“Very Rare Terrorists are Very Hard to Find”

Matt Yglesias makes_a_great_point:

Spencer Ackerman tries to problematize the conclusion that the underpants bomber incident really represents a grievous intelligence failure. You should read his whole analysis. But in brief, while by definition letting a bomber on an airplane is a failure, based on what was actually known about Abdulmutallab, excluding him from flying would involve erecting pretty substantial barriers to entering the United States in ways that would have real costs. As I said before, the key point about identifying al-Qaeda operatives is that there are extremely few al-Qaeda operatives so (by Bayes’ theorem) any method you employ of identifying al-Qaeda operatives is going to mostly reveal false positives.

 I agree 100% and don’t believe this incident can be described as a “massive intelligence failure.”

Go See This Movie

I was a bit suspicious when I saw the trailer, thinking it might end up being a corny movie, but I just saw Inglorious_Bastards and was very pleasantly surprised.  Outstanding film.

Upcoming Books to be Reviewed

I’ve just placed a massive order at Amazon.com and over the next few weeks will be reading and reviewing the following books for readers:

1) Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hitman

2) Who_Won_The Oil Wars

3)  The_House_of_Rothschild: Money’s_Prophets (Volumes One and Two)

4) Inside_the_Kingdom:_the_Struggle_for_Saudi_Arabia

5) America’s_Kingdom:_Mythmaking_on_the_Saudi_Oil_Frontier

6) A_History_of_Saudi_Arabia

7)  Environmentalism:_A_Global_History

 A_Brief_History_of_Neoliberalism

9)  Globalization_and_its_Discontents

10) Anna_Kerenina

11) Titan:_The_Life_of_John_Rockefeller

Book Endorsement

 I want to strongly recommend Al-Waleed: Businessman, Billionaire and Prince by Riz Khan.   HRH Prince Al-Waleed is probably one of the 2-3 most important people in the Middle East and top 10 or so in the world yet in the US  he doesn’t get 1/2 of the attention given to  preachers like Amr Khalid or Tariq Ramadan.   This book, however, is a personal biography but even more relevent from my perspective its has really good coverage of the financial angle, for example it features lots of interviews with international bankers who worked with the Prince.  Anyone interested in international business and finance  as well as Middle East politics should read this book.

Books

War and Peace has been quite lately because I’ve been pretty busy.  But now I’m back.

First, I want to recommend Tis:_A_Memoir by Frank McCourt. 

Second, I’ve heard through the grapevine that these books are all worth checking out, so I just posted a big order at Amazon.com:

1) Who_won_the_oil_wars?

2) Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hitman.

Three, I am looking for good books on environmentalism but the kind that are not super technical and that are accessible to lay persons.   Suggestions welcomed.

Must Read Status

I give my highest possible recommendation to the following book:

Desert Warrior: A Personal View of the Gulf War by the Joint Forces Commander, by HRH General Khalid Bin Sultan with Patrick Seale. 

I didn’t know what to expect when I picked it up at a yard sale.  Would it be just another self-serving memoir? 

I guess it was my lucky day.  “Desert Warrior” is one of the most informative books I’ve ever read on Middle Eastern politics and security issues. 

Written by the top Saudi commander in the Gulf War, the book is essentially a narrative of the war from the perspective of the Saudi national security establishment, but also features extensive coverage of the historical development of Saudi defense and national security policy, of which HRH played a major role. 

But what really sticks out to me is the quality of the analysis.    In general, when reading books about history and politics, we all know what decisions were made or what happened.   I don’t want to hear someone write about what happened but “why” it happened or “what they decision makers were thinking when they choose X policy.”   That’s far more relevent and useful and this book focuses on the “why” in serious depth.    

You’ll get a strong sense of the Saudi calculations behind virtually every critical national security decisions from the 1970s onwards.  And what’s more you’re not hearing it from some journalist purporting to speak for the Saudi regime, but straight from the horse’s mouth.  This is as “primary source” as you can get.    It’ll set you back $3 on Amazon but trust me, it’s worth it.

