Simplicity: The Key to Effectively Securing Mobile Communications

From my article published on the Samsung Business Blog:

 

Whether you’re running a Fortune 500 company or a small business, managing financial transactions or treating patients, your mobile device is what you use to operationalize your life. The power is not just the mobile device itself, but also the mobile communications that the device enables.

 

There are millions of applications available to users across the myriad of “app stores” that exist for our devices. No matter how clever these applications, it still bears reiterating that the most important “killer app” on any smartphone remains interpersonal communications via phone calls and messaging.

 

Phone call, a killer application? Think about it. Phone calls are used for all types of conversations, including those too sensitive to put into writing. Most people assume that their calls are fleeting, and other than a time stamp, do not have a record. But any communication, whether data-driven or voice-based, is high in value to the adversaries who should not have access to it.

 

Jeremy Kroll, CEO of K2 Intelligence, puts it best: “The risks are quite high, as attacks in which cell phone calls are listened to and text messages are intercepted come from many sources, including competitive business espionage, organized crime and nation states around the world. While mobile communication exploits are amongst the fastest growing attacks, historically they are amongst the least defended.”

 

The rest of the article can be found here: https://www.samsungbusinessblog.com/2015/07/21/simplicity-the-key-to-effectively-securing-mobile-communications/

Fox Business Coverage of Cyber Risks

I'd like to commend the Fox Business Network (FBN) for their regular coverage of cyber security topics.

Most recently, FBN dedicated an hour to a special report on cyber threats and emerging cyber security technologies in which both Vaultive and KoolSpan were featured. 

The special report included several segments:

'Threat 2K' (this is the report in which Vaultive and KoolSpan are featured):

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2416062520001

'Hash Crash Backlash' (a report on the cyber threat to financial markets):

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2416062521001

'At Risk' (a report on the cyber threat to critical infrastructure):

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2416023497001

Cybersecurity roundtable 'Securing the Future':

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2416076657001

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2416090084001

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2416076658001

Cloud Computing and Data Residency Laws: Irreconcilable differences?

Is it possible for companies take advantage of the cost efficiencies of cloud computing and still comply with the diverse set of international data residency laws?

Below is an article of mine that was just published in Cloud Computing.

Cloud Computing and Data Residency Laws

Cloud service providers store data all over the globe, and are constantly moving that data from one datacenter to the next for reasons as wide-ranging as cost considerations and redundancy requirements. Does this mean that the requirements outlined in varying data residency laws and privacy regulations are directly at odds with how cloud computing works?

The question is an especially delicate one when the cloud service provider stores and processes data in a jurisdiction that is perceived to have far less stringent privacy and data protection requirements - or may allow government agencies far broader data subpoena powers. Since the cloud computing model relies on distributed infrastructure to generate cost and flexibility benefits for customers, building a datacenter in each data residency jurisdiction quickly becomes cost-prohibitive. And, applying a set of constraints to the movement of data introduces an additional layer of complexity that further erodes the value proposition of cloud computing for customers.

Just as cloud computing represents a novel way of delivering IT computing and functionality, a new model for maintaining ownership and direct control of data in the cloud is increasingly required. However, this new model requires that the encryption mechanism is maintained externally and independently of the cloud service provider's environment, and that data is encrypted before it is sent to the cloud.

Here is the link to the rest of the article: Complete Article in Cloud Computing Journal

A New Approach to Cyber Defense

It is increasingly clear that cyber attacks imperil our national security and economic future. Yet while it is obvious that new defensive measures are needed, the remedies policy makers instinctively reach for are nearly all inappropriate. Scott Borg, Director and Chief Economist of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a non-profit research institute, and I wrote this article together to present a new approach for how we should think about cyber defense. Here is a link to the article published today on Fox Business: http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/04/03/new-approach-to-cyber-defense/

A Brief History of Security Innovation. Where do we go from here?

The Information Security industry has evolved through a complete cycle of innovation and stagnation over the last 15 years and we are entering the second golden age of IT security. However, there are forces at work that are inhibiting the current wave of security innovation that we must pay attention to and keep under control, or this wave will not develop its full potential. We will all be worse off as a result.

Remember 1990s? Al Gore had just invented the Internet. Start-up capital was free (www.dogfood.com anyone?). Business people were America's heroes and entrepreneurs were even more revered. New business models promised to change everything; "bricks and mortars" were so 20th Century, revenue was irrelevant, portals were the future, and it was all about eyeballs. However, this Wild West era of the Internet also fostered the golden age of security innovation. New categories of solutions emerged, such as Firewalls, Intrusion Detection Systems, Vulnerability Assessment tools, Managed Security Services and many others. Each category had multiple VC funded competitors and market forces determined winners and losers.

The golden age ended with the near simultaneous bursting of the dot-com bubble, the crash of the telecoms market and a string of corporate scandals that almost overnight changed America's perception of business people from heroes and risk takers to criminals. New beasts emerged, strange creatures called Sarbanes-Oxley, GLBA, HIPAA and others. Our vocabulary changed. We no longer cared about security, only compliance mattered.

In the ensuing years we would come to know what compliance meant. The compliance-driven world achieved some good through added emphasis to data archival, encryption in selected situations, and improved governance and accountability. In another sense it simply meant automated checklists and the nature of checklist-based spending is that it shifted resources from true security-based decision making. I understood that we had entered a dark age of security the first time I heard a corporate Chief Security Officer tell me, "I don't care how much more secure it makes us. My budget is dedicated to getting us ‘in compliance', whatever that means. If it is not required for compliance, I'm not buying. " The VCs listened and invested in compliance start-ups. Security people everywhere shuddered and had nightmares that armies of CPAs suddenly became "security" entrepreneurs.

Corporate America stopped thinking about security while in the pursuit of compliance. However, technology continued to advance, often advancing more in the consumer world than in the business world. Broadband became ubiquitous, Web 2.0 technologies appeared, social media attracted millions, smartphones started replacing laptops, and the Cloud emerged as an easy cost-effective way to deliver IT services. The way governments, businesses and consumers use technology changed.

Information Security is now forced to catch up, and as a result, we are now entering the second great wave of security innovation. We are already seeing the new pioneers beginning to make their mark in critical areas such as mobility security and cloud security, among others. The current wave of security innovation has the potential to surpass the first wave in terms of impact on both corporate customers and retail consumers.

What are the risks that may slow or stop this wave? The first is the general economic environment as IT security budgets face increased pressure. A second risk is relative scarcity of angel and venture capital. Start-up capital is still too difficult to raise for too many companies. A third is the disappearance of independent publicly traded security companies, such as McAfee and ArcSight. Companies like these play a critical role in the security market ecosystem as natural acquirers of innovative security start-ups. With fewer potential buyers, fewer "liquidity events" will result, and VCs and other early-stage investors will be even less willing to back security start-ups. A fourth risk, is an ever increasing role of government in the information security market. Government spending has increased dramatically relative to corporate spending. Additionally, the normal order of things in which the commercial market leads and government organizations follow in technology adoption was perverted when we shifted priorities to compliance over security. Unfortunately, too many companies are still too accustomed to deferring decisions that they should be making to government regulators and bureaucrats.

