Al-Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, had a profound impact on Americans who felt vulnerable and doubted their government’s ability to protect them.  Even though there have been security improvements since 9/11 ,serious problems persist.

Consider six post-9/11 security improvements and the challenges that must be overcome to keep America safe.

First, public transportation has improved security especially with airlines but problems persist.

After 9/11, the Transportation Security Administration​ (TSA) was established to handle airline passenger pre-screening and flight security.  The TSA quickly increased security by hardening cockpits, banning items like knives and liquids greater than three ounces, and toughening passenger screening.

Anyone who has flown since 9/11 is aware of the sometimes groping indignities even the aged must endure as a result of tighter passenger screening.  But even these draconian measures suffer serious shortfalls.  Specifically, explosives detection technology lacks reliability, body scanning machines are ineffective at detecting explosives and the TSA should do more profiling.

We also need to improve our watch-listing capability with information-sharing between intelligence and immigration authorities.  Several attempted attacks should have been detected by the U.S. immigration system, such as the known al-Qaeda Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab​, who used a valid U.S. visa to board Northwest Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Second, our anti-terrorism war has badly damaged the core al-Qaeda, but the organization’s fight will now come from its franchises and grassroot jihadists.

Al-Qaeda’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, threatens to conduct an attack more terrible than 9/11.  Zawahiri just released an Internet message:  “Seek to attack America that has killed the imam of the mujahideen [Osama bin Laden] and threw his corpse in the sea and then imprisoned his women and children.”

But Zawahiri lacks the operational capability to launch another 9/11-style attack because of our past battlefield successes and his recent loss.  Last week a CIA drone attack killed Zawahiri’s operations officer, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.  Rahman was in charge of coordinating attacks against the U.S. and Europe, and managing its far-flung affiliates.  But al-Qaeda’s regional franchises and grassroot jihadist affiliates are quite capable.

The Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which controls much of Yemen, and its Somali partner, Al-Shabaab, have shown both the means and intent to conduct transnational attacks.  In October 2010, AQAP placed explosives onto U.S.-bound flights.  Last week, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Algeria and on the same day Boko Haram, a Nigerian terrorist group aligned with Al-Shabaab, killed dozens of people when it blew up the United Nations headquarters in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja.

But the major threat to the American homeland will come from homegrown operatives who are more difficult to identify.  Last year, 10 Muslim-Americans plotted against domestic targets and five carried out their plots.  Somali communities in Minneapolis and Portland, Ore., are ripe for Al-Shabaab recruiters and others are “self-radicalized” via the Internet.

Third, we need better border security and immigration reform because foreign terrorists exploit these weaknesses.

Eighteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 state-issued identifications that enabled them to easily board planes.  That is why the 9/11 Commission recommended federal standards for the issuance government sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.

The federal government passed the REAL ID Act in 2008 to establish an identification standard.  But to date, only one-third of the states have complied with that law, which creates vulnerabilities and makes us less safe.

Besides, we have a serious illegal immigrant problem for other two reasons.  Our government has operational control of less than half of the porous 2,000-mile Southwest border.  And our visa overstays account for almost half of the illegal immigrants in our country.

We need to control the entire border and enforce the visa system through our biometric entry-exit screening system.  This system checks all individuals who arrive at U.S. borders, checks their identities, and helps prevent known terrorists from entering the country.

Immigration authorities also need to give employers the tools needed to make sure the person they are hiring is legally here.  The current system lacks a verifiable real-time electronic network that, once in place, would quickly identify illegal immigrants.

Fourth, former President George W. Bush said, “The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network.”  Bush knew al-Qaeda tried to acquire nuclear weapons in the late 1990s and would have used one in America given the opportunity.

There are nearly 2,000 tons of highly enriched uranium in the world, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons.  Keeping that material out of the hands of terrorists, “who would surely use them,” was the reason President Obama gave for hosting the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.

Unfortunately, the 49 nations represented at the summit are not the problem.  Rogue regimes such as North Korea and our erstwhile ally Pakistan, both nuclear powers, are known weapon proliferators.  More work is needed to prevent these and other countries like Iran from proliferating fissile material and securing known stockpiles.

Fifth, federal law enforcement has overcome many impediments, especially the timely sharing of terrorism-related information but much work remains to be done.

Since 9/11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation​ (FBI) shifted significant resources to international counterterrorism and intelligence gathering with the help of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), which oversees the intelligence community.  Those changes have enabled the bureau to disrupt many terrorist plots.