“Most Influential Muslims”

The Middle Eastern studies departments at Georgetown and NYU have come up with a  list of what they call the  ”top 500 most influential Muslims in the world.”  

My comments:
1)  It would be very hard to argue with their choice of #1 being King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. 

2)  Leader of Brotherhood at #12?
I think it’s debatable whether the leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood should be considered amongst the top 50 “most influential” Muslims.    In my book, for someone to be influential this means that what they say or do significantly affects how people think and act.  On that basis we can say that the Brothers are “influential,” but it’s hard to give top 50 status to a group that has virtually no power in Egypt and never has.  What have they influenced?  To what degree have the changed how people think and act? 

3) Too many clerics?  
Putting 33 religious scholars in the top 50 I think exaggerates the influence of religious clerics in Middle Eastern society.  Without question Islam is the framework through which the vast majority of its inhabitants view the world, but let’s not exaggerates the effect that any individual cleric can actually have.  Remember, many of the big names, especially those who are most prominent on TV, gain much of their following through their attractive personalities and charisma and much less the religious content of their programming.  People are tuning in to be entertained as much as they are to hear about Islam.  This is why I think people in the West overstate the importance of someone like Amr Khalid, listed as #14.  Yeah, he has lots of fans, but so does Brad Pitt but who would argue that Brad Pitt influences how people think and behave on a regular basis?

4)  Where are the businessmen and investors?
Not a single one makes the top 50?  If influential means effecting how people think or act than any top 50 list should include at least 10-20 of the region’s major businessmen and investors.   This is a bad example since he’s Coptic Christian but take Najib Sawaris, the Egyptian telecom magnate.  Over the last 5-10 years communication patterns in the Arab world have been revolutionized by the mobile phone.  Almost noone is without one, and the overwhelming social belief is that every HAS to have one.  That didn’t exist one decade ago — who caused this to happen?   Or how about the Saudi investor who owns the City Stars mall in Cairo, that guy probably has more influence over Egyptians that most of the clerics listed.

There are so many major Middle Eastern investors that I think are in fact far more “influential” than the majority of those on the top 50.   I would have to throw in the names of the leaders of companies such as Aramco or the guys in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait  who make the ultimate decisions. on Petro-Chemical Investment strategy, something that will have enormous implications on the future of the region and the world, I think are far more “influential” than most on this top 50 list.

NFL Expansion in Europe

I’m closely watching the NFL’s attempt to develop demand for its product overseas, particularly in the UK market. 

Last month, for example, the New England Patriots played the Tampa Bay Bucanneers at sold-out Wembley Stadium in London and similar such games are planned in coming years with some people even talking about starting new franchises in Europe. 

This is an excellent idea and I  think the NFL has a good chance to develop serious interest for its product in Europe. 

While interest in American football has traditionally been confined almost exclusively to the US,  global satellite TV and the Internet has allowed it to get more exposure in Europe, especially blue-collar UK and Ireland.  Over the past few years, for example, I’ve met at least a half-dozen Brits, Scotts or Irishmen who are big fans of American football which leads me to believe that a well-thought out marketing campaign could be a great success. 

One of the big obstacles to popularity abroad has been the relatively complicated rules of American football.  Some people think it’s just a bunch of people smashing into each other but it’s not.  I’d even argue that football is the most complicated and strategic of any of the major sports.  So if the NFL can figure out a way to spread knowledge of the rules of the game in the European target audiences, through a well thought out internet site or something like that, it would go a long way. 

However, I think it’s probably a stretch at this point to talk about setting up expansion teams in Europe.  It’s one thing to sell out Wembley stadium once or twice per year, that doesn’t mean that there is yet a fan base that would support a team on a regular basis.  Maybe after a decade or so.

Historians, 2100: “The Great American Overreaction”

Excellent post by Michael Cohen putting the US war on terror in a broader context.  

Sometimes it’s worth putting American foreign policy – and the military decisions we have made and continue to make since 9/11 – in a proper and sobering context.