A Possible Historical Reversal: Iran, Obama, Jews and the Democratic Party

Iranian Nuclear Capabilities May Enable Another Holocaust and the Jewish Vote May Be In-play for the First Time in Modern American History

By Elad Yoran

Jewish people were amongst the earliest settlers from Europe to the New World. Since before the American colonies declared their independence in 1776, Jews were prominent members of American society. Early American Jewish society was noted for its political diversity. During the Civil War, Jews living in the South joined the Confederacy alongside their non-Jewish neighbors and fought against the Union Army, which included Jews from northern states. However, this political diversity changed with the wave of Jewish immigrants that came to the United States during the last decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th Century. Since then, Jews have consistently voted Democratic by overwhelming margins, historically over 70% since 1916.(1) Political historians note that Roosevelt’s awareness of the solidity of Jewish support in the 1940 Presidential election may have reduced leverage for Jewish leaders to influence US policy regarding destruction of the rail lines leading to the concentration and death camps, despite evidence of the atrocities being committed.(2) A few rare elections have provided more “balance” in which Republican candidates garnered 30% or more of the Jewish vote, with the high water mark being Ronald Reagan in 1980 with 39%. Given these historical trends, is it possible that the Jewish vote may be in play in 2010 and 2012? Also, given that Jews make up approximately 2% of the US population, does it really matter?(3) The answer to the second question is yes. If the answer to the first is also yes, then upcoming elections may be tipped in the Republican direction. Furthermore, if the shift proves more than a temporary phenomenon it could mean the end of a century-long relationship between the Democratic Party and American Jews.

Though only two percent of the US population, one important reason the Jewish vote matters is that Jews are concentrated in critical swing states: Florida (more than 650,000), Pennsylvania (nearly 300,000), Ohio (nearly 150,000) and New Jersey (nearly 500,000), where a small shift in voting patterns could tip the election. New York and California are not normally considered swing states, but with more than 1.6 million Jews in New York and 1.2 million in California, a meaningful shift in Jewish voting patterns could put them in play. Other states, including Massachusetts (approximately 275,000), Maryland (approximately 235,000) and Illinois (approximately 280,000) are less likely to be impacted by a shift in Jewish voting patterns as they are too solidly for one party.(4) A second reason this matters is that Jews are disproportionately large contributors to political parties and candidates. As is the case with Jewish voting patterns, Jewish political contributions are overwhelmingly made to the Democratic Party.

It is important to note that the Jewish population pays attention to a wide range of issues, not just Israel and its security. Furthermore, it is not known where Israel ranks on the list of priorities of American Jews, nor do we imply that Jews are the only ones who care about Israel. Americans of diverse backgrounds, socio-economic status, and religions care about and support Israel. However, for the sake of this article, we will speculate how “Jewish issues” specifically dealing with Israel affect Jewish voting patterns.

Jews and the election of 2008
Many traditional Jewish issues were prominent in 2008, the most notable of which pertained to Israel’s security. In the spring of 2005, Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip and as a result suffered a three-year barrage of near-incessant rocket fire, terrorizing the lives of civilians in southern Israeli towns, such as Sderot and Ashkelon. The Gaza situation deteriorated until January 2009 when Israeli forces temporarily entered the area, stopping (thus far) Hamas from firing rockets at Israeli civilians. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel fought a small-scale war in which the entire population of northern Israel, including large cities such as Haifa, was at risk to Hezbollah’s larger and more destructive rockets. Under normal circumstances, these events would be of utmost concern for anyone concerned about Israel’s security. However, by the 2008 summer presidential campaign season, these incidents took on even greater significance, because both terrorist organizations are proxies of Iran. By 2008, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had long since infamously denied the Holocaust and declared that Israel should be, “wiped out from the map of the world.”(5) These threats, when coupled with Iran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear capabilities, became existential, creating the possibility of another Holocaust.

It seems logical that John McCain would have appealed to Jewish voters given he echoed outgoing President Bush’s demonstrated track record of being strong on Israel’s security, whereas Barack Obama was a relatively inexperienced figure with uncertain and inconsistent positions. On the issue of Iran, Obama’s willingness to engage without preconditions left him vulnerable to being portrayed as weak and naïve by Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and McCain in the general election. In response, Obama vacillated with enough ambiguity and “left every option on the table”, the customary euphemism for military action, to create an impression of strength, especially for the growing numbers who wanted to believe in him.

Candidate Barack Obama, sensing that he needed to burnish his pro-Israel credentials, visited Israel in July 2008. In a well-televised interview, while standing in front of a house that had been destroyed by terrorist rockets, Obama declared that he would take any action to protect his wife and children: “The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if -- I don't even care if I was a politician. If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”(6) This image of Obama in Sderot was interpreted by many American Jews as evidence that Obama would be strong on Israel, essentially eroding the distinction between the candidates on this issue.

All Issues Overshadowed by the Economy
The economic collapse in September 2008 was a boon to the Obama campaign. It consumed the available oxygen and left all other issues, including Iran and Israel’s security, neglected. Polls at the time indicated that on these other issues John McCain was at least Obama’s equal.(7) While Obama was not an economics-minded individual (as much as he is a social policy-minded individual), there is no doubt that he seized the issue with force of eloquence that his rival could not match. Swept into office with lofty oratory skills and an adoring media that was all too ready (and not discouraged by the candidate) to compare him with perhaps the greatest of all Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Obama entered office with outsized expectations to match his rhetoric, and sizeable Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to enact his agenda.

After a promising start, highlighted by the passing of a nearly $800 billion stimulus plan, the Obama administration has fallen on tougher times from healthcare, to budget deficits, to Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan and more. Increasingly, it is becoming apparent to the American people that while Obama campaigned as a bipartisan centrist, he intends to govern as a leftwing liberal. As a result, an element of wariness and suspicion has entered into the American people’s perception of Obama, many of whom previously viewed him through rose-colored lenses. This shift is evident in recent polls which show a dramatic fall in Obama’s popularity.(8) According to Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, more people strongly disapprove of Obama than strongly approve by a meaningful margin of 8%, a dramatic shift in only a few months.(9)

In general, Jews have supported and continue to support President Obama. However, in keeping with the general population, a similar declining trend in Obama’s standing may be emerging for Jewish voters. I have found that even Jews on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and elsewhere have reacted in much the same way as the American people have. Granted, this is an unscientific finding, but the sense that Obama’s support among Jewish voters is waning is hard to deny. Jews are viewing Obama more critically than before.

In seven months of office, President Obama has established a track record of taking positions that are disturbing to those who care about Israel’s security. First, he has deliberately and repeatedly criticized Israel while taking a much softer stance with the Palestinians, Israel’s Arab neighbors and other non-Arab Islamic countries, including Iran. Second, in reaching out to the Islamic world, Obama justified Israel’s existence as resolution of the Holocaust rather than on the well-established historical ties between the Jews and their ancestral land. Then, as if to prove his point, make amends and restore his Jewish-friendly credentials, he immediately jetted to Munich to deliver a speech at Dachau. To many, Obama’s positions embody severe double standards. With the exception of Israel, Obama seems to believe that the US should not interfere in internal matters of other countries, such as not supporting (even with just words) the Iranian citizens who put their lives at risk in the pursuit of democracy following their elections in June; or as the case may be, in supporting a leader in Honduras who was implementing Chavez-like usurpations of power but was ousted with the backing of the Honduran people and congress. In Israel’s case, however, Obama feels perfectly within his right to determine from Washington, DC where in Jerusalem Jews should be allowed to live. Only recently, Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a diplomat with a long record of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions, brought to light most glaringly when she chaired the infamous “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa in 2001. Instead of concentrating on its purported objectives, Durban was virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and at least implicitly, anti-American.

