The WikiLeaks website last Saturday released the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history—a diary of 391,832 field reports about the Iraq war between 2004 and 2009. That security tsunami must lead to a number of significant policy changes which have more to do with Washington than Iraq.

A Pentagon spokesman said the leaked reports were pulled from an Iraq-based “tactical reports database” that contained information about “significant activities” such as attacks against coalition troops, civilians and infrastructure.

The consequences for military operations are pretty clear.  Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said the leaks put at risk the lives of our troops and especially Iraqis who supported Americans and it raises fears among those who might help in the future. It also gives our enemies sensitive information to mine for our vulnerabilities and could compromise intelligence sources.

But the consequences of this incident go deeper, to the core of the way America deals with the media, government’s control of secrets and foreign affairs policy during wartime. Dramatic changes are warranted.

Some news outlets and cyber radicals like WikiLeaks will publish virtually any material. So-called legitimate media outlets like the New York Times and Germany’s Der Spiegel stooped to the gutter when they cooperated with WikiLeaks to publish the Pentagon’s secret material. Obviously these outlets concluded the risks are low and besides, they self-righteously rationalized the need for states to keep secrets isn’t as important as the public’s right to the information. 

Not surprisingly the Pentagon doesn’t share that view. “We deplore WikiLeaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told Spiegel, “and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world, including our enemies.”  

WikiLeaks should pay a high price and complicit American media should not get a free pass either in part because the material is classified but also due to their hypocritical double standard.  On one hand newspapers like the New York Times refused in the past to publish anti-Prophet Mohammed cartoons because they might “offend” the Islamic world, but the same icons of political correctness publish Pentagon secrets that endanger our troops.

Our courts long ago declared that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is a crime and so should the publication of military secrets that can be used by our enemies to kill our troops. It is time Congress takes a hard look at the boundaries of legitimate journalism and arms law enforcement agencies with the mechanisms to better protect national secrets.

But the responsibility for this problem is shared with government officials. Media outlets like the Washington Post frequently publish articles that source so-called anonymous administration officials who reveal classified information. Apparently those officials don’t understand their oath of office.

Our leaking problem starts with the White House staff. Author Bob Woodward’s new book Obama Wars is filled with White House secrets. It is doubtful Woodward has a key to classified file cabinets in the White House’s executive office building. No, people who should know better passed Woodward reams of highly classified documents that are extensively cited in his book.

The WikiLeaks source was likely someone in the Department of Defense, not the leaky White House. At the center of the controversy is a former intelligence analyst, Army Private Bradley Manning, who is charged with multiple counts of mishandling classified data while in Iraq but he is not as yet charged with the recent leak. 

Controlling classified material is a critical obligation for all public servants. The government needs to tighten control of classified material, quickly punish offenders and take a hard look at government’s tendency to over classify its work.

The third consequence of the WikiLeaks incident has to do with the conduct of war and foreign policy. The leaked material evidences three very serious problems which should never have been kept under wraps all these years.

First, the civilian death toll from the Iraq war was always a point of contention but was officially kept secret. U.S. commanders claimed they did not conduct body counts in part to avoid the bitterness associated with that practice during the Vietnam War. However, for credibility reasons, we should have acknowledged the grim civilian toll which was documented by our troops. 

The New York Times indicates the military’s 2004-2009 leaked database records 109,032 violent deaths for the period. Most (66,081) were among the civilian population and were killed by other Iraqis. The worst incident took place on August 31, 2005, when a stampede on a bridge in Baghdad killed more than 950 people after attacks panicked the crowd.

The sectarian cleansing—read Iraq’s civil war—was responsible for most of the deaths according to the reports. The worst month was December 2006 with 3,800 civilians killed.

There was civilian blood on American hands as well. The tactical reports reveal incidents in which American soldiers killed civilians in the course of operations, which explains why many Iraqis turned hostile to American forces which likely extended the war.

Second, the Bush Administration used Saddam Hussein’s brutal treatment as one reason to justify the Iraq war but such practices continue today. The leaked reports document significant evidence of torture and mistreatment by Iraqi security forces as recently as 2009. Keeping those incidents secret makes the U.S appear complicit.

The documents don’t address American abuses such as those at Abu Ghraib but focus on abuse carried out by Iraqi security forces. Torture—beatings, burnings and lashings—is described in hundreds of reports, says the New York Times. These incidents were recorded and Iraqi officials were asked to investigate.

But when Americans reported abuse, according to a number of the reports available online, Iraqi officials often ignored the complaint. One report said an Iraqi police chief admitted to American military inspectors that his officers engaged in abuse “and supported it as a method of conducting investigations.”

In August, Iraqi security forces assumed responsibility for their country and if the leaked reports about detainee mistreatment are accurate then abusive investigations will likely continue. We must live with that sad fact and wonder whether keeping the abuse secret really served both nations’ best interests.

Finally, during the war there were reports about Iran undermining coalition efforts. The leaked documents demonstrate Tehran routinely equipped and trained Iraqi militia, and in some cases Iranian agents and soldiers operated inside Iraq killing American forces.

Captured militant material outlined Iran’s direct role in providing Iraqi fighters with weapons to include the deadly “explosively formed penetrators” that killed hundreds of Americans. Other reports indicate Iran’s Quds Force collaborated with Iraqi extremists to assassinate political figures.

Tehran’s lethal support continued even after President Obama tried to open a dialogue with its leaders, which exposes Iran’s true agenda. Iran’s mad mullahs’ extensive interference in Iraq is part of a grander plan to make Baghdad a piece of Tehran’s Shia crescent that extends across the Middle East to Lebanon. That view was in part validated last week by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Beirut where he proclaimed Lebanon a “university of jihad.”

Keeping Tehran’s extensive warmaking activities in Iraq secret hurt our geopolitical interests and aided Iran’s true hegemonic ambitions by failing to expose them to the world.

The WikiLeaks’ security tsunami should be a wake-up call. We need stiff penalties for media and civil servants who compromise national secrets. And our warmaking policy must protect our credibility by acknowledging the tragic loss of life, hold allies and ourselves publicly accountable for detainee abuses, and expose rogue behavior that is obviously linked to broader geopolitical agendas.

The last word regarding the proposed repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military homosexual exclusion law won’t come from the President, Congress, or the courts. The all-volunteer military will have the last word if the homosexual law is repealed; that is, many will vote with their feet to the nation’s peril.

The three branches of government are so wrapped up in the political and legal debate over the gay ban that they have ignored our all-volunteer service members who have an opinion about open homosexuality in their ranks. This oversight could lead to a tragic miscalculation.

Consider evidence the three branches of government ignored our troops’ views when making their decision to move against the homosexual exclusion law and why this may threaten our all-volunteer force.

President Obama cares more about appeasing his homosexual supporters than protecting our armed forces. The new commander in chief failed to ask the troops their view before he used his 2010 State of the Union address to set in motion the fulfillment of his campaign promise to repeal the military’s 17-year-old homosexual exclusion law.

