KSM Trial = FAIL

When Kid Various was a, well, kid - his grandfather used to take him to Madison Square Garden to see the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus... The Greatest Show On Earth!

Well - the circus is coming back to town, in the form of the trial of Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, mastermind of the September 11 attacks. This has got the worst idea to come out of the Obama White House yet (and that's saying something.) It literally makes no sense whatsoever.

Pat Buchanan, who seems ever more determined to consign himself to the lunatic fringe of political debate (Poland was asking for it...) writes a surprisingly cogent piece on just why bringing KSM into a civil court is the height of ridiculousness. Short answer: He's not supposed to be there!!!

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

Good point Pat! Here's another:

Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?

And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?

Jules Crittenden notes that empaneling the jury should be hysterical!

Once you get past ”Do you know anyone who died in the Twin Towers” or ”Were you in New York, or in the United States of America, or on Planet Earth on Sept. 11, 2001″ and “Do you believe al-Qaeda poses a threat to western civilization or just to innocent commuters,” that kind of thing, then you get some other tricky particulars. Muslims, thumbs up or thumbs down? Jews and Christians, OK or not OK? Never mind the dhimmi, what about atheists? Very haram. I’m guessing anyone who ever saw any vid of Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl getting their heads sawn off is immediately disqualified. Highly prejudicial. Ditto the jets-hitting-buildings, people-dropping, buildings-collapse footage.

and he notes, this effectively ends the war. Or at least, it ends the war for us - our enemies won't see it that way.

The Department of Justice, by determining these men have full constitutional rights and that they should be able to pursue them here, has also opened the door to all kinds of civil actions based on notions of unlawful imprisonment and harsh treatment. Could they really deprive these men of their right to seek redress? That what they were accused of are war crimes is no longer relevant. What they are accused of have been reduced to simple criminal acts, the defendants to criminal suspects, engaged in alleged criminal conspiracies. The GWOT effectively is over, at least our involvement in it. Al-Qaeda can keep playing, we’re all done.

The decision to bring KSM to trial in New York isn't even internally consistent. It's not like they said, "Evil Chimpy McBushitler created these military tribunals and they're not acceptable so we are trying all enemy combatants." No. Holder said some enemy combatants will face military tribunals, but KSM and four others will be tried in a civilian court. Why? What's diference between them and the others? By what legal criteria are they judged differently [CRICKETS CHIRPING]

Even leaving aside the stupendously bad decision to give enemy combatants access to constitutional rights (which they have never had previously.) The decision makes no sense politically. What does the president get out of this? Because Kid Various sees a lot of downside but absolutely zero upside except making the ACLU happy. As James Taranto notes:

You have to wonder if the Obama administration and its supporters bothered to think through the implications of their decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other enemy combatants as civilians. An immediate effect, and one that will only be strengthened by an actual trial or trials, is to bring 9/11 back into the public consciousness. That can't be good for President Obama.

Add to that this idea which should make the president wet the bed at night. If Holder came to Kid Various with this ludicrous proposal, The Kid would have just one question. "What if KSM walks?"

[HOLDER] Oh, mister president, that won't happen! We have so much evidence. No jury would...

[KV] Blah, blah, blah - WHAT...IF...HE...WALKS?

What, KSM doesn't get presumption of innocence now? Guiltier men than him have walked free. No matter how remote a possibility, if KSM walks, Obama's presidency won't be worth shit.

Kid Various just gets the sinking feeling that this hasn't been thought through very thoroughly.

Two Major Developments

With the health care bill, the Ft. Hood shootings and the interminable dithering over Afghanistan (victory is a choice Mr. President) two major developments in the war of the Enlightenment vs. its discontents have gone almost unremarked. Both have to do with the U.S. losing its ability intervene in major war theaters.

One, Iran has taken a giant leap forward towards becoming a regional hegemon and boxing the U.S. out of the Middle East with a major advance in weaponizing its nuclear program. It has been developing an advanced "implosion trigger" for its nuclear weapons.

This is bad news. It means that as soon as Iran successfully tests a bomb (if they even test one, remember the first time we detonated a uranium gun-barrel type bomb was over Hiroshima, so reliable was the design) they will immediately be able to mate the weapon to one of their Shahab missiles, capable of reaching Israel. If Iran develops a solid-fueled rocket as well, they'll have a potential thermonuclear launch-on-warning capability just like the five members of the Security Council.

Second, the "credibility dominoes" are continuing to fall. Because of U.S. weakness vis a vis Iraq, Afghanistan, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Israel - Taiwan has now concluded that it cannot depend on the U.S. as a credible deterrent to Chinese aggression.

In the latest edition of its biennial military review, the Taiwan Ministry of Defense released a metaphorical bombshell. It noted that with China’s continuing and unrelenting military buildup, “it can now deter foreign militaries from assisting Taiwan.” This, of course, is a euphemism for deterring the United States. Since the U.S. deployed an aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Strait a decade ago when conditions heated on both sides of the divide, China has vowed to thwart any American military assistance for Taiwan. And if the report is accurate, that moment may have arrived.

Because of this perception, the Taiwanese will be forced to adopt a more conciliatory policy toward the Chinese, and Chinese influence will grow in Asia at the expense of the U.S.

Both of these situations are bad news for the U.S. At this moment, America's security strategy rests on the bedrock assumption that it can shape the international environment to better enhance our own security. Because we are the only global power, with the capability to project force into any region of the world, we force the players in those theaters to react to our moves - rather than we reacting to theirs. Both these developments alter that balance. And the more it is demonstrated that our actions will be reactive to the regional hegemons, the more pressure is applied to regional actors to accommodate those regional hegemons, thus further weakening our position, and constraining us to be even more reactive than proactive.

This is what a "forward strategy of apology" gets you.

The Thuraya War

Interesting post on the effect of Thuraya satellite phones on mobile, low-intensity desert conflict.

Desert warfare, as practiced by the Chadians and Darfurians, is based on mobility and surprise. The Landcruiser is the basic unit of military force. The possession of a Thuraya elevates a commander into a potential leader.

Tactical coordination is key to a successful operation. Before the Thuraya phone, guerrilla operations needed tight discipline and extremely careful planning. More often, the commanders gambled on surprise and the momentum of battle, relying on their prowess in combat to carry the day. Today, with the Thuraya phone, commanders in distant theatres can coordinate their actions. Or they can assemble forces from different places at very short order. They only need to agree on that day’s operation—tomorrow’s can be planned tomorrow.

Kid Various has some experience with this in that his political career spanned the time when cell phones first came into widespread use. He can remember a time when political campaigns were waged without the use of cell phones. It was a different world. You youngin's don't know, but back in the day, everything had to be meticulously planned. Really, really well. No, really. Even small events have a lot of moving parts, and it was real easy for everything to fall apart if everyone was not drilled to the plan. Nowadays, things can be put together on the fly. You expect to be adaptable. Unexpected events that would previously have caused event failure can now be adapted to in minutes. A totally different world.