Recently in International Security Category

Romney on Iran: "They have to understand that we will take military, kinetic action if they continue to pursue a nuclear option." The phrase "kinetic military action" is Obama legal speak for "war we don't want to get permission from congress to prosecute."

Aw, someone told Mittens to use a big-sounding glam-national security catchphrase. And bless his heart, last Friday on the Rick and Bubba Show the failed liberal un-Governator from Massachusetts actually threw caution to the wind, managing to awkwardly salvo the boilerplate that his advisors so painstakingly - probably for hours - maybe days, weeks - labored and toiled with him over blood, sweat, and tears so he would lob it properly at the enemy. And like a Russian nesting doll of foreign policy FAIL, the term itself reveals the tragic ignorance of whoever brandishes it. Indeed, his advisors probably spent hours, days, weeks, even years, learning raptly, uprearing, and canonizing this one precious phrase from the Obama administration (the RINOs' Good Shepherd is always the liberal Democrat, you know) along with countless other focus-group-tested buzzwords and - as Beltway Confidential dubbed them, "ungainly euphemisms":

Near as I can figure, "kinetic action" is redundant - like "wet water."  But Harvard Law professor and former head of the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith thinks there's a reason the Obama administration is at, er, "kinetic military action" with the English language here.

Gene Healy went on to quote Goldsmith as saying it was a means to avoid congressional authorization in Libya and who knows where else next (Romney-endorser John McCain is hovering like Gollum over his list this very moment). You could imagine the monody that rose from the catacombs where Romney's venerated "advisors" dwell. How will we ever again enjoy the bountiful fruit of presidency-by-proxy if these advisors cannot manage to imprint on Willard a single Hogwartsian phrase properly turned to unlock the heart of every blushing American voter. 

But the voter has to wonder, is this what we can expect from Romney: poorly repackaged retreads from the administration his entire campaign is ostensibly predicated on replacing? Romney does deserve some credit for realizing Iran has to be stopped - that's more than we can say for his wingman Ron Paul - but his complete and utterly excruciatingly embarrassing amateur hour with every facet of American National Security policy as a theory and as carried out within the context of even the most recent administration, and the tactical as well as the philosophical foundations that underlie how it is implemented, paint a picture of a man who is not built for president. This is by no means his first inexpert blunder or only crucial foible - and we're just in the talking phase where it's still considered easy. This type of pantomiming is like a knock-off of a poorly-made replica of a designer handbag, with its logo askew and poorly-stitched vinyl already coming apart in the shop. Unseriously dangerous. It reminds America once again that there is only one statesman in the room competent, capable, steady, learned, and set for the task, and that is Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ph.D., who for years has taught strategy and the art of war to our top generals. Given the delicate times into which we're entering, with whom would you rest easier knowing he were in charge of such a crisis? The answer is clearly the former Speaker. And that you should remember when you vote.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rick Santorum's Quisling Moment

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

As you might recall, we wrote a month or so ago about how Mitt Romney is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Communist China. Today, we write about Rick Santorum's Quisling moment. Like Mitt Romney, Santorum started out his career labeling himself a progressive, distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, working closely with unions and pushing other liberal legislation.

In his later years, Santorum referred to liberal fellow Senator Arlen Specter as his mentor and even endorsed him against a conservative primary rival "because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it's in the best interest of my state." Obviously, those would be liberal interests. Specter led the controversial charge for amnesty in 2006 despite a precedent-setting uproar by Americans who made history with the sheer volume of calls to the capital switchboard made to register their abhorrence of the legislation Specter championed. Instead of acquiescing to the will of the people, however, Specter marched up to his lectern on the Senate floor, pounded it with his fist and declared, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" Specter was soon removed from office, but Santorum continued to have nice things to say about him.

Enter Rick Santorum 2012, candidate for Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces, champion of contraceptive bans and backward Taliban-style rules for women - the obvious over-compensation for his liberal past. All of this would be as comical as a goofy sweater-vest were it not for the real damage his voting record as Senator has done, is doing, and will do to our survival national security interests.