A week later Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.” Apparently Gates doesn’t care what the troops think or he would have been far more cautious about his quick endorsement of Obama’s “orders.”

On March 2, the secretary assembled a working group to draft a plan to implement repeal and mitigate the consequences. Although the working group engaged the force it failed to ask the only question that matters—“Should the homosexual law be repealed?”

The working group used six instruments to engage the force: town hall-like meetings, focus groups, two websites for anonymous comments, and two surveys. The $4.5 million surveys fail to ask key questions such as whether the law should be repealed and they skew questions and answers to accommodate homosexual service without defining terms.

The town hall-like meetings known as information exchange forums (IEF) which took place on 51 military facilities alienated many service members. Last month, for example, the working group hosted an IEF for 500 people in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Stuttgart session focused exclusively on “when the policy changes.” Session participants said questions and opinions in opposition to repeal were ignored. Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, the session leader, said—according to a participant who wrote to the Washington Times—Christians who disagree with repeal “were bigots and racists and those who felt homosexuality was immoral should start looking for a new line of work.” Bostick allegedly said once the homosexual policy is repealed, chaplains who preach against homosexuality would be treated as criminals.

Secretary Gates will package service member views and the working group’s analysis into a report due to Congress December 1. That report will outline a plan to implement and mitigate the consequences of repeal but it will not consider arguments that support the military’s exclusion policy.

Those arguments and 12 hearings persuaded the 1993 Democrat majority Congress to overwhelmingly pass 10 U.S.C. § 654, the “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.” The law concludes, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

The current Democratic-controlled House of Representatives ignored the exclusion arguments, failed to seek the troops’ views, and hosted no hearings before repealing the law. On May 27, the House voted mostly along party lines to repeal the law while ignoring the protests from the four military chiefs.

The day prior to the House’s vote, the service chiefs sent letters to Congress asking the chamber to stop repeal action. Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, warned “This is not the time to perturb the force … without careful deliberation.”  Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, stressed, “I believe it important to [first] assess [our] force, the opinions of that force, and also the families.” Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, wrote “I’ve got serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force that’s fully involved in two wars.”  Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway was blunt, “I think that the current policy works.”

Fortunately the Senate has so far failed to deliver Obama a “gay-rights” victory. Last month, Senate Democrat leaders tried to ram through a provision similar to the one passed by the House but it failed on a procedural move. Last week, an aide for Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) told the Washington Post it is unclear when the Senate might reconsider the proposed repeal.

Some members of the federal judiciary share President Obama’s desire to lift the homosexual ban. Last month, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., swept aside well-established principle of judicial deference to Congress after eight days of one-sided testimony from discharged homosexuals—but no mention of soldier views—and a tepid defense by Obama Justice Department lawyers to declare the law unconstitutional. Then last week Judge Phillips issued an injunction requiring the military to stop enforcing it immediately.

The Department of Justice said it is “likely” to appeal Phillips’ decision and Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, argued for an emergency stay of Phillips’ injunction.

The confluence of efforts by the three branches of government to lift the homosexual ban is unprecedented but so is their failure to consider unfettered service member voices. Ignoring their views potentially places the nation at risk if our volunteers who are already overstretched by nine years of war decide that lifting the homosexual ban is the last straw and then leave. And lifting the ban could also keep qualified candidates with a proclivity to serve from enlisting but no one knows just how many are in either category.

What we do know is the pool of potential volunteers is shrinking with only 25% of the nation’s 17- to 24-year-olds eligible for military service and a fraction of that group demonstrate a proclivity to volunteer. That shrinking pool is drawn from a small segment of the population mostly opposed to open homosexuality in the military such as conservative and religious families with histories of military service.

This pool of eligible volunteers won’t be easily replaced by “eligible” homosexuals who as a category make up only a few percentage points of the total population and, in general, steer clear of military service. Yet gay activists and liberal apologists with no military service would have the American public believe homosexuals are anxious to fill the military’s ranks.

The President, Congress, and the courts disregard the unfettered opinions of our all-volunteer military at great risk, and if Obama and his allies succeed in lifting the ban they have no back-up pool of eligible recruits. That is why Congress had better listen to our troops and their chiefs or get ready to justify conscription for everyone’s sons and daughters.

President Obama is pushing the reset button on his national security program in order to create a better record for his 2012 campaign but his choice of a new national security adviser dooms the effort from the start.

Evidence of that reset came last week with the early resignation of national security adviser retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones and the announcement of his replacement, Tom Donilon, Jones’ deputy. Although Jones had intended to resign by early 2011, his departure was accelerated by critical comments attributed to him in Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars, such as his reference to Obama’s political advisers as the “politburo,” a term for the policy-making committee of a Communist party.

Gen. Jones isn’t the only member of Obama’s national security team to leave, which gives credence to the reset opportunity. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen are leaving and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may leave to oppose her boss in 2012 or she might take Gates’ Pentagon job.

These departures and perhaps others like Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano clear the way for the well-entrenched Donilon to revamp Obama’s national security record before the 2012 campaign. That is why understanding Donilon is important and specifically understanding his personality, business practices, and priorities.

Gen. Jones’ personality was an awkward fit in the hard-charging, informal Obama campaign-mode White House. He wasn’t willing to work the extreme hours like others and some aides accused Jones of failing to protect Obama from criticism about his lack of national security experience. 

But Donilon, 55, has the personality and background tailor-made for the Obama White House. He is a long-time Democrat political operative and Washington insider with experience working for three Democrat administrations and a heavy dose of work-aholicism, which translates that he is out of touch with reality despite outward appearances of being busy. 

He also has Obama’s confidence, which Jones never enjoyed. At the news conference announcing Jones’ resignation, Obama lauded Donilon’s job suitability with a somewhat telling tongue-in-cheek comment about the new adviser’s “remarkable work ethic” fueled by a “seemingly endless supply of Diet Coke.”

Jones has reservations about Donilon. Earlier this year Jones confronted his deputy about three foibles which are common among Washington insiders like Donilon, according to Woodward. First, Donilon’s view of national security is like that of the proverbial professor in the ivory tower anchored to theory, not based on firsthand perspectives. That is why Jones reportedly told Donilon, “You have no credibility with the military.”

Jones encouraged his deputy to travel overseas to garner practical experience. This summer Donilon visited Afghanistan and last month he traveled to China to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao but a couple overseas trips cannot make up for years of working in the field nor gain credibility and the military’s trust.

Second, Jones cautioned Donilon about his tendency for making inappropriate comments and snap judgments. Jones said Donilon often made absolute declarations about places he had never visited and leaders he has never met, according to Woodward.

Jones cited the time Donilon demanded the resignation of the commander of the U.S. Southern Command for responding too slowly to the earthquake in Haiti. Jones said this was an example of how Donilon made a snap judgment without knowing the facts, according to Woodward.