An obvious question is whether this sense of erosion of Jewish support is a blip or the beginning of a larger trend. Perhaps a better question is whether events on the horizon can create a scenario in which the Jewish vote will be in play for the first time in modern history. Of all the potential events, the one that looms darkest on Israel’s horizon is a nuclear-capable Iran, and with it the real possibility of another Holocaust.

Iranian Nuclear Capabilities May Enable Another Holocaust
It is an irrefutable fact that Iran continues to develop nuclear capability. As of June 5, 2009, the New York Times reported, “atomic inspectors reported Friday that the country has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200 — more than enough, weapon experts said, to make fuel for up to two nuclear weapons a year, if the country decided to use its facilities for that purpose.”(10) On September 9th, 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Glyn Davies, Washington's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, also warned that the latest report by the nuclear watchdog shows that Tehran is either very near or already in possession of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to further enrich it to weapons-grade.”(11) Though Iran claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian use, there is no way we or anyone outside the highest echelons of Iranian government can distinguish between Iranian civilian and military nuclear programs. Leading experts think that Iran is less than one year away from enriching enough material to be used in a nuclear weapon. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank, predicted that “during 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb.”(12)

Given the ticking clock on this timeline, the non-military options, such as sanctions, available to the world are quickly vanishing. Facing these prospects, what is Israel to do? What can it do? What should the United States do? What will it do? Twice before, Israel prevented an enemy sworn to its destruction from acquiring nuclear capabilities. In 1981, in a daring air raid, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility in Osirik, Iraq, and more recently, in 2007 it destroyed Bashir Assad’s secret nuclear reactor in Syria. Pulling off a similar result in Iran would be orders of magnitude riskier.

President Obama has addressed this topic with his usual flair for words. On the surface, he seems to say a lot of impressive things that sound strong. However, when one really listens, all of his speechifying comes down to this; Obama has indicated that he is not in favor of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability. Big deal. Americans, Jewish or not, have to examine the real possibility that an Obama administration may leave Israel to face another potential holocaust at the hands of the world’s most deadly and dangerous regime on its own.

If anyone of us were the prime minister of Israel, what would we do? Would any of us, in his shoes, entrust the fate of our people in the less-than-satisfying rhetoric of Obama?

Lucky for Israel, it is not just Jews in America that care about its existence. Over the last four decades, the ties between Israel and the US have grown commercially, culturally and strategically. Israel is an important economic partner of the United States. More Israeli companies are listed on US exchanges than are listed from any other country, and many top US technology firms (such as IBM, Intel, Motorola, Microsoft and dozens of others) conduct significant R&D in Israel. However, the ties that bind America and Israel are not merely economic, and include a profound common heritage and values. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only pluralistic democracy where the rule of law, minority rights, and civil liberties flourish. Israel is also one of America’s most reliable international allies. Americans recognize that the ties that connect the US and Israel are in America’s interest as well. They are proud of these ties and are supportive of the relationship. Americans will not turn their back on Israel, though Obama may not share this view. In the end, however, it may be American Jews that turn their back on President Obama, and if other Democrats are not careful, America may turn its back on them as well.

NOTES:
1 The Jewish Virtual Library
2 Harry Feingold “Courage First and Intelligence Second: The American Jewish Secular Elite, Roosevelt, and the Failure to Rescue,” ed. Verne Newton FDR and the Holocaust, pp. 51-88.
3 The Jewish Virtual Library
4 The Jewish Virtual Library
5 CNN.com
6 The New York Times
7 Gallup.Com
8 Washington Post
9 Rasmussen Reports
10 The New York Times
11 The Wall Street Journal
12 The International Institute for Strategic Studies

Defense and Security Policies: Perspectives and Challenges

The Broader View is pleased to post our first piece by a guest writer, MAJ Reynold Arredondo. MAJ Reynold Arredondo, currently assigned in Balad, Iraq on his second tour, is a West Point graduate and active duty officer in the US Army. His total service in Iraq is 23 months to date. MAJ Arredondo has missed three Christmases in a row, but has a soldier in his charge who has missed five in a row. According to MAJ Arredondo, this soldier is the real hero. "He never complains and he is the best soldier I have."

We are grateful to MAJ Arredondo for his service to the nation and the ongoing sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. May he stay safe and do everything to ensure the safety of the men and women in his charge.

The views expressed are solely those of the writer.
Duty, Honor, Country
Elad Yoran


Defense and Security Policies: Perspectives and Challenges
By MAJ Reynold R. Arredondo


Decisions in reference to security policies for our current and future administrations are vital to our role as a major player in our world society. First and foremost, we have to always have a long term perspective. This is how we facilitate change here and now. To be successful we have to continue the momentum we have established in Iraq. Secondly, we have to do it as a nation united.

We can no longer look at things as Democratic or Republican, but what is best for humanity. Divisiveness is contradictory to our success; however, we need to truly unite in our efforts to pave the way ahead. We are not able to optimize our strengths, when we continue to look at our nation as Democratic or Republican. When viewed from the outside, division is a weakness exploitable by our adversaries. Our adversaries can be bellicose and/or friendly. They can be our social, political, military, economic, infrastructure and information adversaries. We [The United States] have some ground to gain back.

In Iraq, we need to establish enduring bases which facilitate change from war to peace. We already have a Status of Forces Agreement, currently called a Security Agreement. We are able to transition three locations in Iraq to bases, as we did in Germany after WW II. This will allow us a seat at the table in all matters Middle East. The reality of the world’s current crisis stem from the fanaticism/radicalism in the Middle East. More so, our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors deserve to see a policy that works. Every step forward is scrutinized by our volunteer forces, who are not authorized to scrutinize those decisions.

Bases in Iraq? Yes, bases in Iraq. Let’s stop kidding ourselves and move to a real solution that does not undo all of the progress we have made. These bases would have all elements of combat power, to include strategic location for our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, as well as ability to forward launch forces to Afghanistan and any other location near Iraq. We need to solidify the relationship with the Government of Iraq for the future. If we do not, someone else will. If we were to withdraw all forces from here, the void would be filled by someone less desirable. There are plenty of Foreign Influences here that we tend to not mention because of political sensitivity. Guess what? They are here. And some of the nations that profess to be our friends are our friends, but they are also friends with the less desirable.

President Barzani’s (Kurdistan Regional Government) Chief of Staff, Dr. Fuad Hussein, told me, “You can pick your friends, and we choose the United States, but you cannot choose your brothers.” He was referring to Iran, Turkey and Syria which all border the Kurdistan Region. The Kurds of Iraq have social, political, and economic ties with all of these countries which they cannot cut away from. They are part of the family, and sometimes family will supersede friendship, especially if the friend goes away.

Point being, enduring bases makes us part of the family. As part of the family, we eat and sleep at the same table. We are here now, leaving would make us just another meddler in Middle Eastern Affairs. If you do not think this effects Israel and Afghanistan, you are mistaken. Oh, and do not forget that Russia and China are watching to see how we handle ourselves. China already has an oil deal with Iraq to start drilling in the Basrah Province.