To wit, Santorum voted in 1997 to allow the sale of supercomputers to China, whose military leaders have repeatedly sworn to destroy us, make war on us, and to literally "exterminate" our entire population. Maybe if Santorum had spent less time distancing himself from Reagan and Gingrich in the 1980s, he would have learned something rather important: giving your enemy the technological advantage is suicide. In recent years, China's fastest supercomputers surpassed our own for the first time in history, and by 2010 were an astonishing "47% faster than the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's machine". Make no mistake: this alone disqualifies Santorum to be Commander-in-Chief.

Our strategic advantage has long leaned on technology, given our comparatively small force size vis-à-vis China or the former Soviet Union. China's army alone is roughly the size of our entire population. Imagine that force size equipped with modern weaponry that far exceeds our own. That is defeat and the end of America. Rick Santorum voted for that.

Clearly, Santorum has failed to comprehend the strategic consequences of his actions, as the recent outcry over his outspoken opposition to manned space flight and a return to the moon demonstrates.  Former Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney and current national security advisor to Newt Gingrich Stephen Yates rightly eviscerated Santorum's childish, out of touch, and ultimately suicidal space policy:

I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.

American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.

We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.

As with Romney and Huawei (and many of his other failures), Americans might be more forgiving if there were some serious evidence of enlightenment; however, in the case of both Romney and Santorum such an opening of the mind has not transpired and both candidates continue to represent an indirect but existential threat to American national security.

H/T to @MissLiberty on Twitter for the heads up on Santorum's pro-China voting record and for the China supercomputer tech links.


China's Supercomputing Goal: From 'Zero To Hero'

Rick Santorum's Voting Record

Middle East Quarterly: Russian and Chinese Support for Tehran

China Plans Manned Moon Mission

China's Challenge at Sea


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

Is Iran a Threat?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

It's hard to believe but there are still some who discount the threat posed by Iran to the West once the regime acquires and readies nuclear weapons. But why is Iran a threat? To answer that question we must ask some others:

  • Would Iran like to see the West destroyed? Yes
  • Is Iran willing to take action to bring this about? Yes
  • Is Iran currently taking action to bring this about? Yes
  • Would the end of this course of action legitimately threaten the West? Yes
  • How seriously could Iran hurt us? A single nuclear weapon detonated above North America would emit an electromagnetic pulse capable of frying our electrical grid and nearly everything utilizing electronics. This could literally lead to the extermination of 90% of the population within a year.
  • Can Iran be deterred? No
  • Can the threat be defended against or mitigated? Not yet. The technology exists but it has not been implemented.
  • What is being done to defend and mitigate? Too little
  • How long before Iran's nuclear capability is operational?  Estimates vary from a few months to a couple of years at the optimistic end of the spectrum.
  • How long before defense and mitigation techniques are operational? A few years.

As you can see, there is already a frightening gap between when many believe Iran will possess nuclear weapons and when we will be able to defend against them or reduce their impact.

Iran has already promised to "wipe" the US and Israel off the face of the earth. Newt Gingrich makes a very good point on this, as well. If a person believes it is a good idea to blow himself up with a suicide vest in order to kill just a few of his enemies, why wouldn't he want a nuclear bomb and be willing to accept the consequences of retaliation after launching a devastating attack on his enemies? But the threat is even worse than that of a single - or even a few - cities being destroyed by nuclear attacks at ground level. Presently, Iran's nuclear weapons program is being developed in conjunction with missile tests that include delivery systems being detonated at apogee to simulate an EMP attack. A single EMP event over North America could be sufficient to knock out our entire electrical grid, which may take up to a decade to replace.

Within the first year after such an event due to starvation, dehydration, and disease, up to 90% of the US population would be dead. That's from a single EMP from a single, fairly low-yield bomb, and Iran's leadership has talked openly both within political circles and internal military white papers and other documents about the desire to make an EMP strategy their top priority.

Furthermore, there is no deterrent as there was with the Soviet Union because the official form of Islam propagated and adhered to within the regime believes that they will herald in the era of the 12th Imam (their messiah) once Armageddon begins; furthermore, this is also the same belief system that glorifies the suicide bomber as a martyr for Islam.

The Iranian regime is willing to accept heavy losses by any retaliation and they believe it is their God-given purpose to obliterate the United States, and soon they will have the capability to do so. Furthermore, the US would be so badly weakened - if it exists at all - that retaliation and certainly any sustained conflict with Iran and its axis partners would be impossible from a resource standpoint. The best we could do is drop a few nukes on Iran, which Iran is willing to accept. I would say that is quite a real threat.