Secretary Gates shared Jones’ concerns about Donilon’s tendency to make in-appropriate comments, Woodward wrote. Gates said Donilon’s spur-of-the-moment comments offended him so much that he nearly walked out of an Oval Office meeting.

Finally, Jones said Donilon had poor people skills, according to Woodward. He displayed “too little feel for the people who work day and night.” A related foible was evident in his relationship with senior military leaders.

Gates felt Donilon did not understand the military or treat its senior leadership with sufficient respect. Perhaps that is why Gates told Jones, according to Woodward, that Donilon, a rich lawyer and former Fannie Mae vice president, would be a “disaster” as Obama’s national security adviser.

But last week Gates distanced himself from that comment by releasing a statement welcoming Donilon’s appointment and said he has a “good working relationship” with the new national security adviser.

It is also important to understand Donilon’s business practices which are evidenced by his performance as a technocrat with a politics first mentality. He views national security and foreign affairs with an eye on domestic politics and how they might impact his boss. Jones on the other hand reportedly never caught on to the political side of the job, according to Politico.

Donilon’s political sense quickly won Obama’s confidence even though the two never met prior to the presidential campaign. He is also politically well-connected—close to former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a long-time adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and Donilon’s wife is Jill Biden’s chief of staff.

Jones complimented Donilon for being an outstanding technocrat. At his farewell news conference Jones acknowledged Donilon “kept the trains running on time, and your energy and your dedication is without equal.” White House staff also praised Donilon as a tireless manager with the ability to navigate among different factions.

One official told the Washington Post that Donilon “has been running the national security council since the start. Jones was kind of a CEO [chief executive officer] and Tom has been the COO [chief operating officer].” He excels at keeping everything focused and coordinates security policy across the government. This is the traditional role played by former national security advisers like Condoleezza Rice and Sandy Berger.

Early in his tenure Donilon carved out the “deputies meetings” as his venue for influencing national security and to keep “the trains running on time.” He has run more than 300 such meetings that include top officials from across the federal security bureaucracy. He uses that forum for making policy decisions and formulating strategy.

Outsiders should also understand Mr. Donilon’s priorities, especially his desire to “re-balance” American foreign policy. That will be music to the ears of those who share Donilon’s skepticism about the Afghanistan war and especially Democrats who want their President to address more pressing national security problems in preparation for the 2012 election.

Last fall during the administration’s Afghan strategy debate, Donilon vigorously opposed the military’s request for more troops arguing the U.S. could not engage in what he termed “endless war.” He strongly defended Obama’s decision to set a timeline for beginning to withdraw from Afghanistan starting next summer.

Now that Donilon is the national security adviser he will oversee the comprehensive review of the strategy in Afghanistan this December. He is expected to use his new power to cement an exit strategy to satisfy Obama’s alleged concern “I can’t lose the whole Democratic party” over Afghanistan.

Donilon’s “re-balance” means not only his intention to disengage American forces from Afghanistan and Iraq but also to refocus efforts on China, an emerging super power with a growing military, the nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and other emerging crises.

Secretary Gates’ original assessment was correct—Donilon will be a “disaster” as a national security adviser because he puts his political strategy first, lacks international experience, and has serious personality flaws. This wrongheaded appointment dooms the reset from the start and is made worse by the fact that Obama has no international experience or credibility with national security professionals.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

North Korea’s dying leader Kim Jong-Il, 68, last week began laying the groundwork for transferring power to his youngest son. That transition is important because the range of possible outcomes include an atomic war or a nation that abandons its radical past to become a member of the international community.

North Korea last changed its head of state in 1994 when regime founder Kim Song-Il died and his son Kim Jong-Il took over. Kim Jong-Il’s political introduction began 14 years earlier and even with that lead he needed another three years after his father’s death to completely secure control. Those years were marred by a deteriorating economy while millions starved to death.

The plan to usher the Kim dynasty into a third generation comes very late by comparison. Kim Jong-Il just launched a public relations (PR) campaign to make his little known youngest son, Kim Jong-Un, a household name and build-up the youth’s credibility among Pyongyang’s skeptical elite who see the dynastic succession as a contradiction of Communist ideology.

The PR and credibility-building processes began when North Korea’s Central Committee declared in August Kim Jong-Un “the only successor” to Kim Jong-Il which was followed by a flurry of prestigious appointments.

Last week the 27 year-old “crown prince” was elevated to the rank of a four-star general and named deputy chairman of the Military Commission of the Workers’ Party. But Kim Jong-Un will need help before he is ready to lead.

That is why Kim Jong-Il set-up a kind of Communist regency which includes his sister Kim Kyong Hui, 64, who the elder Kim also appointed as a four-star general. It’s not a coincidence that Kim’s sister’s husband, Jang Song-Taek, who handles the day-to-day duties of running North Korea, will work with his wife to guide the young Mr. Kim’s transition. Also acting as a regent is Vice Marshal Ri Yong-Ho who the elder Kim just elevated to the Military Commission’s other deputy chairman position. Ri is expected to tutor the “crown prince” and help curry support for him among the military elite.

Kim Jong-Il’s leadership transition plan faces serious obstacles such as the inevitable dissatisfaction of some military leaders with young Kim’s sudden rise to power. But the most troubling obstacle may be the feeling by Mr. Kim or his regents that he must prove himself militarily by engaging in provocative actions.

The New York Times reported U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed a sobering view regarding this aspect of the succession struggle. Gates ascribed the sinking of a South Korean warship by a North Korean torpedo this March to the succession process. Apparently, Gates agrees, sinking the warship was meant to earn Mr. Kim the military’s respect. What else might the young man be willing to do to earn “the military’s respect?”

Last week’s flurry of activity surrounding the generational transition news captured most of the attention but there were other actions that sent mixed signals about the regime’s intentions—some positive and others decisively negative.

Pyongyang demonstrated positive interest by re-engaging South Korea. Last week North Korea joined the first inter-Korean military talks in two years—although nothing was resolved—and on October 2 North Korea proposed government-level talks to resume South Korean tourism to North Korea’s Mount Kumgang. It also agreed to hold reunions of families separated by the Korean War on October 30-November 5.

Pyongyang renewed its decisively negative war-like rhetoric last week as well. A North Korean spokesman at the United Nations General Assembly vowed his country would strengthen its nuclear arsenal because of the perceived U.S. military threat. The regime also blasted a just completed U.S.-South Korean joint naval exercise in the Yellow Sea. Pyongyang said the exercise proved the U.S. and South Korea are preparing for a “real war” and added Pyongyang will “wipe out” any provocateurs.

Those tough statements keep tensions high and explain why South Korea’s defense ministry seeks a 10% budget increase for 2011. One-third of that increase is intended to buy an anti-missile Aegis destroyer, submarines, and anti-submarine torpedoes to detect and destroy North Korea’s unconventional threats.

Finally, Pyongyang may be positively signaling interest in a new direction for its economy. Stratfor, a U.S. intelligence think tank, indicates Pyongyang reinstated former premier Pak Pong Ju, “who had flirted with Chinese-style economic ideas for North Korea.” Stratfor states that opening special economic zones in North Korea was discussed during Kim Jong-Il’s most recent visit to China.