To make it more palatable, let me share with you the successes we are seeing here in Iraq daily. Since the surge, which was the exact tactic needed here, the Iraqi citizens have seen for themselves that the negative stereotypical portrayals of Americans they were brainwashed to believe were wrong. Our soldiers manning Joint Security Stations and checkpoints with the Iraqi Security Forces proved to them, that we are great humans establishing security and a new hope for them. They can see that it is now in their hands to dictate their future. That is why the Iraqis are stepping up and helping their own country. They are the solution. Is it going to happen overnight, no, but we are headed in the right direction. And our direction, guidance, and presence all have to remain for a long time. Please, do not kid yourself on this point anymore. This is our “New Frontier.” If you do not think this sounds politically correct, label it as our “Strategic Alliance.”

How does having bases in Iraq help our situation in the Middle East? As mentioned, it provides us a seat at the bargaining table, forced, but a seat nonetheless. Secondly, we would have a secure staging area for aircraft, troops, logistics, and our non-government agencies to forward stage and provide services and training for the people of Iraq and the Middle East. This would act as a deterrent for our would-be adversaries near Iraq who are flexing their own agendas outward. This would also alleviate the need to use Pakistan or Kyrgyzstan as a staging base to enter Afghanistan.

Where would we have these bases? We would need three bases. One is in Al Asad, location of MNF-W Headquarters. Second location is at the Victory Base Complex/Liberty Base, current location of MNF-I, MNC-I, and MND-B Headquarters. These two locations have large enough airfields to support our largest aircraft. Also, the airfields are dedicated to our operations. Most importantly, we are established at these locations. We would not have to build-up any extra amenities. In fact, we would be able to draw down our forces and bring in more Department of State and Non-Government Agency Personnel.

Lastly, we need a base in Erbil, Kurdistan. The Kurds of Iraq are a distinct group of people who are our strategic partners in Iraq by choice. They feel a debt of gratitude to the United States for ridding them of Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the Anfal Massacres during his Arabization of northern Iraq. The base formerly used by the Korean Forces (Camp Zaytun) is co-located near the Erbil International Airport (EIA). We currently use the EIA for our limited military flights. If we coordinated with the KRG, they would dedicate an area for our use. In fact, they would be willing to build onto their existing facilities for our use. A key factor to staging in Kurdistan is that their security forces are top notch. Their training and professionalism eclipses that of the Iraqi Security Forces, simply out of survival. They have a dedicated police academy as well as an established Peshmerga Military supported by a well networked Intelligence Branch (Asayeege and Parastin) equivalent to our FBI and CIA. I know this because I spent 8 months as the first ever Liaison Officer to the KRG from MNC-I under GEN Odierno. In this capacity, I interacted with President Barzani, Prime Minister Barzani, and their entire staff on behalf of GEN Odierno and coordinating meetings for GEN Petraeus and the MNF-I level Commands and Staff.

So, how does this help Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East? First, location, location, location. There are too many issues using Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan to launch into Afghanistan. We are here, we are not going anywhere, let’s optimize our resources. We are a Strategic Partner and need to act like it. If we use Iraq for bases, in lieu of Wartime Deployments, our soldiers are on unaccompanied tours in Iraq. This allows us to drawdown the numbers and change the focus of our forces in Iraq. They go from Warfighting to an advisor, trainer, and re-builder role. However, they are not alone in this endeavor. We invite American businesses, construction companies, NGOs, and Department of State representatives. Talk about job opportunities…instant employment of a volunteer “Re-building Iraq and the Middle East Corps.” We need to quit thinking inside the box and create new ideas and jobs. This is a way to do that.

From a logistics and air support view, we can utilize the bases to support our offensive COIN Operations in Afghanistan. And do we need to worry about world opinion, yes, but we need to own up to why we came here in the first place. We need to bring peace to the Middle East. We cannot do it, unless we live and operate out of here. Sir T.E. Lawrence stated that in order to understand and work the Arabs, you have to think and live with the Arabs. We are doing that, and our relationship, while young, is improving every day. We need to let them know we will neither abandon the Iraqi people nor the Middle East.

Afghanistan would remain a Wartime deployment supported by the rest of our Forces around the globe. This would give a singular focus to our war efforts, while maintaining the operational pulse by, with, and through the Government of Iraq. By having a singular focus, we can combine our efforts to defeating Al Qaeda, and re-invite and re-invigorate our Coalition Partners to achieve success. Once again, it will not be easy, but we need to focus our efforts.

While we are re-building the new Iraq, fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we are legitimizing our national standing in the Middle East. If we leave, we will undermine our position and be tagged as the losers in the Iraq War. We cannot afford to do this. This rolls over into the bargaining power we have against any other potential enemies of the States in the Middle East.

Iran has been a busy bee pollinating in many flowers. If we do not do this correctly, the pollination will result in a large garden. Worse, their legitimacy as a Middle Eastern power and in the world will increase, while usurping ours. We cannot afford this in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Israel. “Okay, touchy subject now.”

Israel and the United States have had a silent partnership, at least in thinking, since the creation of Israel. It is time to make peace in the Gaza Strip and establish a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We owe it to our world society to mend this wound once and for all. The only course of action I see to make this work is if we are a partner in the Middle East by virtue of operating military bases and having our private sector part of the economic rebuilding in Iraq. Once, the Arab countries realize that we are not leaving; they will accept us as part of their reality. As of now, they see us as someone weak, who will eventually go away. Our media consistently undermines our successes by not publicizing them, and focusing on the negative aspects of our operations. We need to get past this, too. Another subject for another day.

Our success in Iraq and Afghanistan is paramount to a reasonable solution in Israel. And that solution stems from us wielding a sturdy stick, which when pulled out should calm the beast. That beast is fanaticism, anti-establishment, and radical Islam. Through a military presence, we will provide a deterrent as well as an ally to help in the re-building of a new Iraq.

"We Must Be Able to Do More Than One Thing at Once"

We are in the midst of an important time in history because we face a broad range of issues on the global and national levels simultaneously. Under normal circumstances, each of these deserves the focused attention of our leaders and the American people. However, we do not have that luxury, and we must, as President-elect Obama states, be able to do more than one thing at a time.

I will only touch these topics today, and I will dedicate additional space to each of them as time permits.

Briefly:

1. Bailout Bingo, Why Wouldn't We All Play? - I almost titled this subject "Back in the USSA" (and I still may). The seemingly endless stream of bailouts coupled with the contemplated government 'stimulus' of nearly $1,000,000,000,000 (that is a lot of zeros) is eroding our capitalist system. Big government is not the answer. Rather, it is part of the problem. Let us implement smart regulations that do not destroy the core fabric of what helped make America great, namely Americans taking risks with the expectation that they will reap its rewards if they are successful or pay the price if they fail.