Eight years and two months since America was attacked on September 11th, and 3,000 Americans were killed, the United States has approximately 168,000 soldiers stationed in two Muslim counties, In neither of these countries is there any al Qaeda presence – and there has not been any such presence since 2002. Indeed, since the fall of 2001, al Qaeda has not launched a single major attack on US targets or the US mainland.

Yet, instead of having a national debate on how we got ourselves into such a bizarre and pointless predicament — and squandered so many lives and so many billions of dollars in the process — the current debate in Washington is focused on how many more troops we will send into harm’s way to pursue an enemy that is down to about 200 core operatives.

Do you ever get the queasy feeling sometimes that somewhere in a cave in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is having a bit of a chuckle about this?

My Thoughts

1) 200 people!   Yes, that’s the consensus on how many people the “al-Qaeda organization” has as its disposal in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.  Yet this number is rarely cited in debates about US policy in Afghanistan.  I can’t figure out why this is the case. 

For my part, I’ve long argued that the security threat posed by AQ has been significantly exaggerated.   After all, we shouldn’t  confuse, as many people do,  the BANG of the 9/11 operation as a sign of al-Qaeda’s organizational prowess but  rather a sign of American CT neglect.  Let’s face it — CT wasn’t a big priority before 9/11 (with the exception of a few dedicated individuals);  those 19 guys, many of whom were known to have connections to al-Qaeda could wander around the US untouched for two years. 

None of that could ever happen now.  It took a serious punch in the face for the US to wake up, something that is quite consistent with insular America’s historical approach to dealing with threats:   ignore, pretend they don’t exist… but when attacked the US becomes like a wounded or angry Tiger that responds with a vengeance and is almost impossible to stop.  The most obvious case is Pearl Harbor.  I mean seriously, if there’s one place in the Pacific that would be an extremely obvious target for the Japanese to attack, where would it be?  The Naval bases at Pearl Harbor.  So what does the US do?  It lines its battleships up in a row so that the Japanese can take them out easier. 

But once the US was aroused and entered the war with a vengeance, the War in the Pacific was essentially decided.  And the same thing is true with the war against al-Qaeda.  Before 9/11, America was like a sleeping dog, and largely ignored the threat of terrorism.  After 9/11 everything changed and CT becomes the top security priority of not only the US but just about every country in the world.

Make no mistake about and this is a point that’s ignored by those advocating escalation in Afghanistan but a few hundred loosely organized individuals, no matter how fanatical, are no match for the combined resources of all the world’s governments.  I would bet that for every person and dollar dedicated to CT before 9/11, there are now 10.  Is it a coincidence that there have not been any major al-Qaeda attacks against US interests?  I don’t think so.

Personally, I just don’t see the relationship between the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan and stopping the AQ threat. What’s far more important to me is how many people are sitting at desks in DC or Paris or London focusing solely on stopping al-Qaeda. 

When Japan didn’t win the war on 7 December 1941, they lost the war.   There was no chance they could ultimately compete with the resources America could mobilize and transport into the Pacific arena.    Same thing applies today.  When al-Qaeda didn’t destroy the US on 9/11, the war’s conclusion was foregone.  In my view, as long as the US keeps maintaining strong CT capabilities, as it is currently doing, the al-Qaeda threat will slowly disappear. 

2)  I’m pretty certain that future historians will describe the US reaction to 9/11,  especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as totally unnecessary overreactions.    The 2003 Iraq war is obvious. But now we’re talking about making another significant committment to Afghanistan. For what?  To fight a group of 200 individuals?

“The True Believer”

I want to highlight what I think is one of the most important books anyone intested in politics and history should read.  It’s called   “The_True_Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements,”  by Eric Hoffer.

Though written well over a century ago, its analytical conclusions are still extremely relevant to today’s politics, especially groups like al-Qaeda.   It will likely redefine how you think about social movements, history, and politics and is on the same level of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America in terms of its significance (in my mind).