But problems remain for federal law enforcement regarding the terrorism threat, such as the failure to foil the shooting in Fort Hood, Tex.  The FBI​ knew the shooter had become radicalized under the influence of an al-Qaeda extremist, but nothing more than a superficial inquiry resulted.

Finally, America’s foreign policy is a two-edged sword.  Our support of “Arab Spring” revolutions sweeping across the Middle East may help remove tyrants, but the ensuing instability will likely be exploited by terrorists, as appears to be the case in Libya.

The U.S. should align itself with emerging pro-democracy governments that are inhospitable to terrorists.  But our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Pew Research Center surveys, have alienated most Muslims.

That is why most Muslims say they don’t trust America’s support for Arab Spring revolutionaries.

Libya illustrates the challenge.  Although the U.S. supported the Libyan rebels’ victory over dictator Muammar Gaddafi​, the end result may be something other than pro-West.  For example, Abdel-Haim al-Hasadi was named commander of the Tripoli military council.  He was once the leader of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda affiliate.  Other known Islamists are among the Libyan rebels and may eventually rule that country to our disadvantage.

The 9/11 terrorists had a profoundly dramatic impact on America.  Our subsequent security initiatives kept the country safe, but they must be improved upon if America is to be secure against a morphing and sophisticated enemy.

A new Pentagon report indicates China’s sustained military investments are destabilizing and exposes the Marxist giant’s global ambitions.  The free world had better wake up to the security threat posed by this hegemonic menace.

Last week the Pentagon issued its annual report to Congress, which warns, “China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.”

But the report “mischaracterizes and minimizes that threat,” according to Steve Mosher, a social scientist who worked in China and is author of numerous books on the country.  The report “does a disservice to the truth,” Mosher said.

The truth about China’s emerging global threat becomes obvious when Beijing’s intentions, behavior and military modernization are properly exposed.

First, China’s intentions are global and offensive.  Constantine Menges wrote in China: The Gathering Threat, “In the traditional Chinese view, the world needs a hegemon—or dominant state—to prevent disorder.  The Communist Chinese regime believes China should be that hegemon.”

That view was echoed in 2010 by Liu Mingfu, a Chinese senior colonel and author of The China Dream.  Liu said “China’s big goal in the 21st century is to become world No. 1, the top power,” Reuters reported.  The Pentagon’s report stops short of that forecast but admits the regime “anticipates becoming a world-class economic and military power by 2050.”

China’s latest defense White Paper provides evidence of its global ambitions.  The paper, according to the Pentagon report, introduces the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to new global missions intended to grow China’s influence, such as international peacekeeping efforts, counter-piracy operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

These other-than-war operations are made possible by China’s new investments in large amphibious ships, a hospital ship, long-range transport aircraft and improved logistics.  Such assets extend China’s global influence and provide the PLA important expeditionary know-how and capabilities for future operations.

China’s global ambitions are also evidenced by its increased liaison with foreign militaries and increased joint exercises.  Last year, China expanded relations to 150 different militaries, which reflects an effort to collect information and build partnerships.

Beijing’s foreign outreach includes more joint exercises.  In 2010, the PLA participated in 32 joint exercises—up from eight in 2009—to increase its influence, enhance ties with partner states, and provide opportunities to improve capabilities and gain operational insights from more advanced militaries.

China’s White Paper also announces the regime’s “active defense” security strategy, which pretends to focus on defense and promises to attack only if attacked.  But Mosher says China’s use of the term “active defense” is just a euphemism for the PLA’s “determination to strike first in the event of a crisis.”  He concludes “active defense” is “not defensive at all, but is a strategy of offense and expansion.”

Second, China’s behavior has become aggressive, and given its global ambitions, we can expect more bullying across all domains—land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.

China is aggressive with Taiwan, a breakaway Chinese democratic republic.  Beijing intends to deter Taiwan independence through intimidation such as the massing of 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles opposite the island or through a threatened preemptive attack.

China aggressively responds to maritime boundary disputes with Japan over the East China Sea and numerous countries in the South China Sea.  Beijing claims both seas, and since 2005 it has harassed foreign vessels, including American ships using those seaways.

Beijing is very aggressive in cyberspace.  In 2010, American and ally computer systems were the target of many intrusions that appeared to originate in China, according to the Pentagon.  Those breaches were aimed at stealing military-related data and the PLA’s cyber units are prepared to “constrain an adversary’s actions” and “serve as a force multiplier.”

Third, the Pentagon’s report provides sobering details regarding China’s technological gap-closing developments that are providing the regime the capacity to conduct high-intensity, global operations.

