IRAN - CARTER's BLOOD-SOAKED LEGACY

 

[Published in the Sunday Guardian of India - 

The day that changed the Middle East - The Sunday Guardian Live]

November 4, 2023, marks the 44^th anniversary of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

It is a pivotal event along the path of Iran becoming the world’s primary supporter of Islamic terrorism. For 444 days, 52 Americans were imprisoned in brutal conditions.  

The story of how Iran went from a reliable pro-West ally to the center of Fundamentalist Islamic Terror begins with President Jimmy Carter, and his administration’s, involvement in the Iranian Revolution.

Islam’s three major sects, Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi, all harbor the seeds of violence and hatred.  In 1881 a Sufi mystic ignited the Mahdi Revolt in the Sudan leading to eighteen years of death and misery throughout the upper Nile.  During World War II, the Sunni Grand Mufti of Jerusalem befriended Hitler and helped Heinrich Himmler form Islamic Stormtrooper units to kill Jews in the Balkans.

After World War II, Islam secularized as mainstream leaders embraced Western economic interests to tap their vast oil and gas reserves.  Activists became embroiled in the Middle East’s Cold War chess board, aiding U.S., or Soviet, interests.

The Iranian Revolution changed that.  Through the success of the Iranian Revolution, Islamic extremists of all sects embraced the words of Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

“If the form of government willed by Islam were to come into being, none of the governments now existing in the world would be able to resist it; they would all capitulate.”

Islamic dominance became an end in and of itself. 

This did not have to happen.

Iran was a pivotal regional player for 2,500 years.  The Persian Empire was the bane of ancient Greece.  As the Greek Empire withered, Persia, later Iran, remained a political, economic, and cultural force. This is why their 1979 Revolution and subsequent confrontation with the U.S. inspired radicals throughout the Islamic world to become the Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, and others.

Iran’s modern history began as part of the East-West conflict following World War II.  The Soviets heavily influenced and manipulated Iran’s first elected government.  On August 19, 1953, British and America intelligence toppled that government and returned Shah Modammad Reza to power.

“The Shah” as he became known globally, was reform minded.  He launched his “White Revolution” to build a modern, pro-West, pro-capitalist Iran in 1963.  The Shah’s “Revolution” built the region’s largest middle class, and broke centuries of tradition by enfranchising women.  

The Shah was opposed by many traditional powers, including fundamentalist Islamic leaders like the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  Khomeini’s agitation for violent opposition to the Shah’s reforms led to his arrest and exile.

Throughout his reign, the Shah was vexed by radical Islamic and communist agitation. His secret police brutally suppressed fringe dissidents.  This balancing act between western reforms and control worked well, with a trend towards more reforms as the Shah aged.  The Shah enjoyed warm relationships with American Presidents of both parties and was rewarded with lavish military aid.

That changed in 1977.

From the beginning, the Carter Administration expressed disdain for the Shah.  President Carter pressed for the release of political prisoners. The Shah complied, allowing many Islamic radicals the freedom to openly oppose him.

Not satisfied with the pace or breadth of the Shah’s reforms, Carter envoys began a dialogue with the Ayatollah Khomeini, first at his home in Iraq and more intensely when he moved to a Paris suburb.

Indications that the U.S. was souring on the Shah emboldened dissidents across the political spectrum to confront the regime.  Demonstrations, riots, and general strikes began to destabilize the Shah and his government.  In response, the Shah accelerated reforms.  This was viewed as weakness by the opposition.

The Western media, especially the BBC, began to promote the Ayatollah as a moderate alternative to the Shah’s “brutal regime”. The Ayatollah assured U.S. intelligence operatives and State Department officials that he would only be the “figure head” for a western parliamentary system. 

During the fall of 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Carter Administration, led by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and U.S. Ambassador to Iran William Sullivan, coalesced around abandoning the Shah and helping install Khomeini, who they viewed as a “moderate clergyman” who would be Iran’s “Ghandi-like” spiritual leader.

Time and political capital ran out. On January 16, 1979, the Shah, after arranging for an interim government, resigned and went into exile.

The balance of power shifted to the Iranian Military. 

While the Shah was preparing for his departure, General Robert Huyser, Deputy Commander of NATO, and his top aides, arrived in Iran.  They were under Carter’s orders to neutralize the military leaders.  Using ties of friendship, promises of aid, and assurance of safety, Huyser and his team convinced the Iranian commanders to allow the transitional government to finalize arrangements for Khomeini becoming part of the new government.  

Subsequently, many of these Iranian military leaders, and their families, were slaughtered. Khomeini and his Islamic Republican Guard toppled the transitional government and seized power during the Spring of 1979.  “It was a most despicable act of treachery, for which I will always be ashamed” admitted one NATO general years later.

The radicalization of Iran occurred at lightning speed.  Khomeini and his lieutenants remade Iran’s government and society into a totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic state.  Anyone who opposed their Islamic Revolution were driven into exile, imprisoned, or killed. 