We must begin to accept reality on its terms rather than how we wish it to be, and in so doing ensure that no attack from Iran, its axis partners China and Russia, other allies or terrorist groups will be capable of inflicting serious damage.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

214427-a-logo-of-huawei-technologies-co-ltd.jpgUPDATE for yesterday's post: As it turns out, Mitt Romney as governor was a wholly-owned subsidiary of China. Rep. Duncan Hunter, member of the House Armed Services Committee excoriated Romney in 2008, advising voters then to steer clear of a pro-China Romney. To this date Romney has failed address the problem, demonstrating further how unserious a candidate he is for Commander-in-Chief - although there's very lttle anyone could say to save himself from the inevitable disqualification this type of footsie with a hostile regime that has called for "exterminating the US population" brings.

From Newsmax, 2008:

"As the founder of Bain Capital, Governor Romney has an obligation to utilize his influence within the company to terminate the proposed merger between 3Com and Chinese defense contractor Huawei," said Hunter. "In light of China's refusal to port several American naval vessels last week, it is increasingly more important that American military technology be protected from foreign companies, such as Huawei, that are closely aligned with the Chinese government."

Hunter refused to endorse Romney in 2008 for this specific reason.
"This proposed deal, which Governor Romney can work to terminate should he choose to do so, is unpatriotic and damaging to national security," continued Hunter. As further detailed in a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives, Huawei has close ties to the military of communist China and allegedly aided Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. 

As mentioned yesterday, "Huawei [is] linked by the Pentagon and other key figures in national security as an espionage front group of Beijing's Ministry of State Security (MSS)." In 2007, the tech-industry news site Cnet noted that Huawei is run by a former PLA officer by the name of Ren Zhengfei.

Meanwhile, Ren has gone about building Huawei into a success story disregarding the usual corporate niceties. In 2000--three years before the WMD craze got us all nutso about taking out Saddam--the CIA accused Huawei of secretly selling a communications system to Iraq. In the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, Huawei and two other Chinese companies were singled out for carrying out "extensive work in and around Baghdad"--mainly telecommunication switches and the installation of fiber-optic cable.

The article goes on to mention Romney's involvement:

[...]Friday we learned that Bain Capital is paying $2.2 billion to acquire 3Com. Part of the deal involves China's Huawei Technologies, which will acquire a minority stake in 3Com.
And, oh, by the way, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor running for the Republican presidential nomination--he headed Bain Capital for 14 years.
Six degrees of separation. In this case only 2--but who's counting.

In a later interview with Fox News, Hunter went farther and told Chris Wallace, "I think Mitt Romney's a no-go for that reason alone".

A note of disclosure: As a Newt guy, I'm not telling you to vote for Newt, although he is the best candidate on national security and I do recommend you do; however, I think as long as you stay away from Romney, Huntsman, and Paul, your choice will not be a candidate who potentially does direct damage to our national security interests. I personally think Newt would agree with the principle that one of the most important things we can do as Americans is to keep more bad actors out of the White House.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

A List of Common Paulbot Logical Fallacies

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Instead of bickering endlessly with Paulbots, another timesaver I've discovered that is a great deal of fun is calling them out on their logical fallacies (Paulbots almost always employ several). This list is certainly not exhaustive but just a fun way of examining why Paulbots turn so many people off irrespective of whether their issues fail to resonate. So here they are in no particular order:

The three most common and annoying of these that I've found are argumentum ad nauseam (droning on and on until his opponent has to leave FB to return to life, then declaring victory) and Argumentum verbosium (splitting every possible hair with lengthy, tone-deaf, and often disjointed diatribes), and argumentum e silentio (a Troll Fallacy when a Paulbot assumes he has won simply because no one has the time to sit for hours and pointlessly engage him in a thread; i.e. perceived victory through your silence).

Other popular fallacies include: Post hoc ergo propter hoc [Bob has athlete's foot, which is why we were hit by a meteor yesterday; al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because we have troops stationed in Germany (no explanation given for why al Qaeda didn't attack Beijing, who has annexed the entire country of East Turkestan)].

- Fallacy of the single cause (We only fight wars because the defense contractors pay off congressmen).