Stratfor also reported the elevation of three men with significant negotiating experience with the U.S. Kang Sok Ju, who helped negotiate the 1994 Agreed Framework which earned considerable largess from America for Pyongyang’s failed promise to shut down its nuclear program, is now vice premier. The regime also elevated two nuclear negotiators with experience with the U.S. These elevations may signal that Pyongyang is ready to resolve the nuclear issue and move to one of economic development and international integration, according to Stratfor.

What should the U.S. do during the transition period?

First, we must standby our allies. We acted appropriately by conducting joint naval exercises with South Korea to demonstrate resolve against Pyongyang’s warship attack in March. More exercises are warranted and we should also sell Seoul sophisticated capabilities it needs to defend itself.

Second, we must lean on China to keep Pyongyang in check. China, which enjoys a special relationship with North Korea, must help stabilize that country. Beijing has consistently taken steps to aid Pyongyang with food and energy supplies in the past and this must continue to prevent a repeat of the economic distress that occurred during the 1994 transition.

China should also help shape the emerging political situation. Reportedly Kim Jong-Il made two visits to Beijing in recent months to bolster China’s support and solicit its endorsement of the transition plan. Beijing should use its influence to wean Pyongyang’s new leadership from its combative ways and seek to bring it into the international community.

Finally, the U.S. should cautiously pursue a relationship with North Korea’s new leadership. It is possible Pyongyang’s renewed interest in talking with South Korea and the elevation of those with the most experience with the U.S. will lead to something positive. However, preconditions must be satisfied before re-engaging North Korea.

We must insist on no more empty promises. We’ve been consistently burned by Pyongyang’s promises to dismantle its atomic programs for aid. Our aid arrives then Pyongyang reneges, which is followed by something provocative like testing an atomic device.

There are many ways North Korea’s new leadership can demonstrate its sincerity. It can stop threatening its neighbors; sign a peace treaty ending the almost 60-year-old Korean War; stop proliferating weapons across the globe; develop economic zones like those in China to diversify its failed economy; abandon its nuclear weapons program; dismantle its ballistic missile arsenal; distribute its massive army-controlled rice stores to the starving to name but a few.

North Korea faces a very uncertain transition. It is not clear that Kim Jong-Un, the “crown prince,” will take the reigns of power. But whoever is the new head of state must choose whether to continue Kim Jong-Il’s combative strategy that threatens nuclear war or reject intimidation for a course of action that brings North Korea into the international community. While the world waits to see which path the new leader takes, America’s prudent strategy should be to upgrade South Korean capabilities and maintain a strong deterrent.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

The nation’s leading security experts warn homegrown Islamic terrorism is becoming a serious problem. And it will likely get worse because our politically correct (PC) leaders refuse to address the root cause—fundamentalist Islam—and virtually no Muslim leaders are willing to demonize the teachings that fuel Islamic terrorism.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee heard last week from those charged with America’s domestic security. FBI Director Robert Mueller III testified, “The threat from radicalization has evolved” from homegrown Islamic extremists during the past year and they are “increasingly more savvy, harder to detect, and able to connect with other extremists overseas.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified the homegrown terrorist threat increased over the past year because of cooperation with groups like al Qaeda by “sharing financial resources, training, tactical and operational expertise.”

Unfortunately, these officials only offer defensive solutions while avoiding Islamic terrorism’s root cause. That’s because our government is operating on the false premise that Islam is only a religion and that terrorism is caused by legitimate complaints—such as social injustice—and not an Islamic imperative.

For the sake of our security, our leaders must acknowledge Islamic terrorism is rooted in their religion. That doesn’t mean all Muslims endorse terrorism but to ignore the association is naively PC.

Our officials cited evidence of surging domestic Islamic terrorism. “The range of al-Qaeda core, affiliated, allied, and inspired U.S. citizens and residents plotting against the homeland during the past year suggests the threat against the West has become more complex and underscores the challenges of identifying and countering a more diverse array of homeland plotting,” testified Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

FBI Director Mueller testified to recent examples of domestic Islamic terrorism. The FBI disrupted the al Qaeda plot to attack the New York subway system and, in May, an attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, Mueller said. There were homegrown “lone-wolf” extremist attacks on soldiers at Fort Hood last November and the Arkansas recruitment station over a year ago. There were attempted bombings of an office tower in Dallas and a federal building in Springfield, Ill.

Secretary Napolitano testified to evidence of al Qaeda’s growing homeland influence. She said “over the past 12 months, efforts by violent [Islamic] extremist groups and movements to communicate with and recruit individuals within the United States have intensified.” Some Americans, Napolitano said, are inspired by the global jihadist movement to commit violent acts in the U.S. and use the Internet to connect with extremists.

Internet relationships have led to recruiting and overseas terrorist training. NCTC director Leiter testified, “at least 20 U.S. persons—the majority of whom are ethnic Somalis—have traveled to Somalia since 2006 to fight and train with al-Shabaab,” a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

Unfortunately our government has no agency charged with identifying radicalization or preventing terrorism recruitment. Rather, the federal government’s anti-Islamist terrorism efforts focus almost exclusively on defensive systems such as hardening our transportation systems.

Even though our transportation systems were strengthened after 9/11 there are still flaws. The attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253, bound to Detroit, last Christmas, illustrates aviation’s continued vulnerability.

The FBI developed an extensive outreach program to Muslim communities to develop trust, address concerns, and dispel myths. It established the Specialized Community Outreach Team to work with communities such as those in Minneapolis, where U.S. persons are recruited to travel overseas to fight with the al-Shabaab. There are also numerous information sharing programs across government agencies with links to local law enforcement.

These defensive programs must continue but they will never defeat homegrown Islamic terrorism alone. Rather, fundamentalist Islam’s toxic influence must be addressed but politics are in the way. Some PC leaders like President Obama, who exorcised Islamic references from our security strategies, want us to believe that defeating Islamic terrorism depends on addressing grievances like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Muslim poverty. And those who correctly blame terrorism on Islamic religious and cultural traits are labeled Islamophobic.

In truth, jihadists—Islamic fighters who favor waging religious war—motivate the Islamic terrorist by “creating for him a social environment that provides approbation and a religious environment that provides moral and legal sanction for his actions,” writes Shmuel Bar of the Hoover Institution in his paper “The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism.”

Islamic fundamentalists want modern Muslim societies to return to traditional Islam which makes no distinction between the political and the religious. “Islam is the solution” to all problems, explains Mr. Bar, and “no area of human activity is outside its remit.”

That is why one must understand the religious-ideological factors which are deeply embedded in Islam in order to formulate an effective strategy for fighting Islamic terrorism, Mr. Bar argues.