Khomeini’s earlier assurances of moderation and working with the West vanished.  Radicalized mobs turned their attention to eradicating all vestiges of the West.  This included the U.S. Embassy.

The first attack on the U.S. Embassy occurred on the morning of February 14, 1979.  Coincidently, this was the same day that Adolph Dubs, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, was kidnapped and fatally shot by Muslim extremists in Kabul.  In Tehran, Ambassador Sullivan surrendered the U.S. Embassy and was able to resolve the occupation within hours through negotiations with the Iranian Foreign Minister.

Despite this attack, and the bloodshed in Kabul, nothing was done to either close the Tehran Embassy, reduce personnel, or strengthen its defenses.  During the takeover, Embassy personnel failed to burn sensitive documents as their furnaces malfunctioned.  They installed cheaper paper shredders.  During the 444-day occupation, rug weavers were employed to reconstruct the sensitive shredded documents, creating global embarrassment of America.

Starting in September 1979, radical students began planning a more extensive assault on the Embassy.  This included daily demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy to trigger an Embassy security response.  This allowed organizers to assess the size and capabilities of the Embassy security forces. 

On November 4, 1979, one of the demonstrations erupted into an all-out conflict within the Embassy’s Visa processing public entrance.  The assault leaders deployed approximately 500 students.  Female students hid metal cutters under their robes, which were used to breach the Embassy gates.

Khomeini immediately issued a statement of support, declaring it “the second revolution” and the U.S. Embassy an “American spy den in Tehran”.

What followed was an unending ordeal of terror and deprivation for the 66 hostages, who through various releases, were reduced to a core of 52.  The 2012 film “Argo” chronicled the audacious escape of six Americans who had been outside the U.S. Embassy at the time of the takeover. 

On April 24, 1980, trying to break out of this chronic crisis, Carter initiated an ill-conceived, and poorly executed, rescue mission called Operation Eagle Claw.  It ended with crashed helicopters and eight dead soldiers at the staging area outside of the Iranian Capital, designated Desert One.  Another attempt was made through diplomacy as part of a hoped for “October Surprise”, but the Iranians cancelled the deal just as planes were being mustered at Andrews Air Force Base.

Carter paid the price for his Iranian duplicity. On November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan obliterated Carter in the worst defeat suffered by an incumbent President since Herbert Hoover in 1932. 

Unfortunately, the world continues to pay the price for Carter unleashing Iranian terror.

THE ROAD TO 911

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

For those old enough to remember, September 11, 2001, 9:03 a.m. is burned into our collective memory.  It was at that moment that United Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. 

Everyone was watching.  American Airlines Flight 11 had crashed into the North Tower seventeen minutes earlier.  For those few moments there was uncertainty whether the first crash was a tragic accident.  Then, on live television, the South Tower fire ball vividly announced to the world that America was under attack.

The nightmare continued.  As horrifying images of people trapped in the burning towers riveted the nation, news broke at 9:37 a.m. that American Flight 77 had ploughed into the Pentagon.

For the first time since the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Americans were collectively experiencing full scale carnage from a coordinated attack on their soil.

The horror continued as the twin towers collapsed, sending clouds of debris throughout lower Manhattan and igniting fires in adjoining buildings.  Questions filled the minds of government officials and every citizen:  How many more planes?  What were their targets? How many have died?  Who is doing this to us?

At 10:03 a.m., word came that United Flight 93 had crashed into a Pennsylvania field.  Speculation exploded as to what happened.  Later investigations revealed that Flight 93 passengers, alerted by cell phone calls of the earlier attacks, revolted causing the plane to crash.  Their heroism prevented this final hijacked plane from destroying the U.S. Capitol Building.

The final accounting was devastating: 2,977 killed and over 25,000 injured.  The death toll continues to climb to this day as first responders and building survivors perish from respiratory conditions caused by inhaling the chemical-laden smoke.  It was the deadliest terrorist attack in human history.

How this happened, why this happened, and what happened next compounds the tragedy.

Nineteen terrorists, most from Saudi Arabia, were part a radical Islamic terrorist organization called al-Qaeda “the Base”.  This was the name given the training camp for the radical Islamicists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani, was the primary organizer of the attack. Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi, was the leader and financier. Their plan was based upon an earlier failed effort in the Philippines.  It was mapped out in late 1998.  Bin Laden personally recruited the team, drawn from experienced terrorists.  They insinuated themselves into the U.S., with several attending pilot training classes.  Five-man teams would board the four planes, overpower the pilots, and fly them as bombs into significant buildings. 

They banked on plane crews and passengers responding to decades of “normal” hijackings.  They would assume the plane would be commandeered, flown to a new location, demands would be made, and everyone would live.  This explains the passivity on the first three planes.  Flight 93 was different, because it was delayed in its departure, allowing time for passengers to learn about the fate of the other planes.  Last minute problems also reduced the Flight 93 hijacker team to only four.