This fallacy might well be embedded in another fallacy, such as what is known as a red herring ( a response that avoids the original issue, e.g.  I might say Russia needs to stop sending missiles to Syria to which a Paulbot would retort that our "military industrial complex" wants another war. 

Some different types of likely Paulbot red herring fallicies include:

- Association fallacy (guilt by association), and appeal to emotion (e.g. appeal to fear - demonizing.

- Appeal to motive: shooting the messenger, e.g. "you're just a warmonger".

- Slippery slope: "If we stand up to Iran, sooner or later we'll have to put even more troops on the ground and occupy another country, which will make al Qaeda mad").

- Wishful thinking: Playing on our desire for rainbows and unicorn ponies rather than accepting reality on its terms and confronting it, e.g. "If we only tried to talk to the terrorists/China/the Soviets/Nazi Germany instead of   bombing/building up our defenses against them, they'd become our best friends. This is also referred to as a naturalistic fallacy or simply, Pollyanna.

But wait, there's more!

- Circular cause and consequence/wrong direction (putting the cart before the horse, i.e. al Qaeda attacked us because we occupy their land, whereas the reality is that we occupy their land because they attacked us.

- Nirvana fallacy: Since a perfect solution has not yet been found, no solution should be applied, even if it is a fairly good imperfect one and the alternative of offering no solution will be worse.

 - Ignoratio elenchi (another Troll Fallacy) is a point that may be valid but as interjected an unrelated discussion is a complete non-sequitur and can qualify as trolling. E.g. to any topic at hand, a Paulbot might blurt out, "We must audit the Fed!".

- Continuum fallacies occur when a Paulbot rejects your argument simply because you misplaced a decimal rather than being incorrect in the greater body of your point or supporting claims. This can also be a good way for someone to avoid arguing with you entirely if he feels he cannot defeat you.

- Reductio ad Hitlerum is the act of comparing someone or what they've said to Hitler or the Nazis in order to connect them with wanton evil. This is akin to another fallacy called the thought-terminating cliché, e.g. if you suggest we should bomb a terrorist hideout and you respond that I just want to see infants and puppies burned alive.

- The loaded question: Why do you beat your wife?

- Cherry picking: Acknowledging/finding only the information that seems to support an assumption.

- Misleading vividness: using striking details for an event (even if rare) as if the added granularity somehow supports the event being described is a problem.

- The Texas sharpshooter fallacy sort of a cousin to the cherry-picker fallacy, in which a Paulbot cooks up a cause for an event.

- Broken window fallacy: A Paulbot might argue that we're better off taking our chances with a nuclear Iran because to do anything about it might cost the lives of some of our service members and require additional funds for the Department of Defense, while ignoring the greater cost of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons: "If we try to stop Iran from wiping us all out with an EMP, we may end up going to war, which might kill some of our soldiers and cost more money."

- Definist fallacy occurs when a Paulbot  describes one concept in terms of the other, e.g. claims not to be a liberal but a conservative.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

The Inevitable EMP: A New Holocaust

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

As mentioned in my previous post, former China defense minister Chi Haotian called for the use of WMD to annihilate the US population in an act of ethnic cleaning never before seen in human history.

One such method of WMD attack - and also comparatively low-cost - that is gaining wider attention is the use of EMP (or Electromagnetic Pulse). China could employ this method through a proxy power such as Iran or North Korea or a non-state actor, thereby concealing the return address (or China may decide as it examines its cost-to-benefit ratio that such an attack is worth losses suffered during the response).

Here's how it works: A single nuclear missile is detonated at apogee above the continental United States, Europe, Israel, India, Japan or other target sending out several waves of energy toward everything within line-of-sight. Power grids, unshielded electronics such as your computer, transportation (cars, delivery trucks, ambulances, aircraft, etc.), radios and TVs would all be fried. This would have devastating consequences, as you might well imagine.

I believe this is one of the most crucial issues facing the world from a security standpoint. In fact, an EMP has the potential to kill up to 90% of the affected population within a year after the event due to the natural die-off resulting from infrastructure collapse.* It normally takes about ten years to replace major power transformers - and that's under the most ideal conditions. During that time, there would be no way to get food, water, medicine, and other essentials to market; there would be no means of transporting the sick, no method for regulating the indoor climate in hospitals and nursery homes or disposing of waste. Disease, starvation, and the elements would take their toll. And many of the illnesses and accidents treatable today would also become fatal. Refugees would also swarm the countryside, overwhelming those who believed their isolation and self-sufficiency would sustain them.  