The report states China developed an anti-access ballistic missile to prevent American aircraft carriers from coming to Taiwan’s defense.  The “carrier-killer” missile could also be used globally against America’s 11 carriers.  The weapon is known as the DF-21D and has a range exceeding 940 miles.

China is developing a fighter aircraft that incorporates stealth attributes for long-range missions against well-protected targets—read American military facilities.  A Chinese proto-type, the J-20, was tested earlier this year, but the Pentagon does not expect it to achieve “effective operational capability prior to 2018.”  China has approximately 2,300 operational combat aircraft and another 1,450 older fighters, bombers and trainers.

The Communist regime is developing a global expeditionary capability.  Specifically, Beijing is developing airborne early-warning and control system aircraft that, combined with aerial-refueling programs, will enable the regime to extend its naval air capabilities globally.

The PLA has numerous expeditionary forces, such as three airborne divisions armed with modern equipment.  But China’s most important expeditionary tool is the aircraft carrier.  Beijing recently sea-tested a refurbished Russian carrier, and the Pentagon reports, “China could begin construction of a fully indigenous carrier … which could achieve operational capability after 2015.”

The carrier is the latest addition to China’s modern 274-ship blue-water navy, which includes at least 60 submarines.  China continues to produce a new class of global-capable nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines armed with the atomic-tipped JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile with an estimated range of 4,600 miles.

China deploys a growing satellite network.  Last year, China conducted a “record” 15 space launches to expand its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation and communications constellations.  It is also weaponizing space.

In 2007, China successfully tested a direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon against a weather satellite.  It continues to develop and refine this system as well as other kinetic and directed-energy technologies for ASAT missions.

Finally, China is growing its strategic missile program backed by a developing anti-ballistic missile system.  The Pentagon expects China to invest considerable resources to maintain its nuclear arsenal, which Beijing claims will never be used unless it is first attacked by atomic weapons.

But that view disputes a 2005 statement by Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China’s National Defense University, who said that if the U.S. used conventional arms on Chinese territory, “We will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” according to the New York Times.

The Pentagon reports China added 25 new multi-warhead road-mobile, solid propellant intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to its arsenal in 2010.  Beijing’s growing nuclear arsenal is kept safe in deep underground bunkers connected by 3,000 miles of tunnels, a complex that until this report was kept secret.

The Pentagon also for the first time affirmed China is developing a nationwide missile defense system.  Reportedly Beijing’s nonexplosive, high-speed interceptors can hit missiles at heights of up to 50 miles.  “In January 2010, China successfully intercepted a ballistic missile at mid-course, using a ground-based missile,” according to the Pentagon.

China’s hegemonic intentions, aggressive behavior and sobering militarization demonstrate an emerging, dangerous new global threat.  The U.S. and its allies must prevent China from becoming a global hegemon that would use that position to push its Marxist ideology.

The U.S. economy is faltering, with budget deficits and a debt crisis that threaten our global leadership and the health of our military instrument of power.  President Obama and Congress must act to protect our security while the Pentagon shares some of the debt burden.

The recent political deal on the debt ceiling created a congressional “Super Committee” to find $1.5 trillion in savings by Nov. 23 or force mandatory across-the-board cuts, half from the Pentagon.  That result “would have devastating effects” on top of $350 billion in other cuts, warns Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to prepare the Pentagon for draconian cuts should the Super Committee fail to find the needed cuts.  But it isn’t too late for Obama to begin reshaping our military to become more efficient without hurting our security.

Obama should provide Panetta three sets of reshaping guidance to cut costs while preserving our security: cost-cutting guidelines, operational principles, and specific areas to consider when cutting.  

First, Obama’s cost-cutting guidelines should address nonnegotiable priorities, maintaining the all-volunteer force, eliminating unnecessary duplication, minimizing overseas basing, and consolidating military infrastructure at home.

The President should provide a tiered list of nonnegotiable defense guidelines, beginning with the most critical—U.S. survival against nuclear attack.  Our most critical defense missions must be fully funded, while those further down the President’s list receive less than full funding and we accept that risk.

He must issue directions to maintain the all-volunteer force because there is no viable substitute.  But history shows that significant downturns in military budgets have been followed by personnel problems (readiness, training and retention).  Already Panetta has warned more cuts would imperil the all-volunteer military and “would literally undercut our ability to put together the kind of strong national defense we need.”

Obama should direct the Pentagon to eliminate unnecessary duplication of forces and staffs.  Relook at the need for special forces in each service, the need for both Army and Marine ground forces, and consider consolidating specialties such as medical personnel under a single service.  And we don’t need a large staff for both service secretary and service chief of staff.  Then look at the glut of top personnel, such as the excessive number of deputy assistant secretaries of defense, and flag and general officers, the highest number ever.