2. If You Don't Fight to Win, You are Fighting to Lose - I sometimes paraphrase COL (R) Jack Jacobs, who likes to remind people that the way to guarantee you'll take the most casualties in the long run is to fight a war when you're not willing to take any on your side or to inflict them on the enemy. Hamas is a terrorist organization which seeks the destruction of Israel and does not care whether Israeli civilians, or for that matter, Palestinian civilians are killed. Its fighters are TERRORISTS, and not "militants" or any other politically correct euphemism. Israel has to fight to win, and thus far, they are to be commended and supported for their actions. The tough question, though is, "What is the objective of the war?" If Israel needs more than a few words to define its objective, it may be falling into the political correctness trap of trying to please everyone with unnecessary precision. Doing so emasculates Israel’s cause and lowers its probability of success.


3. Playing Politics with National Security - Until recently, Obama has made impressive decisions with regard to the people he intends to bring into the new administration. Generally speaking, they have been qualified people with credible experience who are not ideological zealots. While everyone may not agree with all of them, at the end of the day, it is important to have qualified people who can get things done in positions of responsibility. He is to be commended for these selections. Unfortunately, that trend changed in the last couple of days when Obama indicated that he will nominate people with partisan agendas to play critical roles in protecting America. Some of these will fill roles in the Justice Department. However, the most troubling intended nomination is that of Leon Panetta to lead the CIA. Based on everything we know, Panetta is not qualified to lead the CIA, amongst the most important national security roles. Panetta is obviously smart and capable, and if Obama wants him in his administration, he should find an appropriate role. Many people criticized the Bush administration of ‘playing politics’ with intelligence, whether fairly or unfairly, in the lead up to the Iraq war. Therefore, Panetta’s nomination to the CIA is particularly worrisome because it comes on the heel of these accusations and the valuable lesson we learned that intelligence must not be influenced by partisan politics. The CIA suffered through a difficult period in its history, and it took the stewardship of Gen Hayden, a career intelligence officer with an impeccable record, to restore its reputation. Hopefully, Obama will reconsider the Panetta nomination and ask Gen Hayden to remain in his position as he did with Secretary of Defense Gates.


4. Chemotherapy for Corruption - Corruption is the scourge of all societies. If unchecked it can cause societal illness here just as it does in other places around the world. Now, we are still a long way from Zimbabwe or Venezuela or Russia, but corruption is a cancer that can metastasize if not treated and controlled. Gov Blagojevich is infamous for the degree of chutzpah he displays, but he is not unique. We should enforce fully existing anti-corruption laws, and enact new laws with more appropriately severe punishments. Our government and civil service employees, at all levels, must be held accountable.

Brothers in Arms 364 Days a Year

Even the NY Times can write a meaningful article once in a while…in this case, really touching.

Here’s the link: "In Army-Navy Game, Friends, Competitors and a Band of Brothers"

This Saturday, for a few hours, Navy will be our enemy. Every other day of the year, they’re our brothers in arms.

Beat Navy!!

Elad

The Mumbai Attacks Were Not Due to Traditional India-Pakistan Disputes

The deficiencies in India’s internal intelligence and police organizations are now becoming more visible to the rest of India and the world. Unfortunately, it took an incident like last week’s coordinated attacks to shine the light of day on these weaknesses. Addressing them will take time, capital, and another resource that is all-too-often rare, the willingness to put nation ahead of self-interest and political partisanship. These matters are for India to resolve, and I hope that it is up to the task.

However, in addition to the issues raised about India's intelligence capabilities, it is also time to start asking other critical questions.

Who were the attackers?

Why did they attack?

The knee-jerk reaction in India will be to blame Pakistan. I am sure that there are elements in Pakistan that were involved in the attacks, either with financing, logistics, or in other indirect ways. However, it is becoming clear that the attacks were not driven by traditional Pakistan-India disputes, such as Kashmir. Looking at this attack through a traditional lens is, in some ways, analogous to Spain blaming Basque separatists for the train bombings in Madrid in March 2004. Now, I admit that this analogy is imperfect. We know that the Basques had nothing to do with the attack in Madrid, whereas in Mumbai it seems that there is a real connection with Pakistan. Nevertheless, I draw the parallel to make one important point, that we cannot look at the attack through the traditional frame of India-Pakistan issues. The problem (and hence the way we try think of a solution) is much broader.

To assess the problem, we need to first look at the list of sites that were attacked and the nationality of the victims. If the goal was to draw attention to Kashmir or any other traditional India-Pakistan dispute, the terrorists would have targeted solely ‘Indian’ sites. It is true that at some sites, such as the hospital and train station most prominently, the nationality of their victims was mostly Indian. (Although, one would argue that even these locations would likely have a high proportion of Westerners.)

The vast majority of victims were killed in the two hotels (Taj and Oberoi) and at the Chabad Jewish Center, clearly targets that would produce the highest likelihood of killing Westerners. We know that the attackers deliberately sought out American, British and Jewish/Israeli victims. Survivors stated that the attackers asked people for their passports, and American, British and Israeli citizens were killed while others were released.

Clearly, these attacks do not follow the mold of traditional India-Pakistan confrontation. Which brings me back to the two questions above, who were the attackers and why did they attack?

We will learn answers to the first question reasonably quickly. For example, we already know that several of them may have held British passports. More information will follow.

The second question is more troubling. It may be easier (at least publicly) to say, “It is the work of Pakistan support for militants” or something similarly non-confrontational. However, this kind of response buries the truth in a sea of political correctness.

As we learn more, I suspect that we will eventually find evidence that links the Mumbai attacks to others around the world. This evidence, however, will likely be indirect, perhaps something as indirect as the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks having trained at similar camps to the perpetrators of other attacks. While we may not see the direct “Al-Qaeda” stamp on the Mumbai attacks, we will discover that these attacks are part of a much larger global campaign.

We know that attacks around the world are not centrally planned, funded and executed. Like cancer that has metastasized to different organs, regional attacks are often planned, funded and executed locally by a growing number of new groups that we had neither previously heard of nor encountered.

However, the common thread in the Mumbai and other attacks around the world is that they are inspired by a common cause, radical Islam. Radical Islam is threatened by the ideas of the modern world. Freedom of speech, Individual civil liberties, religious freedom, minority rights and many other tenets of the modern world pose a direct challenge to radical Islam and its goal of a global caliphate.

Americans, British and Jews were specifically targeted because they are perceived by radical Islam as the principle symbols of freedom and liberty. Like the United States, England, Israel and other democracies around the world, India was attacked because of its dedication to these principles we commonly hold dea

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that radical-Islam is at the core of the problem and we have to think strategically about how to deal radical-Islam in all its manifestations, whether in Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, or unknown cells in the Pakistani intelligence or in any of the large number of previously unheard of groups that have metastasized around the world.

Only when we can talk about the enemy directly can we develop a approach to defeating them. Ultimately, our collective approach will include a combination of offensive and defensive components, and involve diplomatic, economic, cultural, educational, intelligence as well as military means.

United With Our Friends in India

The series of terrorist attacks in Mumbai yesterday are shocking and disturbing on many levels. Our hearts and sympathy go to the victims, their families and to the peace loving people of India.

I have had the great fortune of visiting India on several occasions over the last dozen years. To the first time visitor, India may cause sensory overload as all of our five senses are continuously stimulated by the unfamiliar. However, once one acclimates to the new stimulus, he will discover that India is a warm, inviting and magnificent place. Whether in India as a tourist, to visit friends or on business, I have developed a deep appreciation and affection for the country, its people and their culture.

Professionally, India is a rapidly emerging country with a deep well of educated, hardworking and ambitious people. Over the last dozen years, India developed into one of our most important economic partners. This trend will accelerate and continue in the future.