If any regime deserves to be taken seriously in its threat to annihilate an entire population, that regime is surely CCP China, which has murdered over 70 million of its own people and counting, making it the most genocidal regime in human history. This is also a regime that makes no effort to diminish the cruelty of death, as we see from its harvesting of organs from living dissidents and the practice of filleting others alive. The regime has also built a vast network of mysterious and pristine cities across its country, which are completely uninhabited, as well as massive underground bunkers. It seems reasonable to assume these serve a strategic purpose and it is clear that it would be strategically useful for a regime intent on initiating - and winning - a nuclear confrontation with an enemy.

As is widely known, Iran has already tested the idea of detonating a missile at apogee and is presently acquiring both missile and nuclear technology from China, Russia, and others within that axis.

However, even if we were to eliminate all nuclear weapons and other man-made sources of EMP tomorrow, of grave concern also is the threat posed by solar events such as the Carrington event of 1859. Such an event - which occurs about every 100 years - would be global. Without hardened infrastructure from the electrical grid to transportation and communications, we are all literally sitting under the gun. That is why the best first strategy for ameliorating this unthinkable threat is to increase our survivability, as mentioned above. The next solar event is inevitable and is also arguably already overdue, and the reduced benefit of a first strike will also deter potential aggressors who seek to use a man-made event to score a quick win.

Without the will to develop new and more secure technologies, there is very little we can do to mitigate such an event, be it naturally-occurring or as the result of an attack from China directly or one of its proxies. So it is key that we understand that the moment to act is now. Otherwise, the inevitable will come. It will either be man-made or sun-caused, but at the point at which it occurs, civilization will suffer a severe downgrade and millions - possibly billions - of unique human beings with hopes, dreams, and aspirations will slowly and agonizingly vanish from the face of the earth.

*Forstchen, William R. One Second After. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2009.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

US Hemorrhaging Secrets as China Holds Knife

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack

So GE is finally meeting with the Pentagon to discuss tech transfer concerns on China. About time. The fact GE does any business with the regime should draw into serious question the prospect of future contracts with the Department of Defense, to say nothing of technology transfers which should be treated as criminal.

We should never forget the incestuous relationship between Democrat administrations, corporate cronies, and the Chinese regime, with quid pro quos such as we saw in the 1990s with PLA generals who donated to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign. But none of the last four administrations has dealt with or even truly acknowledged the reality that China was fighting a cold war against us whether we wanted them to or not. Part of what is needed is a president who will take a page from the Reagan playbook and severely curtail technology and tradecraft access by the regime.

Two weeks ago, the Pentagon released its annual report on China, and you know it's bad when a Democrat administration finally admits a communist regime that is seeking to destroy the US is actually seeking to destroy the US. Of course, it is also rather shameful that the Bush 43 administration did little to counter the Chinese aggressor, either. In fact, the same year as the 9/11 attacks, China hackers broke into the Pentagon and stole 20 terabytes of data. "If the information had been on paper, they'd have needed a line of moving vans stretching from the Pentagon to freighters docked 50 miles away in Baltimore harbor just to haul it away." As an aside, both this cyber attack and 9/11 occured two years after the 1999 publication of "Unrestricted Warfare" by two PLA officers detailing the use of cyber warfare, terrorism, and other asymmetrical methods to destroy the US.

But even if we gained the upper hand in the cyberwar, how secure would our classified information, corporate secrets and patents be? The regime has made it no secret it uses nationals abroad to spy. Again, common sense serves well: a totalitarian regime that controls every aspect of its people's lives and information flow would let its people freely travel abroad? As with the Soviet Union, those who are permitted to travel are presumed to be those who loyally represent the interests of the regime. At present there are literally thousands of Chinese nationals in the US working ostensibly as students. Naturally, responding to this threat is of the imperative. That's never a perfect process, but it means that most Chinese nationals in the US should be considered hostile. Thus, we should also drastically limit the number of PRC nationals permitted in the US under any circumstances, while at the same time reverse the trend in recent years, which has been to reject those seeking asylum. Part of a good strategy also involves helping China to become a peaceful partner one day, and that means regime change to a stable, peaceful, liberal electoral democracy.