The driving force behind the attack was Wahhabism, a highly strict, anti-Western version of Sunni Islam.  

The Saudi Royal Family owes its rise to power to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792).  He envisioned a “pure” form of Islam that purged most worldly practices (heresies), oppressed women, and endorsed violence against nonbelievers (infidels), including Muslims who differed with his sect.  This extremely conservative and violent form of Islam might have died out in the sands of central Arabia were in not for a timely alliance with a local tribal leader, Muhammad bin Saud.

The House of Saud was just another minor tribe, until the two Muhammads realized the power of merging Sunni fanaticism with armed warriors.  Wahhab’s daughter married Saud’s son, merging their two blood lines to this day.  The House of Saud and its warriors rapidly expanded throughout the Arabia Peninsul fueled by Wahhabi fanaticism.  These various conflicts always included destruction of holy sites of rival sects and tribes.  While done in the name of “purification”, the result was erasing the physical touchstones of rival cultures and governments.

In the early 20^th Century, Saudi leader, ibn Saud, expertly exploited the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and alliances with European Powers, to consolidate his permanent hold over the Arabian Peninsula.  Control of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, gave the House of Saud the power to promote Wahhabism as the dominant interpretation of Sunni Islam.  This included internally contradictory components of calling for eradicating infidels while growing rich from Christian consumption of oil and pursuing lavish hedonism when not in public view.

In the mid-1970s Saudi Arabia used the flood of oil revenue to become the “McDonalds of Madrassas”.  Religious schools and new Mosques popped up throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.  This building boom had nothing to do with education and everything to do with spreading the cult of Wahhabism.  Pakistan became a major hub for turning Wahhabi madrassas graduates into dedicated terrorists.

Wahhabism may have remained a violent, dangerous, but diffused movement, except it found fertile soil in Afghanistan. 

Afghanistan was called the graveyard of empires as its rugged terrain and fierce tribal warriors thwarted potential conquerors for centuries.  In 1973, the last king of Afghanistan was deposed leading to years of instability.  In April 1978, the opposition Communist Party seized control in a bloody coup. The communist tried to brutally consolidate power, which ignited a civil war among factions supported by Pakistan, China, Islamists (known as the Mujahideen), and the Soviet Union.  Amidst the chaos, U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubbs was killed on February 14, 1979.

On December 24, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, killing their ineffectual puppet President, and ultimately bringing over 100,000 military personnel into the country.  What followed was a vicious war between the Soviet military and various Afghan guerrilla factions.  Over 2 million Afghans died.

The Reagan Administration covertly supported the anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents, primarily aiding the secular pro-west Northern Alliance.  Arab nations supported the Mujahideen.  Bin Laden entered the insurgent caldera as a Mujahideen financier and fighter.  By 1988, the Soviets realized their occupation had failed.  They removed their troops, leaving behind another puppet government and Soviet trained military.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Afghanistan was finally free.  Unfortunately, calls for reunifying the country by reestablishing the monarchy and strengthening regional leadership went unheeded.  Attempts at recreating the pre-invasion faction ravaged parliamentary system only led to new rounds of civil war. 

In September 1994, the weak U.S. response opened the door for the Taliban, graduates from Pakistan’s Wahhabi madrassas, to launch their crusade to take control of Afghanistan.  By 1998, the Taliban controlled 90% of the country. 

Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda warriors made Taliban-controlled territory in Afghanistan their new base of operations.  In exchange, Bin Laden helped the Taliban eliminate their remaining opponents.  This was accomplished on September 9, 2001, when suicide bombers disguised as a television camera crew blew-up Ahmad Shah Massoud, the charismatic, pro-west leader of the Northern Alliance.

Two days later, Bin Laden’s plan to establish al-Qaeda as the global leader of Islamic terrorism was implemented with hijacking four planes and turning them into guided bombs.

The 9-11 attacks, along with the earlier support against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was part of Bin Laden’s goal to lure infidel governments into “long wars of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender”. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the infidels, by "bleeding" them dry.  Bin Laden outlined his strategy of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy" in a 2004 tape released through Al Jazeera.

On September 14, amidst the World Trade Center rubble, President George W. Bush addressed those recovering bodies and extinguishing fires using a bullhorn:

“The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens”

A rescue worker yelled, “I can't hear you!”

President Bush spontaneously responded: “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Twenty-three days later, on October 7, 2001, American and British warplanes, supplemented by cruise missiles fired from naval vessels, began destroying Taliban operations in Afghanistan.

U.S. Special forces entered Afghanistan.  Working the Northern Alliance, they defeated major Taliban units. They occupied Kabul, the Afghan Capital on November 13, 2001.

On May 2, 2011, U.S. Special Forces raided an al-Qaeda compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, killing Osama bin Laden. 