But this view creates a dilemma for Westerners who believe there are pragmatic causes of Islamic terrorism rather than an ideological basis, says Mr. Bar. That puts Westerners at a disadvantage because the only effective counter to Islamic terrorism requires a religious-ideological solution which is precluded by Western concepts of civil rights and government non-intervention in matters of organized religion.

What can be done?

The U.S. must seek religious reform in the Muslim world. Mr. Bar suggests Islamic authorities must intervene to contradict their radical worldview—such as there is no state of jihad between Islam and the West and terrorism has no justification—and they must “excommunicate” the radicals. But at present the West is unprepared to deal with Islamic imams who incite followers with fiery sermons and fatwas—Islamic rulings—justifying terrorism.

This strategy, Mr. Bar argues, cannot take shape without a “reinterpretation of Western concepts of the boundaries of the freedoms of religion and speech, definitions of religious incitement, and criminal culpability of religious leaders for the acts of their flock as a result of their spiritual influence.”

The solution is to make a paradigm shift and understand that Islam is not a Western-style religion that deserves protection and noninterference from the state.

Fundamentalist Islam is a theocracy which means it is a dominant government philosophy and mandate, a cultural imperative designed to control all aspects of life and an oppressive judicial system designed to establish and enforce certain religious beliefs. Finally, Islam is a national strategy that openly states that it is the only acceptable form of government for the world and that tactics including murder of unbelievers is mandated in order to achieve it.

Once free from the false view of Islam as solely a religion, our leadership will be able to move from the defensive to an offensive mindset and fight for the safety and security of America and the West. Our present PC mindset regarding Islam and terrorism dooms us to reaction and ultimate failure.

President Obama intends for Operation New Dawn to be America’s quick get out of Iraq plan, but our long-term interests would be better served if we patiently prepare Baghdad to become a catalyst for regional stability.

Obama last week announced the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq and then promised “all U.S. troops will leave by the end of the new year.” His announcement fulfills a campaign “pledge,” allows him to shift troops to Afghanistan—Obama’s “war of necessity”—and to begin cashing in military savings to address “our most urgent task,” restoring the economy and creating jobs.

Most Americans agree our economy and unemployment are serious national problems. However, rushing out of Iraq before that nation is stable could result in a nightmare that haunts the region and costs America dearly.

Historically Iraq has counterbalanced Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions. Currently Iraq is unstable but with the backing of American troops stationed in that country it keeps Iran at bay.  But once America leaves, Baghdad must either be prepared to stand-up to Tehran’s threats or instability will reign.

Currently Iraq is far from stable. It has serious problems: no functioning government, security is crumbling, and the country’s economy is totally dependent on oil with high unemployment.

Nearly six months after its national election, there is still no government and now there’s talk of a new election to resolve the impasse. Outgoing U.S. commander Gen. Raymond Odierno predicted Iraqi politicians still need up “to eight weeks” to form a new government. Odierno asked rhetorically “If it goes beyond 1 October, what does that mean? Could there be a call for another election?”

The lack of a functioning government feeds the ongoing violence which has spiked over the past month. Even though levels of violence are down compared to the pre-surge period in 2006, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Noaman Jawad, the head of an elite police brigade, recently told the Los Angeles Times his country is at least two years away from an end to its internal conflicts. And Iraq’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Babaker B. Shawkat Zebari, told Agence France-Presse his army may not be ready to defend the nation from its external enemies—read Iran—until 2020.

Iraq’s economy is one of poorest in the world which feeds instability. Most of its vast oil resources remain undeveloped. The U.S. Energy Department estimates Iraq’s oil production will increase slowly from 2.4 million barrels per day (MMBD) in 2008 to 2.6 MMBD in 2015 and potentially to a high of 7.6 MMBD in 2035. But for now the money Iraq gleans from petroleum sales is poured into salaries and maintaining employment. Little is left for development and security.

In spite of these destabilizing problems, President Obama kept his campaign promise to end our combat mission in Iraq and launched Operation New Dawn. He told the nation “The future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.”

That future includes a different kind of Iraq mission that puts less emphasis on security and more on nation building. The 50,000 U.S. troops that remain in Iraq, according to Obama, are “advising and assisting Iraq’s security forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeting counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians.”

Our nation building effort is led by the U.S. State Department. Obama said “Our dedicated civilians … are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.”

Under the terms of the 2008 U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, the State Department-led effort will help Iraq’s development in a range of sectors, including education, energy, trade, health, culture, law enforcement and judicial cooperation.

But these efforts, military and civilian, will cost a lot of money and take more time—that’s the challenge. U.S. lawmakers have been reluctant to fund Obama’s ambitious post-combat programs in Iraq. For example, the Obama Administration’s request for $2 billion to train and equip Iraqi army and police forces was recently cut in half by the Senate.

Failing to sufficiently resource Operation New Dawn virtually guarantees failure. But that may be acceptable to Obama who said the “Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country” and “We have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.”

Obama’s “turn the page” comment appears to mean Washington’s time in Iraq is just about finished. But Obama ought to consider the French perspective regarding Iraq.

Last week the French ambassador to Iraq, Boris Boillon, told Le Figaro, a French newspaper, “Iraq is a true laboratory of democracy in the Arab world today.” Boillon continued, “Our mission in Iraq may succeed, or it may fail. In the end, though, we have given them a republic, and it is up to them to keep it or not. The Arab and Muslim worlds desperately need reform and Iraq may well provide the impetus.”

We may be on the cusp of major reform in the Middle East and Iraq may be the catalyst. But to realize that goal Obama must grasp this opportunity to think strategically—to stretch our commitment.

Realistically, Iraq needs our robust partnership for another decade to insure it is ready to defend itself against Iran and “provide the impetus” for regional reform. In particular, Iraq needs our close partnering to deal with an extended period of political paralysis, sectarian violence, and building an economy crippled by decades of mismanagement.

Our close partnership backed by military and civilian forces has a broader regional effect as well. It will limit Iran’s hegemonic influence, help constrain regional sectarian extremism, and ensure the flow of petroleum through the Persian Gulf which will serve global economic stability.

Americans are divided over the justification for going to war with Iraq. But abandoning Iraq too soon would be a mistake and could cost us dearly in terms of re-emergent security requirements and much higher oil prices.

Obama last week said, “Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest—it’s in our own.” He promised a “new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization” but that requires perhaps a decade more work and genuine strategic thinking.

Obama should not prematurely cut our support for Iraq until Baghdad is mature enough to serve as a catalyst for regional stability. Only at that point will our collective best interests be served and we can rightly declare the Iraq war is won.

President Obama’s Oval Office speech on Tuesday night celebrating the end of American combat operations in Iraq included four messages but failed to address our most pressing regional problem, Iran. That was a strategic mistake.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is arguably at the center of every security problem in the Middle East. It defies logic how Obama could deliver his most important foreign policy address to date and completely ignore Iran. No doubt, Tehran was pleased with the speech and our allies are rightly nervous.

Consider Obama’s four somewhat disjointed messages and then what he should have said about Iran.