Strategically, it is an understatement to say that India is "the world's largest democracy." While true, India is not just another democracy. It is strategically located, sharing borders with China and Pakistan and close to many other threats including Iran and Afghanistan. Like Israel, every day India demonstrates to the world that it is possible for a democracy with progressive values, the rule of law, individual civil liberties, freedom of the press and religion to not only exist but also thrive in a part of the world where many do not feel it is possible. It is our common set of values that is the basis of the bond between our nations. Politically we will not always see eye to eye, friends sometimes disagree. However, India is among our most important strategic allies and friends in the world.

However, it is my personal bond with India that makes these attacks really hit home. When I visit Mumbai, I stay with the family of one of my closest and dearest friends, and I truly feel at home. Our families have grown close over the years and it is through this relationship that I developed a strong personal bond with India. Participating in his wedding was one of the most joyous and wonderful experiences I have known.

I have been to many of the places in Mumbai that were attacked yesterday. My friend goes to these places frequently as they are important locations for having meetings and conducting business. This morning, I received an email from him letting me know that all in his family are well. Yesterday, his parents were watching a movie at a theater near the Oberoi hotel. They spent the night at a nearby friend's place because they could not make it home.

Their experience in some ways is not too dissimilar from the experiences of New Yorkers on 9/11. The terrorists deliberately, brutally and mercilessly targeted innocent civilians and sought to murder as many people as possible. In this goal they were successful. The size and scope of the attacks required well developed detailed plans. Developing and executing these plans required patience, resources, frequent communication and practiced coordination. As on 9/11, the terrorists attacked locations that were more than just easy targets. They were important symbols of India. Attacking them was meant to send an unmistakable message that there are people who will stop at nothing to destroy our common values and way of life. We should never forget this valuable lesson.

Today, we in America are united with our friends in India. We mourn for their loss as if it were our own. But, today is also Thanksgiving. I am thankful that my friend and his family are all well. I am thankful that I live in a free society. I am thankful for all the men and women who have served and serve today in our armed forces who sacrifice so much on our behalf.

Thanksgiving is the Greatest Day of the Year!

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday of all. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Thanksgiving brings families together

2. Thanksgiving brings friends together

3. Thanksgiving has real meaning

4. Thanksgiving is a national holiday for all Americans of all faiths or of no faith

5. Thanksgiving is historic

6. Thanksgiving is still not commercial

7. Watching football games on TV

8. Our tradition of a 'semi-touch' football game in the town park

9. An extra-long weekend

10. Thanksgiving meal may just be my favorite of the year...I can't wait!

Please let me wish a happy Thanksgiving to all of you and your families.
-Elad

Obama's Appointment Decisions are Cause for Cautious Optimism

Thus far, President-elect Obama has demonstrated good judgment by bringing onto his team a group of experienced and well-respected leaders to head executive branch departments and serve in other advisory capacities. He is to be commended for several of his selections, including most of all, for asking Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense for at least the first year of the new administration.

The continued service of Secretary Gates is important for national security as well as political considerations.

From the national security perspective, Secretary Gates has demonstrated an able hand to lead the Department of Defense while we are fighting in two theaters of operation. Following the turbulent Rumsfeld years, under Gates' stewardship, General Petreaus was able to successfully implement the surge strategy which reduced violence in Iraq and established the environment through which long-term victory may yet emerge. As the situation in Iraq eases, we are shifting resources to Afghanistan, and hopefully we will see improvement there as well. Changing leadership in this critical juncture in the war effort may risk our recent advancements. This risk is further magnified as the economy overshadows the war effort as the issue most attracting our attention.

Politically, the Gates decision demonstrates that President-elect Obama may govern 'from the center' as we desperately need him to do. It is a significant olive branch to the Republican Party, and while the leftist side of the Democratic Party may not approve, let us hope that it is indicative of more to come.

Obama's selections of Gates, Clinton and Geithner have drawn analogies to Lincoln's appointments of his rivals, including Seward, Chase and Bates, to critical cabinet positions. Some, and it goes without-saying, the mainstream media, have extended the analogy and bestowed upon Obama the reverence due our greatest President of all, Abraham Lincoln.

This Lincoln-like adoration is not yet due. It has to be earned. If Obama delivers on the lofty expectations that many have of him, then we should praise him and his achievements. However, let us wait before we do so. We should judge his actions and their results, not a dream. Comparing Obama to Lincoln, when he has yet to be inaugurated, is insulting to our collective intelligence and is more befitting behavior of members of a cult.

A Post-Mortem for the Republican Party

I am not a card-carrying member of either party. I am a true independent. That said, I believe the Republican Party blew it. In 2002, the Republicans had so much momentum that they were swept into office overwhelmingly. It seemed that they had been given a mandate to govern that would last a generation. The Democrats were toast.

Then, the Republicans got to governing and they forgot many of the principles that they were supposed to advocate:

1. Reduce the size of government - instead they expanded it dramatically (Department of Homeland Security)

2. Reduce entitlements - instead they expanded old ones and created entire new ones. (Prescription drugs)

3. Run government more efficiently - instead they created layers of added bureaucracy. (no child left behind)

4. Run government more competently - instead they brought cronies with no legitimate credentials and experience into positions of importance (can you say Attorney General Gonzalez? FEMA director Michael Brown?)

5. Keep government off the backs of ordinary people - instead they drove government intervention deeper into our daily lives (can you say Terry Schaivo, Gay Marriage, Abortion)

6. Reduce the deficits - instead they spent like drunken sailors and created the largest deficits on record.

7. Run the government more ethically - instead we got scandals like Tom Delay

It is not that I am a Democrat; I am not. But, I cannot blame people for feeling betrayed and let down with the Republicans.

About the only thing that the Republicans remained true to their word was being strong on national security. And, on national security, the war was longer and more difficult (as all wars are) than Americans were led to believe it would be. It took a few extra years, and for the President to fire Rumsfeld and bring in Petreaus to finally get things right. So, while the war certainly did not help, I do not believe it hurt the Republicans in the end.

It really came down to the perception that the Republicans got drunk with power and used it selfishly, rather than in the interest of the country.

It is a testament to John McCain, the man, that the election was as close as it was. I believe that it could have been even closer, possibly resulting in a McCain victory had John McCain, the candidate, run a half-way effective campaign.

So, the Republican party is at a crossroads. It needs to figure out what it stands for and whom shall it include under its tent.

On the other hand, the Democrats now have unchecked control of both houses of Congress and the White House...they may get drunk on power the same way the Republicans just did.

Warm Wishes for Our New President

E Pluribus Unum. This nation just experienced a wondrous event, the rise to the highest seat of government of a man that to most of us was an unknown figure only recently. The characteristics that make Barack Obama unique among the men who have been our Presidents are well known. It is not an exaggeration to say that what transpired in America in the last election in all likelihood could not happen anywhere else. And, while Barack Obama may turn out to be a great President, it is true that our great nation will never cease to amaze us. We are truly a light unto the world, a shining city on the hill.

And, we are optimistic. We have no choice but to be optimistic, as it is in our DNA. Barack Obama is our President now and we will support him, regardless of whether we voted for him or not. The country needs to be united as we face many challenges.

