and readily available that the "Wahhabi Corridor" in Northern Virginia has played an ongoing, key role in coordinating and facilitating Salafist terror in the United States. What's astounding is the coverup, by the ostensible victims of those many terrorist plots, that has kept this huge threat to our national security - and indeed the lives of every ordinary Americans - from the public consciousness.

It's very hard to understand why this is happening, but it seems to be the ultimate perversion of political correctness. Ralph Peters has been eloquent in recent days about how this mass psychosis has completely permeated the US Army. Quote from LTC Peters:

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoom... If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

Anyone out there who considers themselves a liberal or a progressive, please clue me in: what is the argument that this situation ISN'T an example of domestic terrorism inspired and sponsored by the al Qaeda associated movement? I keep hearing from the MSM that the main problem with this terrorist attack is the reaction of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. What's the logic there? Why is the MSM determined to cover up or deny the role of radical Islam in inspiring the actions of Major Nidal Hassan?

But the original point of this post is about analysis. I expect the MSM to confuse and distort the facts. The more important question is why the many obvious warning signs about this guy were ignored or deliberately covered up by people who have less-clear motivations to do so. Why does the US Army have a vested interest in promoting al Qaeda's agenda? That's what I don't quite understand. I think it has something to do with the death-grip the MSM has on the Washington bureaucrasy, including the leadership of the Army in the Pentagon. But I'm not sure about that.

It's like a mass psychosis, where a whole lot of people have an artificially distorted perception of reality. The American people don't seem to have the same delusions - as far as I can tell, 100% of ordinary folks understand that radical Islam motivated Nidal Hasan - compared to approximately 0% of the MSM and the Army's leadership in the Pentagon. That kind of dichotomy is certain to have unpredictable, but dramatic, effects.


John the Scientist said...

CW, I think the problem is outlined in Jim's post. Jim does not want to be included in the right-fringe group that spews hatred of all Muslims. Therefore he bends over backwards to give Hassan the benefit of the doubt.

While that is an admirable sentiment, taken too far it leads to overlooking small clues that would lead one to paint someone as Islamist for fear of appearing racist, or of being labeled as such and the career consequences of same.

It's not so much that the Army has been infiltrated with PCers or Islamists (on a wide scale), it's that cautious military politicians who make O-7 and above are sensitive to the PC currents in congress.

I don't think you mean actual jihadist infiltration in large numbers, do you? This, to me, looks more like the leftist infiltration by Communists in the 1930s - people whose good intentions led them down the path to being useful idiots.

The MSM is slowly picking up on this, but I think you are correct in your assessment that the MSM will blame anyone but Islamists until incontrovertable proof is submitted. The discussion in the MSM should have gone well beyond the FBI and DCIS failures to the Wahhabist connection in No. VA long ago, and the slow reporting in that direction is an indicator of sympathy with anything non-Western, and the general cultural self-hatred indicative of this brand if useful idiot.

Janiece said...

I'm afraid this entry (and the comments over at Jim's) have lost me.

Like Jim, I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but...you've lost me.

CW said...

They guy murdered 13 people and we're giving him the benefit of the doubt because he is a radicalized Salafist muslim? What's wrong with that picture? I forget, did Timothy McVeigh get the benefit of the doubt? How about Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter - he killed about the same number of people. Today it is being reported that Hasan was sending money to Pakistan. He doesn't have any family there. It had been a mystery where Hasan's salary has been going - he lived far below his means as a Medical Corps O-4.

Janiece said...

CW, I meant I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not Hasan.

CW said...

Very sorry to misunderstand Janiece... John referred to Jim giving Hasan the "benefit of the doubt", so I was confused.

I'm still surprised and puzzled at the controversy caused by the discussion of Saudi influence (I guess that's what it was about).