How to End Radical Islam

[Also published in http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/islam-radical/2016/07/29/id/741177/]

 It is time for moderate forward looking Muslims to regain control of their religion.  They need to take historic steps to bring Islam into the 20^th Century, returning it to an honored place among the world’s great religions.

Slaughter in an Orlando Nightclub, slaughter on the streets of Nice, slaughter in Paris and in a Normandy church, slaughter at airports in Brussels and Istanbul, slaughter at a San Bernardino picnic, slaughter at Fort Hood, slaughter at the Boston Marathon, attacks on trains in France and Germany, the list is endless.  The weapons used were diverse – guns, trucks, pressure cookers, axes, knives, and bombs.  Only the motivation remained constant – jihad for Allah.

The threat and the fight are global.  Terror can now arrive anywhere, anytime, in any form. Some already label this World War III.  The problem is that increased drone strikes, bombing ISIS’ capital in Raqqa, Syria, or expanding intelligence gathering will not end the threat.  This is because every day millions of young boys attend radical Madrassas and learn how to hate, kill, and die.

In the mid-1970s Saudi Arabia used the flood of oil revenue to become the “McDonalds of Madrassas”.  Religious schools and new Mosques popped up throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.  This building boom had nothing to do with education and everything to do with spreading the cult of Wahhabism.

The Saudi Royal Family owes its rise to power to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792).  He envisioned a “pure” form of Islam that purged most worldly practices (heresies), oppressed women, and endorsed violence against nonbelievers (infidels), including Muslims who differed with his sect.  This extremely conservative and violent form of Islam might have died out in the sands of central Arabia were in not for a timely alliance with a local tribal leader, Muhammad bin Saud.

The House of Saud was just another minor tribe, until the two Muhammads realized the power of merging Sunni fanaticism with armed warriors.  Wahhab’s daughter married Saud’s son, merging their two blood lines to this day.  The House of Saud and its warriors rapidly expanded throughout the Arabia Peninsula and collided with Shi’ite and more secular Sunni powers. 

Saudi forces were defeated but rose again, fueled by Wahhabi fanaticism.  These various conflicts always included destruction of holy sites of rival sects and tribes.  While done in the name of “purification”, the result was erasing the physical touchstones of rival cultures and governments.

In the early 20^th Century, Saudi leader, ibn Saud, expertly exploited the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and alliances with European Powers, to consolidate his permanent hold over the Arabian Peninsula.  Control of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, gave the House of Saud the power to promote Wahhabism as the dominant interpretation of Sunni Islam.  This included internally contradictory components of calling for eradicating infidels while growing rich from Christian consumption of oil, and pursuing lavish hedonism when not in public view.

Unless Wahhabism is eliminated or moderated, the West is fighting a losing battle. 

The decline in oil revenue gives the West rare economic leverage.  It is time to convince the Saud family to convene an Islamic version of the Council of Nicaea.

In 325 Roman Emperor Constantine the Great convened a religious council in Nicaea (near modern Istanbul) to resolve various differences within Christianity.  This included consolidating and codifying beliefs, rituals, and the calendar of holy days and rites.  Over three hundred church officials and theologians attended.

While the Council of Nicaea did not resolve everything, it established a culture of dialogue and collaboration within Catholicism.  Christianity had its own wars and schisms, notably the Reformation, which was more about geopolitics than faith.  Isolated fanaticism and superstition led to the abuses from the persecution of Galileo to the Salem witch trails.  However, the framework and mindset was permanently in place for Western religions to move with the times and adapt as knowledge and culture advanced.  These forces of moderation and reason assure the continuous rise of civilization to this day and the marginalization and isolation of extremists.

Philosopher Eric Hoffer, in his famous work “The True Believer”, asserted, “the character and destiny of a group are often determined by its inferior elements.”  Reasonable people, spanning religion and ideology, are hoping Islam finds a way to isolate and diminish their forces of darkness.  It can only be done from within.

[Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and on Ronald Reagan’s White House Staff.  As Deputy Associate Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), he coordinated the Administration’s response to the Pan Am Flight 103 Bombing.  Mr. Faulkner has advised corporations and governments throughout the Middle East since 2002.]

Stopping Radical Islam

Also published at:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stopping-radical-islam-scot-faulkner

Forty world leaders, from every political and religious affiliation, led over a million people, from every political, ethnic, and religious affiliation, through the streets of Paris.  It was a vivid and historic show of solidarity for Western civilization and its freedoms.

What next?  Cynics have already said this high spirited unanimity will pass as politicians and normal people return to their daily lives. 

It does not have to be that way. 

There are strategic actions that can be taken to stop radical Islam, and its terrorist legions, in their tracks.