First, he confirmed his intent to leave Iraq next year whether Baghdad is ready or not. He used the speech to formally announce the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the beginning of Operation New Dawn, our “advise and assist” mission.

The President said the “Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.” He admitted there is still a lot of violence but expressed confidence Iraq will eventually contain the problem.

On Aug. 25 alone, militants conducted 34 attacks in 16 cities across Iraq that killed at least 77 and wounded more than 400. Iraqis are buying weapons to defend themselves and key leaders are complaining that America’s withdraw is premature.

Obama encouraged Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government—now six months in the making—but then announced “all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.” He pledged even though “our combat mission is ending … our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” He failed to clarify that “commitment.”

Obama’s second message was to the parties engaged in the Afghan war. He announced Washington’s clock in Afghanistan begins running out next summer.

He warned the American people “Don’t lose sight of what’s at stake.” Then he restated the threat, our strategy, and policy objective in Afghanistan. He said “al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan.” His strategy which was first announced last December remains to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, and his policy objective “is to prevent Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists.”

Obama referenced his 30,000-man surge in Afghanistan and reminded the American people that our additional troops are “under the command of General David Petraeus,” the author of our success in Iraq.

“As with the surge in Iraq,” Obama said, “these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future.” But then he cautioned, “next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility.” He intends to begin troop reductions next summer “because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.”

The President’s restatement of his intent to begin withdrawing forces next summer sealed any hope we have that the counterinsurgency will ever work. Historically, successful counterinsurgencies on average take 14 years.

Obama’s third message was to the American people and was an indirect plea for patience. He indicated the end of combat operations in Iraq allowed him to shift resources to Afghanistan and by implication to finish that war sooner.

His plea for patience was linked to widespread concern about the economy. Almost as if he considers our wars a distraction, Obama said “Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work.” He understands that his sinking job performance polling is tied to the economy and not to the wars.

His final message was to the veterans. “Our troops are the steel in our ship of state,” the commander in chief said. He praised their sacrifice and pledged “to maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known” and “to serve our veterans as well as they have served us.” He promised long-term healthcare and funding for education.

These messages—Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, and veterans—were loosely linked together. But he missed an opportunity to deliver a message to the radical regime in Iran.

Iran is behind the unrest in Iraq, feeds the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, and threatens to cut-off the flow of Persian Gulf oil which could devastate the global economy. Its nuclear weapons program will soon spark a Middle East arms race which will create nightmares for the Pentagon.

Obama as the leader of the free world should never miss an opportunity to show the connection of crises, warn our adversaries, and reassure our allies.

The President should have used his speech to make clear that America will stay at Iraq’s side until it is stable and able to secure itself, internally and externally. That sends a strong message to Iran to keep its distance.

He should have renounced his previous announcement that U.S. forces will begin withdrawing in July 2011. By restating that deadline Obama encouraged our enemies and discouraged our allies.

Obama mentioned the al Qaeda terror threat in the context of both Iraq and Afghanistan but ignored Iran’s Middle East-wide support for terrorism, the threat that regime poses to oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, and its rapidly advancing atomic weapons program.

Obama’s Oval Office speech scratched his need to celebrate a campaign promise—“bring our combat brigades out of Iraq”—but completely ignored our most pressing problem in the region: Iran. That was a strategic mistake which will drain confidence from our allies and encourage our enemies like the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the mad mullahs in Tehran.

America’s last combat brigade departed Iraq on August 18 leaving behind 50,000 troops to “advise and assist” Baghdad’s security forces. This was the first step to fulfilling President Obama’s campaign promise “to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.” But the hard part lays ahead—taming Iran’s interference and withdrawing American forces without Iraq returning to sectarian chaos.

A “responsible end” to the Iraq war was defined by former President Bush as the creation of a thriving, peaceful, democratic Iraq that deals “the terrorists a crippling blow and establishes a beacon of liberty in the Middle East.” Right now Iraq has no functioning government, its security forces are unprepared to defend the country, and it is uncertain Baghdad will ever be “a beacon of liberty.”

In spite of these uncertainties Obama has already rhetorically washed his hands of Iraq. “The future of Iraq belongs to the Iraqis,” Obama said. But reality dictates that both Baghdad’s future and by association America’s national interests in the Middle East depend on Iran’s cooperation.

Consider the obstacles opposing a “responsible end” to our role in Iraq, Tehran’s geopolitical intentions for Iraq, and Obama’s strategic alternatives upon which to base America’s exit from Iraq while protecting our national interests.

America has paid a high price in Iraq. To date 4,415 Americans have been killed and almost a trillion dollars spent to fight and rebuild that country. Yet Iraq remains a very troubled country plagued by numerous obstacles to a stable future.

Its economy is slavishly tethered to underdeveloped oil resources, which provide 95% of government revenues and 60% of all economic output. Even though it has massive oil reserves Iraq suffers from crippling 17 % unemployment, spotty electricity, an antiquated manufacturing sector and massive corruption. The war drained huge numbers of the well-educated professionals which are critical to any economy.

Iraq is in serious political trouble. On March 7, Iraq hosted its fourth democratic national election but today it remains without a functioning government. The lack of a stable, functioning government created widespread insecurity which is contributing to new violence.

The political stalemate encourages the re-emergence of sectarian—mostly Sunni and Shia—differences which were suppressed over the past three years.  But America’s partial withdrawal compounded by the lack of a functioning government rekindled those deeply held sectarian fears. That fear has contributed to the return of extremists like Ismail al-Lami, who the U.S. military has targeted since 2004, when he served in Muqtada al Sadr’s Shiite Mehdi Army.

Sunnis, a religious minority once favored by Saddam Hussein, fear America’s withdrawal will leave them at the mercy of a Shia government backed by Iran. Already al Qaeda is reportedly returning to Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq claimed credit for a suicide attack last week.
The increase in violence associated with the uncertainly explains why a stable, non-sectarian government with a loyal and capable security force is necessary before the U.S. eventually withdraws.

Iraq’s security forces are not up to the task.  Hamid Fadhel, a political science professor at Baghdad University labels America’s combat troop withdrawal “irresponsible.” He continued, “There are dangers to do with security of the country, concerns and fears for Iraq’s external security, because of the lack of military that is able to protect the country.”

Tehran’s geopolitical intentions for Iraq are clear as well. It does not want a strong Iraq because of past wars. Tehran lost more than one million personnel in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war and will do whatever necessary to keep Baghdad from posing a similar threat again.

But Iraqi Sunnis, who fueled the recent insurgency, expect Tehran to wrestle back control over Baghdad once all Americans exit. Until that time, Tehran will work with its Shia proxies and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to keep Iraq unstable and therefore weak, which presents no threat to Tehran.

Tehran’s geopolitical aim extends beyond Iraq. It is working against the U.S. in Afghanistan, supports its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon to undermine U.S. interests, and it continues its secretive nuclear weapons program threatening the entire region. These activities and its frequent military exercises near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil passes have created a very tense situation.