The President should call for less overseas and stateside basing infrastructure.  For example, our military stations 80,000 personnel on 400 facilities in Europe.  Most of those personnel and their families could be brought home without jeopardizing our mission.  The same is true for our troops in South Korea and the thousands of Marines in Okinawa.

Reduce overseas facility redundancies.  Why do we need two air bases in the United Kingdom, Lakenheath and Mildenhall, which are eight miles apart?  For that matter, we have two air bases in Germany, Ramstein and Spangdahlem, which are 68 miles apart.  Many of our overseas facilities could either be consolidated or collocated with the host-nation militaries, not only saving money but truly building stronger partnerships.

The same concept applies to military infrastructure at home.  We dramatically reduced the number of facilities “owned” by the military over the past two decades by Base Realignment Commissions (BRAC).  But that process must change because, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the last BRAC saved very little.

It is clear we need more infrastructure reductions to cut costs.  For example, our military services have a combined 61 bases in California alone.  Each base is a costly enterprise that includes a staff and may support agencies.  Better use of fewer facilities is a must.

Second, Obama should direct the Pentagon to sustain defense effectiveness and contain costs by applying principles such as preservation of force structure, weapons procurement and modernization, and readiness, and keeping these in balance.  When they are out of balance, the military is either ill-equipped, lacking in capacity or not ready.  A good roles and missions analysis performed by nonpartisans without service, industry or congressional biases should produce recommendations that best balance the armed forces.

Another principle is maintaining the industrial base’s accountability.  After the Cold War​, Congress put the Pentagon on a strict procurement diet, but it kept the industrial base alive with infusions of billions of dollars for research and development (R&D).  Unfortunately, there was little accountability for that money.

This time, any R&D money must come with strings and strict accountability mechanisms.  Already we have seen multiple billions wasted on R&D during this buildup that will never support our troops or go into production.  We clearly need a new R&D paradigm.

Finally, the President should direct the Pentagon to consider certain organizations and systems for the chopping block.

Reorient our reserves to produce major savings.  The Pentagon activated much of our reserve component force to support operations in the wake of 9/11, which was incredibly expensive.  It is time the reserves return to their former status.

Many commissions and think-tank groups recommended killing or dramatically cutting the Joint Strike Fighter​ (JSF) program, the most expensive in our nation’s history.  Meanwhile, JSF costs continue to grow, capabilities slip or fall off, and deliveries of combat-capable aircraft face additional delays.  Justify the JSF or kill the program.

The services should reduce costs by using common aircraft.  For instance, why do the Air Force and Navy have very similar but different manufactured unmanned aerial vehicles—Global Hawks and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance?  With the budget downturn and future recapitalization and modernization requirements, this is an easy cut.

The space budget has gone virtually unnoticed and unscathed in this downturn.  The spending for space has more than doubled in this buildup while multibillion-dollar satellites can be destroyed by Chinese anti-satellite weapons for just a fraction of the cost.  This issue warrants close scrutiny.

The Navy has a 286-ship force to meet its global requirements, but Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, testified it needs a minimum of 313 ships to meet future requirements.  A larger fleet may be necessary, but the President should call for a reevaluation of our need for 11 carrier battle groups, which include 60 to 80 aircraft, and numerous ships to protect and support the carrier.

Carriers are becoming vulnerable to the emerging Chinese threat.  Last December, Adm. Robert Willard, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, told a Japanese newspaper that China is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) known as an “aircraft carrier killer.”

Our government has 16 intelligence agencies mostly controlled by the Pentagon.  It is past time we eliminate intelligence duplication, which should begin with the top-heavy Defense Intelligence Agency​.

Time is short for Obama to act before the debt crisis threatens the viability of our military instrument of power.  These guidelines, principles and cuts provide the President a prudent way ahead that protects our security, improves Pentagon efficiency and significantly contributes to debt relief.

Candidate Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan boasted, “Yes we can.”  Then the new President promised a 2009 Egyptian audience “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims,” and in November 2009 he claimed, “We’ve restored America’s standing in the world.”  But Obama’s boast, his promise and his claim have crumbled across the Muslim world, and so has America’s influence.

Thirty-one months into Obama’s presidency, relations with the Muslim world are the worst ever.  Both Muslim public opinion and the deteriorating situation in most Islamic countries evidence anti-Americanism that screams, “No he can’t.”

Obama obviously can’t transform our relationship with the Muslim world, as evidenced by the state of affairs in three bellwether countries.