We know that as President, Obama will have a lot of unrestrained forces, Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate, pulling him to the ideological far left.

It will take a strong man to stay in the middle. If he does, he can achieve great things, and will go down in history.

If he does not, he will be tossed out the way the Republicans were tossed out when they tried to take the country too far to the right.

Let us hope he rises to the task ahead.

May God Bless America.

United on Iran?

To the leaders of the following organizations:

The National Coalition to Stop Iran Now,
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
United Jewish Communities,
UJA-Federation of New York,
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York,

I am writing to express my sincere displeasure at your short-sighted decision to withdraw your invitation to Gov Palin to speak at the rally protesting Ahmadinejad in New York.

Regardless of whether one supports one political party or the other, it is vital for the security of both the United States and Israel that we are united in facing the threat to our national security that Iran poses.

Gov Palin is the vice-presidential nominee for one of the two dominant political parties in the US, and therefore a 50-50 probability exists that she will be the next American Vice President. Her presentation would have sent a strong signal to Iran, and it is important to have her speak. Additionally, it would also be appropriate for candidates from the Democratic Party to speak as well. We should encourage all the candidates and other leaders to do everything possible on Iran. On this issue, we cannot be divided.

However, your decision to withdraw your invitation to Palin speaks volumes. The answer that the decision was made to ‘depoliticize’ the event is no more than a convenient, shallow and misguided excuse. Rather than depoliticizing the event, you in fact introduced and magnified its political significance.

These are dark days when we allow partisan politics to supersede unity in facing the largest security threat to the peace and stability of the free world.

Ahmadinejad can only be laughing aloud as he witnesses our self-destructive behavior while Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons.

I would urge you to reconsider and, if not, urge Americans of all political affiliations to withdraw their financial support for your organizations until such time that you are replaced with truly non-politically partisan leaders.

Elad Yoran
New York, NY

China, Oil and Islamic Radicalism

Gordon Chang's piece in the Wall Street Journal on January 3rd is to be commended. Though its last sentence is perhaps its most important, "Now, the challenge for the U. S. is to recognize that Chinese attitudes have turned a corner, and to craft new policies in response." While this sentence is simple and true on the surface, it also may imply other things. And, if interpreted the wrong way, it may lead to a direct danger to the US.

The general theme that China is becoming more assertive globally is not controversial. According to Chang, China is certainly heading and will continue to trend in that direction.

Throughout history, many military confrontations stemmed from economic, diplomatic and or political issues. Why did Japan attack a number of targets in south east asia? because they needed access to oil and metal. Being economically dependent did not square with Japan's political sense of self, and explicit denial of economic resources led to their military confrontation. It was not the only reason, but the proximate one. The question one has to ask is, "Is a resurgent and more confrontational China merely the 'Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere' in a different guise?" If history does not repeat itself, it sure does rhyme - is this an echo of the 1930s Japan?

However, whether China's assertiveness ever translates into military aggression or continues to manifest itself through direct competition with the US in matters economic, diplomatic, and political is an entirely different matter, at least under current circumstances.

Peaceful economic/diplomatic/political competition is not something that we can stop. Nor is it something of which we should be fearful. We will need to respond to it in kind and raise the bar for them as well. To the extent that we can build bridges to China so that things evolve into "co-opetition" rather than zero-sum competition the better.

And, we should always hold our values sacrosanct and not compromise them. Advocating political, religious, economic freedoms, as well as individual civil liberties and freedom of the press should be a bedrock foundation of our policies.

All that said, China is a long-term threat. Despite their despicable lack of any of the values described above, it, in my opinion, is not a direct threat to us today. Nor, is it likely to be so in the next 20 years. The most direct threat from China over the next two decades is likely to be competition for increasingly scarce (and expensive) resources. At the top of that list is oil. I'll come back to this point later.

However, Islamic radicalism is a clear and present danger. The threat is unrelenting and genocidal. It threatens our very survival and our way of life. Therefore, the right question regarding China should be, "Can we 'craft new policies' without taking our eye off the ball of Islamic radicalism?"

The threat posed by Islamic radicalism is multi-dimensional. If we are talking about nation-states, then Iran and elements within Pakistan are at the top of the threat list followed closely by Syria and even "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Radical Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezballah, Hamas, and other similar organizations pose grave transnational threats. The situation in Iraq, while improving, is still tenuous and far from its desired end state. And these are just the most obvious dangers. The Islamic world is vast and spans dozens of countries globally and Islamic radicals populate virtually every country around the world. While some of these threats may be bogeymen acting on behalf of masters a world away, it clear that the threat is complex.

The present threat requires a multi-dimensional approach that includes political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and, of course where needed, military components. It requires us to recruit and lead other nations in a concerted and consistent decades-long effort. It will require the attention and resources of this great land supported by the attention and resources of our friends.

One other thing is clear; the approach we take will lead to difficult choices and discomforting partnerships. Where and how will we decide it is sufficiently valuable to apply the age old cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to exploit fissures and drive toward a greater goal. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, among others do not want a resurgent and nuclear armed Iran. Is their fear of Iran sufficient to force them to make compromises that they otherwise would not make? Can we in turn marshal their fear to help achieve the greater goal?

As we navigate these shifting sands, we need to make certain that we do not build a structure that will collapse when the wind changes direction and the sand shifts the other way. As with China above, in all our initiatives, we must not lose touch with our American values that are the bedrock foundation of our policies.

A winning strategy also demands that we quit using useless and misleading language like, "We are in a war on terror." We are at war with Islamic, expansionist, jihadist fundamentalism. If we cannot name our enemy we are not going to prevail.

Our unwavering focus must be on this current threat. Therefore, unless the threat environment changes, any "new policies" regarding China should be carefully crafted with two things in mind. First, take a long-term incremental view, as China poses a minimal present danger and we do not want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Second, it must not divert any resources or attention awayfrom the real present danger of radical Islam.

Ultimately, our greatest weapon against both radical Islam and the emerging threat from China is to end our dependency on oil. Oil dependency is our Achilles' heel. Ending it will, in a single shot, solve several of the gravest threats we face. And, it will make the global warming crowd happy. As we immerse ourselves in the 2008 campaign, look for new alliances to emerge.

(Thanks to Mary Ann Davidson for her help with this piece!)

The Other Real Lessons of World War Two

The President delivered a strong speech yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention. His main point that winning the war against Islamic radicalism is essential to America and to free societies everywhere. Here he is spot on.

However, the thing that is getting all the attention is that the President made several comparisons to World War Two and Vietnam. It is true that we can and should draw important lessons from these experiences. But, we need to dig a bit deeper, look through these imperfect analogies and be able to talk about politically incorrect things in order to draw other, perhaps more relevant lessons.


Lesson One - Japan was defeated completely and unconditionally before any ‘reforms’ were capable of being accepted by the Japanese population.

In this struggle with radical Islam, we are fighting against a much larger, more dispersed, ambiguous enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan are but two fronts in a much larger struggle.

The Islamists have not been defeated completely and unconditionally. Finally, under Gen Petraeus, we are fighting a more aggressive battle that is taking the fight to the enemy. However, let’s set proper expectations, despite the surge, we are still fighting a politically correct war in which we are afraid to inflict or take casualties. Jack Jacobs, adjunct prof at USMA and CMH recipient, often makes the point that the surefire way to take the most casualties in the long run and not win the war is to fight without being willing to take or inflict casualties. Maybe we have no choice, but if so, then we should manage our expectations for results.