Iraq’s fragile state and Iran’s hegemonic activities threaten America’s interests in Baghdad and the region.  President Obama has four bad alternatives upon which to base his “responsible end” in Iraq.

First, the U.S. with a coalition of partners could attack Iran to remove the regime, keep it from interfering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deny it nuclear weapons. That’s highly unlikely and not just because the U.S. is already stretched thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ground assault on Iran, a country with 70 million people, would likely lead to an extended occupation by a force much larger than the 192,000 man coalition used to take Iraq. And air power alone can’t change the regime or its policies. Besides no one in Washington has the stomach for another war.

Second, Obama’s rhetoric indicates he might withdraw all our troops from Iraq whether Baghdad is ready or not. But that option abandons both Iraq and the Persian Gulf countries to Iran and would protect American interests only if Baghdad is stable and able to defend itself. The consequences of total withdrawal before Iraq is ready could be catastrophic because Iraq would likely become Tehran’s puppet and Sunni blood would flow leading to a civil war.

Third, the U.S. could remain in Iraq on a semi-permanent basis much as it has in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. Top Iraqi and U.S. military leaders acknowledge Iraq may need help well beyond 2011 and Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledges the discussion but said the “initiative will have to come from the Iraqis.” The intent of a semi-permanent presence would be to act as a trip wire much like U.S. forces in Europe during the Cold War or South Korea does today against a potential North Korean invasion. But Iran would reject any permanent U.S. presence in Iraq and demonstrate its displeasure by creating instability.

Finally, the U.S. could negotiate with Iran. Two weeks ago retired Gen. Jim Jones, Obama’s national security advisor, said the U.S. is considering negotiations with Iran. But to draw Tehran to the table the U.S. must be willing to give-up something desirable to Iran. Right now Iran appears to have all the leverage—threats to continue disrupting U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, endanger free passage through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, and an unchecked, advancing atomic weapons program. The only bargaining chips Obama might use are lifting economic sanctions which are having some effect, compromising security guarantees with Gulf allies, and ratcheting down our hostility to Tehran’s atomic programs. But are these really worth negotiating away in order to win a peaceful Iraq?

President Obama has nothing but bad options to deliver on his promise to bring “the war in Iraq to a responsible end.” His best option appears to be a semi-permanent presence in Iraq—well past the December 2011 deadline—until Baghdad has a stable government capable of securing itself internally and from Tehran’s interference. That serves the region’s and America’s best interests.

By: -Col. Bob Maginnis

Two recent polls took vastly different approaches in surveying views about homosexuals serving in the military. A Pentagon poll asked politically correct questions designed to elicit positive responses to changing the policy, while a poll of voters sent a loud and clear message against a change.

The polls, one funded by the taxpayer and another by a non-profit group, address the contentious military homosexual law. The taxpayer-funded poll measures military views as part of the Pentagon’s promised report to Congress. The other survey asks likely voters questions that expose serious cracks in the left’s contention that the American people favor open service by homosexuals at any cost.

Congress, which is the audience for both surveys, should pay close attention for the sake of the country’s security.

The Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG), the Pentagon’s task force preparing the report on homosexuals for Congress, was directed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to “examine the issues associated with repeal of the law” and to develop “an implementation plan that addresses the impacts” by December 1. The law in question is 10 U.S.C. § 654, the “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces,” which is often confused with the regulation known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Gates also directed the CRWG to “systematically engage the force” as part of its study. That prompted CRWG to hire a pollster, Westat of Rockville, Md., to survey the armed forces to measure the likely impact of open homosexuality for unit cohesion and troop retention.

The CRWG’s $4 million survey, which finished August 15, asked 400,000 military personnel for their views but surprisingly only one in four of those members responded. The poor response to the emailed survey appears to be attributed to a combination of concern over confidentiality and to lopsided, obviously politically correct questions. The survey results won’t be publicly available until late fall if ever.

The survey has serious flaws. It asks respondents to answer questions based on the perception that a colleague is homosexual. The respondent is asked how—positively or negatively—the presumed homosexual impacted unit performance, privacy, morale, family, and career plans.

It is interesting the survey designers found space to ask about the presumed homosexual impact but no space could be found to ask if any of the respondents are homosexual—an important statistic for the military—and whether the respondents believe lifting the homosexual ban will improve or harm readiness.

The poll naively suggests “sexual orientation”—code for homosexuality—is a neutral factor for the military and then asks the troops to identify how the military services can stop personnel from leaving should the ban be repealed. One question asks whether more pay or bonuses could keep objecting personnel in uniform.

There are privacy questions. Have you shared a room or bath with someone you suspect was homosexual? What would you do if assigned to share a room or bath with someone you know is homosexual? “Leave the service” if forced to share a room or bath with an open homosexual is not a response on the survey.

There are questions about soldier reactions to open homosexuality at social functions and homosexual couples assigned on-base family housing. Apparently same-sex “family” housing and homosexual “marriage” is part of the military’s study but the survey fails to ask about morality and religious-based objections.

Results from this survey, another targeting 150,000 military spouses, and comments gathered from CRWG-conducted focus groups fulfill Gates’ order to “engage the force.” But no matter what the troops told the CRWG the Pentagon’s report will be exclusively about repeal—a plan to implement repeal and how to mitigate the consequences.

The decision to repeal the law is ultimately up to Congress, the audience for the Pentagon’s report. That body has the constitutional responsibility (Article 1, Section 8) to make the rules and regulations for the military. It must carefully study the Pentagon’s report, especially comments opposing repeal, but then Congress must also consider other input.

Congress should give serious consideration to a second poll. Last week the Military Culture Coalition (MCC), a network of major organizations supporting the current law regarding homosexuals in the military, released a survey of likely voters. The polling company inc./WomanTrend conducted the 1,000 person survey over five days in July, producing results with a 3.1% margin of error.

The MCC survey stands in stark contrast to liberal media-hosted polls that claim overwhelming support for repealing the law but rely on broad questions like: “Do you favor homosexuals serving openly in the military?” By contrast the MCC poll asked piercing questions to determine voter views regarding the importance of repeal, the ban’s logical basis, the President’s motivation for repeal, the value Congress should give to military leaders’ advice, and whether the proposed change is better than the status quo.

Not surprisingly voters expect Congress to get its priorities right. They expect Congress to focus on important issues like creating jobs (49%) and reducing government spending (23%). Only 1% of likely voters believe repealing the military’s homosexual ban should be a top priority for Congress.

Significant majorities of likely voters endorsed critical findings in the current homosexual exclusion law. Specifically, 92% agreed that our armed forces’ purpose is to prevail in combat and 65% agree that the military is a specialized society. Those findings and 13 others were used in 1993 to build the logical foundation upon which the exclusion law rests.

That logic is not lost on most voters. A majority (57%) agree that President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union promise to repeal the homosexual law is mostly for political reasons—payback to radical homosexuals for their campaign support—and not about principle (31%).