First, Egypt is a longstanding ally, but its January uprising puts that relationship in jeopardy.  Egyptian public opinion is very anti-American, and the coming election plus current events threaten to turn our bilateral relations on their head.

A July 2011 Zogby International survey of Egyptians found only 5% have a favorable opinion of America, lower than during the George W. Bush administration.  And a Pew Research survey taken this spring found that Egyptians overwhelmingly (82%) disapprove of Obama’s handling of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and a simple majority (52%) disapprove of the way Obama handled political change in the Middle East.

Those negative marks reflect displeasure with Obama’s flip-floppinig Egypt policy last January.  Initially he backed then-President Hosni Mubarak, but as public cries for change grew, Obama called for Mubarak to step down.  Then Obama made the strategic mistake of backing Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s unpopular vice president, to replace Mubarak.

Obama makes another mistake if he expects Egypt’s future democratically elected government to be pro-American.  Barry Rubin, the director of the Israel-based Global Research in International Affairs Center, argues in his daily blog that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood​, that nation’s largest political party, will earn 40% of the parliament’s seats this fall.  That political tsunami will result in a move to annul the peace treaty with Israel and impose laws that strictly follow the Koran, Islam’s holy book.

Egypt’s transformation to an Islamic state is already evident on several additional fronts.  The Obama administration tried to pour $65 million into Egypt this year to help organize secular political parties, but that effort sparked a powerful backlash from Cairo’s military government and the Muslim Brotherhood, which evidently colluded on plans for the future government.

Egypt also reversed past policy by improving relations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s ally and terror group Hamas, which rules the neighboring Gaza Strip.  Cairo now allows arms and money to flow into Gaza and refuses to pressure Hamas to make peace with Israel or stop its regular rocket attacks on nearby Jewish settlements.

On other Egyptian fronts there are increased attacks against Coptic Christians, murders of secularists, and more attacks by Islamists.  Recently the terror group Takfir wal-Hijra, a group aligned with al-Qaeda, attacked two police stations in el-Arish.

Second, Turkey is on a glide path to become an anti-American Islamist state.  Public opinion is already anti-American, but that neo-Ottoman government is purging its military, which until recently kept it on a secular path.

The 2011 Pew Research survey found only one in 10 Turks has a favorable opinion of the U.S., and President Obama​ gets especially low approval marks (12%) from Turks, down from 23% last year.  About two-thirds in Turkey (68%) disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.

Turkey’s government is run by an Islamic party, the Justice and Development Party, that is Islamatizing the country.  Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rode to his third election victory this June with a 326-seat majority mandate vowing to rewrite that nation’s constitution to be pro-Islamic.  The military drafted the current constitution after a 1980 coup, but the military ceases to be a threat.

Erdogan purged the military of all but Islamic loyalists.  Last month, the top military commanders resigned in protest over the government’s arrest of hundreds of current and retired officers on trumped-up charges of plotting against the government, which elicited no response from the Obama administration.  Then Erdogan appointed commanders who support the regime’s Islamatization of Turkey.

Turkey’s Islamic transformation is beginning to affect everyday life.  The government pressured local officials to ban outdoor eating during the holy month of Ramadan, and there are reports of punishments for women wearing shorts in public and for smoking during Ramadan.  Expect Saudi Arabia-style religious police to soon appear on Turkish streets.

Juxtapose these internal changes with Ankara’s close relationship with Iran and how it has distanced itself from formerly close ally Israel after supporting Tehran in the Mavi Marmara affair.  That Turkish vessel took part in a flotilla of ships operated by Islamic activists seeking to confront the Israeli blockade over Gaza and was boarded and then diverted by Israeli forces in 2010.  Also, the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News reported in April that the Erdogan government is negotiating to open a Taliban office in Istanbul.

Obviously Turkey’s government is bolstering its Islamic credentials to gain standing in the Muslim world.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration ignores Turkey’s transformation, which bodes poorly for American influence.

Third, Pakistan, an erstwhile ally armed with 100 nuclear weapons, plays host to our al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban enemies and proliferates weapons of mass destruction.  Even though America has given Pakistan $20 billion in aid since 2001, our influence is limited, which is reflected in public opinion polls and a lack of support for ongoing operations in Afghanistan.

The 2011 Pew Research survey found that Pakistanis are very anti-American, perhaps in part because of actions such as our unannounced May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound inside that country.  Only 11% of Pakistanis have a positive view of the U.S., a 6-point drop from a similar survey one year ago, and 54% believe their government cooperates too much with the U.S., for example by allowing America to launch terrorist-hunting drones from Pakistani airfields.