Cyber Warfare

It is time to shut down the social networks and websites used by radical Islam to recruit, fund raise, and mobilize. All internet services should ban websites associated with radical Islam.  Youtube and other media share sites should ban all images and videos that promote ISIS, Al Queada, BokoHaram, al-Shabaab, and all other terrorists groups. Except on legitimate news sites, these images should be banned the same way NAZI images are banned – across the globe.

All nations should launch a coordinated assault to crash and keep off the air all websites, servers, and communication technologies of violent Islamic groups.   There should also be a decision by all news outlets to not show any videos or messages from these groups.

Dismantle Sharia Controlled Zones

Western governments must dismantle radical Islamic “no entry” zones.  This can be done by passing laws enforcing the host country’s laws within all jurisdictions, and providing funds for law enforcement to be active and visible in these enclaves of hate.  Alternatively, Congress and other parliaments should threaten to end funding support of municipal governments that refuse to move against radical Islamic zones.

Over the last decade, Islamic radicals have established these “no entry” zones in major Western cities.  Block after block of major cities, in Paris, London, Detroit, Minneapolis, and many others, are ruled by radical Islamic councils.  Sharia law is enforced and holds itself exempt from host country laws and jurisdiction.

Alhurra, and other courageous news outlets, have exposed these beacheads of radical Islam.  This includes recording “no entry” residents proudly declaring that they are not immigrants, but “colonists for the Caliphate”.  These enclaves are recruiting hubs and staging areas for terrorism.  They exist because the West values religious freedom.  They exploit the West’s tolerance and naiveté to promote intolerance and hate.

End Radical Islamic Madrassas

Wahhabi curriculum must be ended in all Islamic religious schools.  National and local governments must review and approve curriculum, educational materials, and faculty for these schools.  They are the primary incubators of treason against host governments, and for fermenting terrorism designed to destroy Western civilization and its values of freedom. 

This is a global war for hearts and minds. The West is fighting a losing battle unless these poisonous training sites are closed.

Wahhabism promotes the most radical interpretation of the Koran.  This includes complete oppression of women, hatred of the West, and approval of jihad against the West and even against more moderate Muslims. Wahhabi leaders have approved destruction and desecration of religious and historic sites across the world.

Promote Islamic Moderates

Western media needs to promote moderate Muslim leaders.  Western universities, think tanks, and other forums need to bring Muslim voices of reason into high profile public dialogues.

Recently, some Islamic leaders and commentators have promoted the need for the equivalent of a Council of Nicea or Vatican II to bring their religion into the modern world.  Some have referenced aggiornamento, a Catholic term meaning a sustained effort to embrace modernity in both doctrine and rite.

There are also substantial Muslim groups, such as the Indonesian- based Pengurus Besar Nahdlatul Ulama (“Awakening of Scholars”), the largest Muslim organization in the world, that promote a peaceful and forward looking interpretation of the Koran.  These groups need larger stages upon which to counter the radicals.

Use Oil as a weapon

America needs to use its growing energy independence as a strategic weapon.  American and Canadian oil needs to be pumped and subsidized until oil prices are driven below $30 barrel.  The West can then do to the oil producing Arab nations what they have done to the West since the mid-1970s.  The West can dictate ending funding of radical Islamic Madrassas, ending banking and funding of terrorist groups, and ending safe havens for terrorists. That would be exchanged for stabilizing and increasing oil prices.  If the Arab states refuse to work with the West, they will see their billions in revenue evaporate back in to the desert. 

This is war – civilization must win.

[Scot Faulkner has served in executive positions in the government and the private sector.  He has worked in the Middle East since 2002, including Bahrain, Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE. http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/ ]

 

The Icarus Presidency

Irony abounds as events unravel the best laid plans of the Obama Administration. A terrorist attack made the Bush Presidency. Now a terrorist attack is unmaking Obama’s.

It was the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 that launched President George W. Bush into a heroic trajectory. The attack rallied America and the world to a Presidency that had been born in controversy and mired in mediocrity. Emboldened by a real mandate, Bush and the Republican Party played out their strong hand, winning the 2002 off-year elections and galloping to a solid re-election in 2004. However, their hubris made them sloppy. Poorly planned adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq became expensive and bloody quagmires. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina exposed epic incompetence and the failings of a crony-ridden Administration. The Republicans imploded, losing the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Except for the Tea Party boomlet of 2010, they have wandered in the political wilderness ever since.

The April 15, 2013 terrorist attack in Boston is having the opposite effect on President Obama. His Administration began with a solid win wrapped in idealism and the promise of historic changes. Despite the Tea Party Congressional backlash of 2010, Obama moved his agenda and his world view forward.

After his decisive re-election on November 6, 2012, Obama took full advantage of shell-shocked Republicans. He outmaneuvered Republicans on tax increases and the debt ceiling, but stumbled on maximizing the Sequester’s impact to support his assertion that “government is the solution”. His Sequester missteps, and the desert whirlwind swirling around the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, seemed to be contained in the political margins of Fox News and conservative talk radio. Then two bombs destroyed the calm of Boston. Their ripple effects have become a tsunami potentially pushing Obama into early lame duck status or worse.