Lesson Two - Japan's aggression was not religiously based. A friend put it nicely, "Japan's aggression was driven by a sense of their own manifest destiny (Greater East Asia Co-Properity Sphere), but they did not have a religious basis for it. Nor did their religion, per se, have a construct of 'Convert Or Die'. Their goal was not to win converts to Shinto-ism, it was to create Japan as a world power. It was not religiously fueled expansionism."

There are many analogies that can be drawn between Shinto-ism and Islam. It is true that they both perceived themselves to be superior to others and that they viewed others as inferior, sometimes less than human. However, the Japanese experience is dramatically different from the Islamic experience and the Shinto religion in pre-war Japan is very different from Islam. (I am not making light of Japanese atrocities during this period in history. The killing in Nanking and elsewhere are great examples of the compassionless brutality of war-time Japan. These experiences are among the darkest chapters in human history, along with the holocaust, the killing fields and others.) All I am saying is that we can draw direct lessons for the current situation by saying that, “as a result of the war, the Japanese looked at their religion differently or became more tolerant people, and that the same thing will happen with Islam”. A monotheistic Islam is very different than the “religious” adoration that the Japanese had for the emperor.


Lesson Three - Radical Islam is different. Despite countless attempts (some peaceful and some terribly violent)over nearly 1,500 years, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a population of Moslems that have converted from Islam to another religion. If I am wrong, please let me know. Most every college and university in the Middle East over the last 200 years was founded and run by Christian missionaries. At first the missionaries tried to proseltyze and convert the Moslems. Then, after years of failure, they changed strategies and thought that if they teach modern things (science, medicine, law, engineering, agriculture, literature, etc.) that the population would gradually accept their presence and that some ‘enlightened’ people would convert to Christianity…none did. (Please see "Power, Faith and Fantasy" by Michael Oren)

Before the war, Japan had a small, but not inconsequential, Christian population. These were people who had responded to the missionaries' work. At that time, Japan was also a society struggling to find balance between tradition and modernity. Logic would tell us that in today's Islamic world, there would be also be some similarly measurable parts of the population that was responsive to the missionaries. But there really is not and never has been. Why?

Maybe there are enough characteristics of Islamic societies that make them different. While I am not an expert, I do not think that Shinto-ism had the same zeal for conquest as Islam and did not invoke an “afterlife” as a principal motivating force driven by commandments from G-d that have been unwavering for centuries.


Lesson Four - Politically Correctness will lead to failure. We will never make the type of progress that we are hoping for until we are able to talk openly about the role of Islam in the current struggle. We need to shine the light of day on tenets of Islam that are incompatible with modern life such as its treatment of women and people of other religious persuations. We will only be able to devise a strategy if we can talk about things. Said the other way, it is impossible to devise a winning strategy without being able even to identify aloud an important root cause of much of the problem.

The President’s analogy is perhaps closest in saying that if we leave, things will go from bad to much worse for the civilian population in Iraq. That is probably true. I do not know anyone who thinks that things will somehow miraculously get better if we were to withdraw. Doing so is naive and just plain stupid. Maybe this is reason enough to stay and then hope that somehow their society will not always be on the brink of disintegrating into nothingness.

Ultimately, it will be the Moslems themselves who have to fight to win this war and propel their faith and way of life from the dark ages to the 21st century. As long as they’re not doing it openly in large numbers, we will not achieve the kind of future that the President is talking about. “Democracy” alone will not be sufficient. The vision of an Iraq (or any other Islamic country) emerging as a peaceful, tolerant, society where women are equal members of the community, where ethnic and religious minorities are able to practice their faiths peacefully without discrimination, is a fantasy. The example of Japan has too many holes to be more than a soundbite.

They Don't Make 'em Like They Used To

COL Lew Zickel, West Point class of 1949 and author of the book of which I am lucky to be a part of died on Sunday night.

After seeing my mother on mother's day, I stopped by to say good-bye to Lew. His wife Yael, in accordance with his wishes, took him off the oxygen and other support equipment and we knew that he didn’t have much time. I was there with him from about 6:00 to 8:30, when I felt that I should give his family some time alone. Yael called me Monday morning to say that Lew passed at 8:45, 15 minutes after I left.

Lew was a great and humble man. He served two years as an infantryman in combat in Korea. At last, when he saw the Korean peninsula fading in the distance, he said to himself, "Zickel, a million Chinese soldiers didn’t kill you in two years...you got lucky, and everyday here on out is a gift." And, to the best of my knowledge he lived his life in full appreciation of this gift.

He served on active duty, achieving the rank of "bird" Colonel. After retiring for the service, Lew had a second full career as a civilian engineer. Not only was he a master builder, his added specialty was engineering forensics. He had a soft spot in his heart for everyone, except that is for engineers that took short cuts, built substandard structures and hurt people as a result. When he talked about them, I realized how Lew had survived in Korea for two years...I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of one of his scoldings.

His true loves are easy to identify - his family and West Point.

Lew was truly a family man. It was obvious not just in the way that he felt and talked about them, but in the way that they talked and acted around him.

Lew built more than a dozen buildings and other structures on the hallowed ground of West Point. His legacy there will go on forever.

I perhaps more than most "non-Zickels" felt these items in Lew because much in Lew's family's experience was similar to my family's experience. Maybe I latched onto him because some things in him were so familiar to me.

Lew and Yael, both divorced and with children from prior marriages, wed and built a family together, an inclusive one. I've heard stories describing how Lew raised Yael's children as if they were his own, and that in his eyes there were no differences. When my stepfather, Len, married my mother he raised my brothers Amit, Dov and me as if we were his own. And, I never knew or felt any other feeling but the deepest love and respect for him for it. I know how Yael's children and grandchildren feel about Lew. I know that their loss will be as profound as my loss when Len died. Sometimes Lew and I would talk about family life and I knew that he was cut from a similar cloth as Len.

Both Lew and Len were children of the depression. Lew was raised in industrial northern New Jersey and Len in industrial Allentown, PA. Both served in the Korean War, Lew in the Army and Len in the Navy. Both of their second wives were Israeli-sabra women (there has to be something there!). Both took in and raised and loved another man's children as their own. Both loved the military. Len served fewer years, but he was proudest when talking about being an officer in the United States Navy. Both loved this great land and believed that the United States was the greatest place on God's green earth. Both were involved in their communities; Lew through his engineering and Len as a community doctor. Both were loved by their communities and everyone around them.

Both Lew and Len worked until the very end. Len went to work to care for patients all his life, first in private practice, then as a doctor at West Point, and ultimately as a doctor in the Veteran's Administration. Len went to work until the day he went into the hospital never to come home again. Lew continued to write to complete his manuscript and to dedicate every drop of energy to his other great love, West Point and the West Point Jewish Chapel, until the very end.

I don’t know...maybe people were raised in a different way back then. Maybe the times were simpler. But, they sure don’t make them like they used to any more. Character mattered. Integrity mattered. Dedication mattered. Loyalty matterd. But, so did love, compassion and humilty. Lew had it all.

Maybe now you know why I latched on to Lew and loved him. I miss him.