The U.S.-Pakistan relationship is one of mutual necessity.  America needs that nation’s ports and roads to move supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, and its help defeating the Taliban.  But Islamabad plays both sides of the Afghan conflict in order to keep American aid flowing, and ensure the instability of Afghanistan, the country that acts as a buffer against Pakistan’s archenemy, India.

Unfortunately, America’s dwindling influence in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan is replicated across the Muslim world, either because of our policies or in spite of them.  For example, Obama supports the NATO bombing of Libya, yet its dictator Muammar Gaddafi​, is likely to be replaced by anti-American Islamist rebels.  Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, has so far killed 1,700 protesters, which “horrified” Obama.  But the President hasn’t called for the dictator to leave, nor will he, because America has no influence in Damascus either.

Our influence is tanking in Iraq after pouring years worth of blood and treasure into that country.  By mutual agreement we will leave Iraq this year, and then Iran will likely rush in to manipulate Baghdad and its oil.  Meanwhile, Iran continues its atomic arms program and hegemonic ways in spite of our tepid sanctions and meaningless rhetoric.

Obama’s Muslim policies are in shambles, our influence is mostly shot, and while it is sometimes necessary to do business with countries that oppose America, Islamic countries are especially unreliable when the most radical elements grab power.  That is why it is time to drop the pretense of compatibility, stop the flow of aid money, and assume tougher political and military policies.

President Barack Obama​’s plan to counter violent extremism is doomed because it puts more importance on protecting Muslim sensitivities than confronting the unvarnished truth about the homegrown jihadist threat.

Last week President Obama​ unveiled his strategy to counter the problem of violent extremism.  The eight-page paper titled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” provides a three-pronged approach that includes community engagement, better training and counter-narratives.  But Obama’s plan defies reality by going to great pains to avoid singling out Muslims with what the administration calls a “more holistic approach.”

The anti-extremism plan’s “holistic approach” states “any solution that focuses on a single, current form of violent extremism, without regard to other threats, will fail to secure our country and community.”  No doubt there are numerous extremist threats, but the dominant threat is Islamic extremism, which deserves most of the administration’s attention.

Specifically, Sunni extremists were identified with about one-half of all terrorist attacks across the world in 2009, according to a 2010 U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center report.  Those attacks accounted for 62% of all terrorism-related deaths and the majority of the victims were Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The Islamic threat is now spreading to America’s shores as never before.

The incidences of homegrown Islamist terrorism have increased significantly over the past two years, a trend that is expected to continue.  Thirty-one American citizens or legal residents were arrested over the past two years in connection with 22 homegrown Islamist terrorism plots, according to the Congressional Research Service.  By comparison, there were just 21 plots over the previous eight years. 

The growth of domestic Islamic terrorism is attributed to the radicalization of American jihadist wannabes via online Internet efforts by Islamic ideologues like Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  Al-Awlaki uses videos and websites to indoctrinate American Muslims such as Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood, Tex., jihadist who communicated with Awlaki before his 2009 massacre that left 45 dead or wounded.

Fortunately the American people are waking up to the relationship between the Islamic religion and terrorism.  A spring 2011 Pew Research Center national survey found 40% agree, 42% disagree, on whether “the Islamic religion is more likely than others to encourage violence.”  A similar poll in 2002 found just 25% of those surveyed believed Islam encourages violence, while twice as many (51%) disagreed.

Even Obama’s anti-extremist plan acknowledges the Islam-terrorist nexus.  “Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents represent the preeminent terrorist threat to our country,” states Obama, but then he cautions al-Qaeda not to “divide us” over religion.  Al-Qaeda wants to create a “backlash against Muslim Americans,” Obama wrote in his plan, to feed its propaganda that America is “at war against Islam.”  

Obama states Al-Qaeda would use the threatened “war against Islam” “backlash” to bolster its recruiting and “threaten our values of religious freedom and pluralism.”  Perhaps fear of the “backlash” is why Obama’s anti-extremism plan is so milquetoast regarding the Islamic threat.

Rather than explicitly target homegrown Islamic extremism, Obama’s plan offers “guiding principles” to address generalized “challenges of radicalization.”  He proposes networks of community officials address extremist threats using politically correct principles such as “enhance our understanding of the threat” and don’t “stigmatize or blame communities because of the actions of a handful.”

This is meaningless drivel, especially when one considers the urgency of the threat.  Obama then cites the Department of Justice’s “Comprehensive Gang Model” as a framework for mobilizing communities to fight extremists.  This model might work for criminals and maybe for environmental wackos, but there are significant differences between these groups and Islamists radicalized by a religion-based ideology and supported by a global Muslim community.