Obama’s world view, trumpeted by the mainstream media, is that once you eliminate Osama bin Laden the global war on terror can move to the back burner. On May 2, 2011, Obama took credit for a nearly ten year search and destroy mission led by career intelligence officials. With Osama dead, and remote controlled drones picking off terrorists at will, America was safe.

The Boston attack jarred Americans back to reality. Questions about CIA and FBI complacency, causing them to miss early warning signs, have yet to be adequately addressed. Obama’s and the mainstream media’s rush to dismissively compare the Tsarnaev brothers with the Columbine shooters opened the door for questioning the Administration’s competence and their motivations.

Obama’s failure to control perceptions about Boston are echoed in Obama’s containment strategy on the Benghazi attack, which is falling apart every minute highly credible career officials remain in front of Congressional and media microphones. Was Obama’s rush to brand the Benghazi attack as a demonstration gone tragically wrong part of a larger scheme to create a false parallel world? Once Americans start looking at Osama’s death as a side show, not the finale, in the war on terror then everything is open for inquiry. Did Obama and Clinton hamper rescue efforts and then investigations in order to maintain the fiction of “game over”? Did intelligence agencies succumb to this “game over” mentality and not ring any alarm bells on the Tsarnaevs and their friends? Is Obama covering something up? Did Obama’s obsession with the “game over” story line lead to American deaths in Benghazi and Boston?

Obama’s growing problems with Benghazi and Boston have other ripple effects. The moment terrorists can move at will and undetected between America and their home bases immigration reform becomes less about pandering for Hispanic votes and more about homeland security. The moment terrorists combine pressure cookers, toy batteries, and fireworks into devices to cause mass carnage; gun control becomes less about removing weapons from violent people and more about the violent people themselves. Obama’s winter policy momentum has bogged down in reality.

Obama’s wax wings are melting under the bright light of scrutiny. Obamacare, his one soaring accomplishment, is now crumbling into a morass of “devil is in the detail” disclosures. The Stock Market may be reaching new heights, but the work force is falling to new lows as Americans take poor paying part time jobs and watch their spending capabilities shrink.

All these reality checks are breaching the rhetorical fortifications of Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and their media acolytes. The moment mainstream Americans openly wonder about what is really going on, there is no secondary line of defense behind which Obama and his supporters can regroup. Republicans sense an opportunity, but they remain in a wilderness of their own making with little interest in becoming self-aware or competent.

Leaders across America’s political spectrum desperately need to go to rehab. Until then, they will continue their respective plummets.

100% - A Solution?

Containers can be scary. Containers are the vehicles of villainy in films like “Sum of All Fears” and “Lord of War”. In this imaginary world, terrorists fill containers with nuclear bombs, armaments, and warriors, then ship them into our unsuspecting and unguarded ports.

In the real world, this has never happened. However, drug dealers and human traffickers are able to move contraband into America with dismaying regularity.

Over 30,000 containers arrive at U.S. ports every day. We are the world’s largest economy. Our economy relies on timely arrival of material from all over the world. It also relies on seamless interactions between U.S. companies and their overseas partners. Any disruption of this vast supply chain would cripple us.

Therein lies the dilemma. How to be safe without crippling our economy?

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, the Congress passed various laws mandating increased port security. The 9-11 Commission recommended 100 per cent inspection of containers before they reach American soil. In 2007, the Congress passed this mandate.

Now the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report stating that the 100 per cent inspection mandate might actually make our ports less safe. They assert that 100 per cent inspection is (1) very difficult to achieve, (2) hamper cooperation from our trading partners, and most importantly (3) divert resources from looking at truly at-risk containers and shippers. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08538.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08533t.pdf

Welcome to the world of risk management.

The U.S. Customers and Border Protection Service (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security has been highly successful in working with our trade partners to improve port security standards and practices. This includes an “alphabet soup” of organizations and programs: the World Customs Organization (WCO), the Container Security Initiative (CSI), Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and the framework of standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade (SAFE Framework).

The bottom line – not all containers, ports, or shippers are created equal. To treat every container and shipper as an equal threat would mean having inspectors devote an equal amount of time to every container in every port. In reality, there are some very safe and secure ports and many well-managed and secure shippers. 100 percent inspection would be like police breaking into every home in a city looking for a robber they suspected may be hiding in just one neighborhood.

The other reality is that CBP has to depend upon other nations’ customs units to comply. There are 173 members of the WCO and, as of July 2008, 154 of them have signed agreements to implement the SAFE Framework.

The SAFE Framework is not 100 percent inspection. It is an approach based upon state-of-the-art inspection techniques and the highest standards of risk management. Risk management is used by companies and governments the world over. It identifies, assesses, and prioritizes risk and then develops the means to reduce and eliminate that risk. Risk management is used in assuring the safety of aviation, food, pharmaceuticals, and every manufactured product. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it assure the integrity of what we use and consume? Absolutely.