In May, the chiefs of the four military services sent letters to Congress asking members to wait before acting on repeal until after the Pentagon issues its report. Nearly half of likely voters (48%) agree Congress should listen to the service chiefs on this issue rather than to repeal advocates who would require the armed forces to accept professed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in the military.

But the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives ignored the chiefs and jammed through a repeal amendment just before the Memorial Day recess. The Senate is expected to take-up that measure in September and if it is eventually passed, the long-standing ban could become history once Gates delivers his report this December.

But members of Congress facing election this November ought to consider that nearly half (48%) of likely voters prefer Congress keep the current law as opposed to 45% who favor repeal. It’s noteworthy as well that a member’s voting record on the ban makes a difference both ways to a majority of voters—30% are less likely to support a member who voted to overturn the law and 21% are more likely to support a member who voted to overturn. The MCC poll found it makes no difference for 46%.

Congress should reject the CRWG’s report and its effort to “systematically engage the force” as politically inspired theater as did three out of every four troops. By contrast the MCC poll demonstrates that likely voters understand this issue far better than liberal media-sponsored polling suggests. That’s why Congress should do the responsible thing—reject repeal, keep the military’s long-standing ban to protect our armed forces from falling prey to the radical homosexual agenda.

 By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

Two new reports—one secret and one little noticed—confirm America faces a threat far worse than 9/11. We must demand immediate action before the nation is literally thrown back to the Stone Age.

Cyber attacks, the subject of the new reports, are responsible for “the biggest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in the history of mankind,” according to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-R.I.). The senator also warns the nation’s total dependence on our automated infrastructure—electric grid, air traffic control, manufacturing, and business—and our national defense networks are dangerously vulnerable to this accelerating and insidious threat.

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s cyber task force chaired by Whitehouse filed its secret report last month. The senator said, “The public knows very little about the size and scope of the threat their nation faces.” He claims the transfer of wealth attributable to cyber theft and piracy is “perhaps as high as $1 trillion” and he added if the American people “knew how vulnerable America’s critical infrastructure is and the national security risk that has resulted, they would demand action.”

Whitehouse’s alarming comments are reinforced by a little noticed Energy Department report released July 22 which found the computer networks controlling our electric grid are plagued by widespread security flaws that allow our cyber enemies to manipulate the grid and steal critical data. The report, “NSTB Assessments Summary Report: Common Industrial Control System Cyber Security Weaknesses,” was prepared by the Idaho National Laboratory.

The alarming information from both reports is no surprise to our intelligence community. James Clapper, President Obama’s nominee to be director of National Intelligence, testified to the far-reaching impact of the cyber threat. “Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication,” Clapper testified.” 

Steven Chabinsky, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, warns that our vulnerability and the expanding cyber security threat could “challenge our country’s very existence.” Consider the following evidence and what we must do about it.

Our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Electric power utilities, for example, are vulnerable because of their growing reliance on Internet-based communication which makes their industrial control systems easy targets for spies and hackers.

In 2008, senior CIA official Tom Donohue told a meeting of utility company representatives in New Orleans that “we have information that cyber attacks have been used to disrupt power equipment in several regions outside the United States. In at least one case, the disruption caused a power outage affecting multiple cities. We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the Internet.”

Most cyber intrusions are not detected by the utilities but by intelligence agencies. U.S. intelligence officials worry cyber attackers will take control of electrical facilities or even a nuclear power plant, a potentially catastrophic event.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported cyber spies penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system. The spies, according to the Journal, were on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. So far, according to officials, the intruders haven’t sought to damage our power grid or other key infrastructure.

Our Defense Department is a cyber target. Gen. Keith Alexander, the leader of the new U.S. Cyber Command, said the Defense Department systems are probed by unauthorized users roughly 250,000 times an hour, or more than six million times a day. Alexander said the potential for sabotage and destruction is “something we must treat very seriously.”

In 2007, a cyber attack forced the Defense Department to take as many as 1,500 computers offline and, according to the Financial Times, the Chinese military cracked into a Pentagon network serving the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gen. Kevin Chilton, who heads the U.S. Strategic Command, said “The important thing is that we recognize that we are under assault from the least sophisticated—what I would say the bored teenager—all the way up to the sophisticated nation-state, with some pretty criminal elements sandwiched in-between,” said Chilton.

The scope of the state-sponsored threat is sobering. Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn wrote in the Wall Street Journal that more than 100 intelligence agencies and foreign militaries are actively trying to penetrate U.S. systems and weapons-system blueprints. 
State-sponsored cyber intrusions are the worst of our threat. Russia and China stand out as the most persistent at targeting the U.S. and the most dangerous because they have harnessed cyber technology as a military weapon.

In 2007, Moscow orchestrated a massive cyber attack against the small country of Estonia in the wake of a dispute over the relocation of a World War II memorial. That attack shutdown Estonia’s economy and government.

Russia used a cyber attack a year later to shutdown the Republic of Georgia’s government. That attack coincided with Moscow’s ground invasion into South Ossetia making it the first time a cyber attack had coincided with a shooting war.

But the Chinese are our most dangerous cyber foe. The Pentagon’s 2006 Military Power of the People’s Republic of China report exposed Beijing’s growing computer network attack capabilities. That report states “China is developing the ability to launch pre-emptive attacks against enemy computer networks in a crisis.”

The report continues, “During a military contingency, information warfare units could support active PLA [People’s Liberation Army] forces by conducting ‘hacker attacks’ and network intrusions, or other forms of ‘cyber’ warfare, while helping to defend Chinese networks.”

The Pentagon’s 2009 China report identifies Beijing for serious cyber intrusions. “It remains unclear if these intrusions were conducted by, or with the endorsement of the PLA or other elements of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government” states the report. But the Pentagon acknowledges these intrusions are consistent with China’s military writings. It identified suspected Chinese attacks on India, Belgium, and the U.S.

The Pentagon’s 2010 China report is now mysteriously five months late. It’s possible the update is being held-up because it once again exposes evidence that China is becoming more dangerous in areas like cyber warfare, a concept that is politically inconvenient to the Obama Administration.

The cyber threat is very serious, but to date all the U.S. government seems capable of doing is passing laws, creating organizations, and wringing its rhetorical hands. What we need is real leadership to address four specific challenges.

First, President Obama must rally public awareness to this threat and outline what citizens must do.

Second, the private sector must begin to counter cyber threats. Businesses must train their people and upgrade their computer networks against cyber intrusions. The private sector managing critical infrastructure have no higher priority than closing the security gaps identified in the recent Department of Energy report.

Third, the Justice Department must aggressively stop cyber criminals no matter where they are and put them behind bars. 

Finally, the Pentagon’s new cyber command must have the authority, means, and approval to take offensive action against state-sponsored cyber attacks but must not violate American civil liberties in the process. 

The President must make fighting the cyber war a top priority. Failing to take immediate and appropriate actions such as those outlined above could result in a cyber catastrophe that “challenges our very existence.”