U.S. Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) hosted a hearing this spring to address the problem of Islamic extremism in the Muslim American community.  King, the chairman for the Homeland Security Committee, said at the hearing, “But there are realities we cannot ignore.”

Those realities include teachings in Islam’s doctrinal texts: “The Koran and the Hadiths” (the Prophet Mohammad​’s views or stories).  They are the dogmatic basis for a “world view that postulates perpetual war facilitated by jihad and martyrdom,” according to William Gawthrop, a retired army officer and a supervisory intelligence analyst with the U.S. government, who wrote a July 2011 article titled “Dogmatic Basis of Jihad and Martyrdom” for Small Wars Journal.  Gawthrop’s extensively documented article outlines the stark teachings of Islamic dogma concerning the Muslim’s obligation to war against non-Muslims until they convert them or die.  “The ultimate goal of Islam is its domination over other ideologies, and the means for achieving that goal includes ‘jihad’ at the individual collective and personally obligatory level,” Gawthrop wrote.

The zakat, Islam’s obligatory alms-giving, is one of the pillars of Islam, and mandates contributions for those fighting for Allah (jihadists), according to Gawthrop.  A Muslim gets jihad credit for contributing his zakat to Islamic fighters by providing arms, equipment, money or care for a jihadist’s family. 

These Islamic obligations are powerful tools in the hands of groups like Al-Qaeda which seek an all powerful global caliphate (Islamic state).  They entice wannabe Islamists through ideological persuasion that includes hatred for the West and ends with acceptance of their jihad duty to commit violence which includes acts of martyrdom that promise salvation, pleasures in paradise, and Allah’s favor.

What should our anti-extremist plan include?  Clearly it should acknowledge that some of Islam’s mainline dogma—like my way or no way—are incompatible with pluralistic American ideals of freedom, equality and democracy.  The plan should also call on Muslim Americans to condemn violent jihad, refuse to give any portion of their zakat to violence-seeking jihadists, cooperate with community leaders to identify Muslims at risk of radicalization, and identify outsiders who seek to recruit wannabe jihadists.

Finally, Muslim Americans should fully integrate within our culture to include abandoning any pretense of imposing Sharia law.  America doesn’t want to be like the Middle East or modern Europe, which allows Islamic ghettos that eschew local culture and teach hate for the West.

Obama’s anti-extremism plan fails to confront the most dangerous extremist threat facing America, Islamic terrorism.  America must confront this threat with the truth about Islam, and Muslim Americans must embrace pluralism and eschew their religion’s dangerous teachings.

    The thwarted bombing by a U.S. Army jihadist outside Fort Hood in Texas intensifies fears there is a serious homegrown terrorist threat and raises questions about whether our politically correct (PC) military can identify internal threats.

    Last Wednesday, U.S. Army Private First Class Naser Jason Abdo, who had requested conscientious objector status because of his Muslim beliefs, allegedly planned to “get even” for unspecified mistreatment by detonating two shrapnel-packed bombs inside a restaurant frequented by soldiers near Fort Hood, according to ABC News.  But the AWOL soldier’s plans were thwarted by operational mistakes that led to his arrest.

    Police arrested Abdo at his Killeen, Tex., motel, where they found bomb-making materials, firearms and ammunition.  Officials told ABC News they also found a copy of an article titled, “How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” a feature article from Inspire, the English-language magazine by the terror group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

    On Friday Abdo was charged in a Waco, Tex., court with possession of an illegal firearm in addition to previous charges of possession of child pornography and going AWOL from his unit.  After his hearing, he yelled “Iraq 2006” and the name of an Iraqi girl who was raped and murdered in 2006 by U.S. soldiers.  Then as he was led from the courtroom, he shouted, “Nidal Hasan​!,” “Fort Hood!” and “2009!”

    Abdo’s case is another example of the danger of homegrown lone-wolf militants.  His shouted reference to “Nidal Hasan,” the jihadist charged with 13 murders and 32 attempted murders at Fort Hood in 2009, and the discovery of a copy of the Inspire article in his motel room suggest Abdo’s inspiration comes from Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Islamic cleric and AQAP leader.

    Al-Awlaki is believed to have inspired Hasan via e-mails, along with Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas 2009 underwear bomber of Northwest flight 253, who allegedly told U.S. officials he was in contact with al-Awlaki prior to that bombing.  Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a bomb in Times Square in 2010, admitted he too was inspired by al-Awlaki and said after his sentencing, “War with Muslims has just begun … the defeat of the U.S. is imminent, God willing.”