Think of your home. You can never prevent every accident. You and your family would have to wear heavy protective clothing and add guardrails and safety enclosures around everything from your stairs to your toaster. It would be prohibitively expensive, but worse, it would cripple your daily lives to the point of nothing getting done. However, you can take basic, ongoing, precautions that eliminate hazards and prevent accidents. You can also raise awareness among family members, and educate them in safe procedures, so they act in a safe manner. Splinters and paper cuts may still happen, but serious injuries will be avoided.

Port operations are the same thing. A few years ago, I worked with Dubai Customs on conducting critical risk self-assessments (CRSA) to assure port security. They were very focused as (1) they handled over 75% of all shipping in the Persian Gulf, (2) Dubai was committed to becoming the top center for world trade, and (3) they were only 100 miles from the Iranian coast. Zero tolerance of security gaps was their goal. CRSA was their approach, not 100 percent inspection. To this day, no security issues have arisen, while port operations and Dubai’s reputation as a leading trade center continue to expand.

The US needs its overseas partners to embrace the SAFE Framework to assure their port security. It depends on the hundreds of legitimate cargo companies to embrace improved inspection standards to maintain the integrity of packing and shipping containers. The GAO is correct in stating that demanding 100 per cent inspections at all foreign ports is methodologically unsound, undermines these critical partnerships, and focuses scarce resources on the wrong problem. I am a big fan of Lou Dobbs, but in this one instance, he and the 9-11 Commission are wrong. We should worry more about terrorists bringing in weapons on a chartered fishing boat from the Caribbean than in a Maersk container shipped from Sydney.

Fear & Loathing in Frankfurt

Americans need to get over their fear of foreigners.

A few weeks ago an advertisement featuring Rachael Ray wearing a scarf was pulled because of criticism that she was wearing “Islamic dress”. The advertiser claimed it wasn’t Islamic inspired, but pulled the ad anyway. The outrage from various commentators and bloggers was just not worth the hassle and potential consumer backlash.

While eating a Big Mac at the Frankfurt Airport I saw at least a half-dozen teenage girls wearing this same scarf. Yes, it is probably Islamic, as several of these girls spoke Arabic. But it was clearly a popular item as an American blond girl was wearing one on my flight from Cairo. So, the bloggers were right, the scarf has Arabic, and possibly Islamic origins. So what?

Teenage girls embrace new fashions on nearly a weekly basis. I can attest to this with my own fifteen-year-old. I imagine Rachael Ray’s handlers thought she should wear something that appealed to younger viewers. It’s called marketing and positioning of a brand.

Why are some people so afraid of an Arab scarf? What’s next – banning pita bread? Middle Eastern style has been a part of America since the early 19th Century. Victorian homes and turn-of-the-century advertising posters incorporated “arabesque” designs. Films like “Lawrence of Arabia” have captured our imagination. Since the first Gulf War, increasing numbers of Americans have served in the Middle East and brought back an interest in its culture. That is one of the reasons hummus is served at cocktail parties and why Arabic music has found its way into the songs of Sting, the Pussy Cat Dolls, and beer ads.

America is a “nation of immigrants”. We hold numerous celebrations relating to our respective countries of origin. So it is truly ironic that we are also the most parochial people to ever populate a world power. Aside from Hispanics, few Americans speak another language. Only a small fraction of our population travels abroad. Many of our high school students cannot find Canada on a map, let alone Qatar.

A certain amount of parochialism is one of our greatest attributes. Our civic culture focuses on our neighbors and our local community. It is the underpinning of our democracy and federal system. But America is part of an increasingly integrated, and interdependent, global system. Our greatest weakness is our inability to understand, cope, and leverage this phenomenon. This more severe parochialism has fostered a growing fear of foreigners and their cultures.

I am not advocating we give up our grounding in our communities in order to know the leaders of nations we may never visit. I am advocating that we realize that most of the world is a safe place filled with people who, while speaking a different language, worshipping a different deity, and wearing different cloths, are fundamentally like us. They love their families, they work hard, and they are focused on their own villages and communities.

Anyone traveling outside the US quickly realizes that our country is rarely on the minds of people around the world. It is rarely mentioned in major national and regional news media. That is not something to be feared, but is something to factor into the way we view the world. What is happening around the globe is not always about us. It is about maintaining civility and a level of liberty and security that allows people to freely interact and for commerce to be conducted.

One of the sad legacies of the Bush era is their inspiring Americans to be more fearful of the world. I remember in February 2003 when the Administration wanted Americans to cower in our homes surrounded by duct tape and plastic sheets. At that time my family and I were enjoying a cruise on the Nile. We felt safer there than we do walking near the U.S. Capitol.