    The incidence of homegrown terrorism has increased significantly in the past two years, according to a 2011 report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.  Specifically, from May 2009 to November 2010, there were 22 different homegrown plots by al-Qaeda, its affiliates and ideological allies.  By comparison, there were just 21 plots from September 2001 to May 2009.

    It is important to understand that most of the new terrorists were radicalized via the Internet.  A 2008 U.S. Senate report predicted homegrown terrorism inspired by violent Islamist extremist ideology would increase due to the focused online efforts of that ideology’s adherents.

    Internet-savvy jihadist wannabes learn the ideology’s core goals from their cyber mentors: a global caliphate that strives for Sharia (Islamic law) enforced by government and allegiance given to the Islamist community (the Ummah) and none else.  This network believes violence is justified to accomplish these goals and anyone who opposes it is an enemy.

    The New York City Police Department developed a four-part framework to understand how these homegrown Islamists are radicalized: pre-radicalization (acquire openness to the ideology), self-identification (adherents search for answers to their grievances), indoctrination (embrace ideology that the world is in a struggle against the West), and violence.  The violence stage is reached when members accept their duty to commit violence, seek training and plan attacks.

    As disconcerting as the surging threat of Internet-savvy homegrown Islamists may be, it is arguably more troubling that our military seems to be so PC that it can’t identify internal extremist threats.  That is especially troubling because over the past two years, eight Islamist attacks have been planned or carried out against military installations in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.

    But political correctness has swayed the military’s culture regarding all things Islamic, thus making identifying Islamic extremists less likely.  For example, the Pentagon’s 86-page review of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, “Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood,” doesn’t mention the words “Muslim,” “Islam,” “jihad,” “Sharia,” or “Koran,” even though Maj. Hasan initiated his slaughter with the scream “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” and he is a confirmed Islamist.  Worse, none of the report’s recommendations would have stopped Hasan’s attack or the one planned by Pfc. Abdo.

    Unfortunately the Fort Hood report is but one of many examples of the military’s PC blindness when it comes to criticizing Islam.  Last year, for example, Franklin Graham​, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, was invited to speak at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer, but days prior to the event his invitation was withdrawn because he once described Islam as “evil.”  Army spokesman Gary Tallman told Fox News​ that Graham’s “presence at the event may be taken by some [read Muslims] as inappropriate for a government agency.”

    President Obama​’s advisers advanced this PC agenda by exorcising religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the U.S. National Security Strategy and directed the Pentagon to rewrite strategy documents that viewed Muslim nations through the lens of terror.  For example, the 128-page 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines the country’s terrorist threat without using the words “Islam,” “Islamic” or Islamist” a single time.

    President George W. Bush also kowtowed to Muslim sensibilities, which contributed to the Islamist-shy military culture.  Bush gave the White House its first Koran, hosted its first iftar (fast-breaking) dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and launched a Muslim outreach program giving “legitimacy” to some Islamic organizations that promote an ideology similar to al-Qaeda.

    Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England guided the Pentagon’s pro-Muslim campaign, which included hiring an Islamic aide, Hesham Islam, who had links with the radical Muslim Brotherhood​.  England cavorted with leaders of Islamic groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood.  His outreach program created military-wide cultural fear of being vilified as “Islamophobic,” which was evidenced by the case of Stephen Coughlin, a military intelligence analyst.

    Coughlin said he was hired to “… set aside the feel-good assumptions about Islam … and take an unblinkered look at the facts.”  But Coughlin was eventually sacked after a run-in with England’s Muslim aide, who labeled his views “Islamophobic,” according to Fox News.

    England also set out to recruit more Muslims.  He set up Muslim prayer rooms on military installations, hired imams and hosted an iftar for the Muslim American community and Muslim service members.  “There is a message here, and that is that Muslims and the Islamic religion are totally compatible with Western values,” England told the Christian Science Monitor.

    These pro-Muslim actions across two administrations created a military cultural firewall around Islam.  That was evident at the Fort Hood memorial service following the 2009 massacre.  Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, never mentioned the Islamist factor in the massacre but made statements expressing concern about “force protection,” the potential heightened “backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers” and the risk to Army “diversity.”

    The Pentagon must shed its blindness regarding violent Islamist extremism among service members like Abdo through strong policies and training, and by changing the PC culture of fear.  The military has become uncomfortable identifying and dealing with possible Islamists within its ranks out of fear of the political gaffe of racially profiling Muslims.

    Fortunately, Pfc. Abdo was stopped before he killed innocents.  Congress must demand an investigation before there is another incident, and insist this time on real solutions to the military’s PC culture.  And military leaders must be courageous as the Obama administration’s PC fusillades continue to erode our readiness.