Fear has become an integral part of politics in America. Questionable candidates have been elected and dubious laws have been passed in the name of protecting us from an array of bogeymen. Yes, there are psychotic despots who are doing terrible things to their countrymen, and there are religious nut-jobs who like to kill at random. There are ways to deal with this dangerous minority. Making Americans afraid of other cultures and assailing globalization is not how we should proceed.

Get a Life

On April 1, Pica Paperdoll, Glitteractica Cookie, and an array of other avatars, attended a virtual version of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The committee’s stated purpose was to delve into possible terrorist use of Second Life, and other virtual reality environments, for online recruiting. One could debate the novelty versus substance elements of the hearing, but I want to raise a different issue.

Early in 1995, I recommended that every hearing room in Congress be wired to allow for live video and audio transmission. Many of these meeting rooms already had an array of audio capabilities, some going back to the days of radio.

My plan was simple – install two small robotic cameras in each hearing room. One camera would face the Members, the other would face the witnesses. In the era of the early Internet, I recommended offering these feeds to CSPAN. “We could have CSPAN 2-50”, I quipped. Later, the technology would allow for direct feeds to the Internet via “webcasting”.

My idea was met with cries of horror from nearly all Members. “We don’t want the hearings to be that public!” was echoed by Members from both parties.

Public hearings should be public. Most Congressional hearing rooms hold between 50-200 people. A few can hold up to 400. That means that only a microscopic few out of 300 million citizens get to attend and witness one of the most the fundamental functions of Congress.

CSPAN does a wonderful job broadcasting hearings, but the numbers are against it. On an average day, when Congress is in session, there are approximately 45 House and Senate committee hearings and meetings. Some of these have witnesses, some are mark-ups and votes on legislation. CSPAN may broadcast two of these hearings a day. That means, at best, normal citizens are able to watch maybe 8 out of 180 meetings a week, or 4% of what is really happening.

The avatar hearing proves that Congress can webcast hearings. I live in tiny Jefferson County, West Virginia with a population of 48,000 people. Three years ago the county government spent $4,000 to wire two meeting rooms for webcasting. Now every meeting is online, both real time and through a permanent archive.

If Jefferson County can do it, why can’t the Congress?

Losing Hearts & Minds

Karen Hughes, the soon to be former Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy, leaves behind a disastrous record. I only hope James Glassman is able to undo her legacy and rebuild our image.

What is especially sad is that the Bush Administration is trumpeting Ms. Hughes increasing her budget from $616 million to $845 million. Spending more for something that is not delivering is not the kind of success indicator we should applaud.

One of the final straws that ended Ms. Hughes’ tenure was the Pew Research survey on America’s image abroad. The survey found that majorities or pluralities in 33 of the 47 countries polled expressed a dislike for American ideas about democracy.

What is worse, the Pew survey showed a distinct decline in support for America. This included both more countries falling away from the US and sharp declines in key Muslim nations.



Ms. Hughes’ failure is only one of the many indicators showing that the Bush Administration has made every blunder imaginable in their war against terrorism.

First, Bush and his advisors have never addressed the root cause of terrorism – Wahabism. This obtuse view of Islam brought the Saud family to power in Arabia after World War I. In the 1970’s they began using their oil profits to promote this movement on a global scale. During my years in Africa, I watched as Saudi Arabia became the “McDonalds of Maddrassas”, building schools and mosques everywhere. This West-hating dogma has become one of the prime breeding grounds for Al Qaeda. Bush should confront the Saudis and find ways to derail their militant missionaries.

Secondly, the Bush Administration promotes “democracy” over “liberty”. This is a recipe for disaster in countries that have neither. It has led to Hamas taking over Palestine. Bush and his advisors have forgotten or never learned that economic liberty leads to other liberties, and these liberties will ultimately lead to democracy. History shows that the rise of towns and the merchant class led Europe out of the “dark ages”. Only after centuries of capitalism did democracy take hold.

One example of forgetting history is our development policy in Egypt. Starting in the mid-1990’s USAID worked with the Egyptian government in building its private sector through a series of highly successful programs. My company was one of the vendors who assisted in this effort. The Egyptian participants enthusiastically embraced management best practices so they could become more competitive in the global economy. However, in 2004, Bush officials, notably Elizabeth Cheney, terminated all these private sector programs in favor of elementary school support. They forgot that a large, educated but unemployed, populace is the easiest to radicalize. They also forgot that, in every culture throughout history, progress and liberty arose through growth in the merchant or business classes, not from government.

When I travel to the Persian Gulf I see vibrant market economies and safe stable regimes. Dubai is one of the wonder cities of the world showcasing technology, architecture, and management that are on the cutting edge of the 21st century. This is all happening less than a hundred miles from the Iranian coast. Dubai is an example of why it is important to have economic freedom that fuels economic vitality. Instead of sending Americans abroad to promote America, we should send Americans to learn about Arab successes.