Some might suggest that calling for severely curtailing access by Chinese nationals to the US is a bit harsh. They might also argue that the US benefits more than it is harmed by their presence. So we think. There's a trade-off for everything and unfortunately, this is the case as well. There are certainly quite a few Taiwanese who'd love a shot. The reality is that China has stolen billions from the US in terms of technology and trade secrets as well as military secrets which may one day cost actual lives. Any short term gain proffered by their inclusion is also muted by that gain being passed back to the PRC, which effectively nullifies any advantage. Again, we are not talking about friendly competitors but strategic enemies, as was the case with the Soviet Union. And in the case of China, an enemy whose military leaders have already called for the extermination of the entire US population through use of WMD - if achieved, the greatest genocide in human history.

So we must bar those who are from enemy regimes. China does not allow those it thinks are hostile to its regime to travel outside its borders but instead only permits those to study abroad it thinks will act in its interest. In the long run, the US benefits more greatly from not having its technology siphoned off by a hostile regime and used against it. There are plenty of places in the world from which we can invite students and research partners. We can also invite Chinese officials to defect. But we cannot allow the regime access to our sensitive areas, which unfortunately, due to the nature of Sino intelligence, is a pretty wide swath of academia and S&T (science and technology).

Think about that 10,000 students working on behalf of an enemy regime. We don't benefit. They give us candy laced with poison. The same can be said for poor cyber security. Whatever is gained in the short run in terms of efficiency is lost many times over down the road. Communist China is our enemy and a threat to our vital national security interests. Secrecy is an art we must relearn in order to win the new cold war with this illegitimate regime. It's unfortunate, but the reality is it's just the way the cookie has to crumble. If we want to see Chinese nationals studying in this country again, we'd better get to work helping with regime change over there.

There are a good many things we all want, but as adults we must accept reality on its terms and then find a way to change it to our liking. The path to changing this reality lies not through pretending it does not exist but through a host of proactive policies both defensive and safely humanitarian in that part of the world to bring it about. No one seeing a truck approaching steps out into the road in front of it to get run over; instead he waits for the truck to pass and then he can safely cross the street. And we'll have to wait, but that is the price of the win-win. How long we have to wait will of course greatly depend on what kind of administration we have next.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

Address by.jpgIn 1962 during his second year at West Point, my father attended an address by the Great American General Douglas MacArthur. It was what would become known as one of the greatest speeches in history. Recently, my father's vinyl recording of the event was re-discovered in a box along with the program. While I have found bits and pieces of audio from the speech on YouTube or in obsolete audio formats posted way back in the 1990s in various corners of the web, I did not see the full audio online, so I thought it might be useful to others to remedy that.

I also felt that reading the speech within the pages of the actual program handed out on the day the address was delivered would be enjoyable for others, so I have scaned it and converted it to a PDF document. You can download and view that here: USMA MacArthur Farewell Address 62.pdf  A copy/paste-friendly version of the address can be found at American Rhetoric and other spots on the web. I hope that you will be enriched by these priceless treasures of our great history and be inspired as an American to know that our greatest days yet lie ahead.

General Douglas MacArthur USMA 1962: Duty, Honor, Country (Full) from Blogbat on Vimeo.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

Some Thoughts on The Norway Terrorist

| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks

I find it interesting that mass-murdering terrorist Anders Behring Breivik's closest apparent political leanings would be along the lines of United Russia, Vladimir Putin's political party (and similar to Vidkun Quisling's National Unity Party).

I also find it noteworthy that two separate Islamist groups tried to take responsibility before realizing that gig was up. This further demonstrates that with their shared hatred for Israel and love of blowing things up, Anders and the Islamists he claims to also detest are actually natural allies.

I suppose there is some irony here, particularly with the aforementioned antipathy for Israel shared by Anders and the Islamists, but also Norway's Labor Party. Incidentally, Labor also has "declared war on radical Islam." Of course, radical Islamists hate Labor and Anders, too. That the three of them are at each other's throats is noteworthy no matter how you look at it. As the saying goes, "haters gonna hate", and all three seem to hate each other and everyone else, for that matter.

I'm also rather curious if Anders had any connection with the "Anonymous" movement, which is allegedly supported by "Russian interests". Russia not only has a long history with active measures throughout Europe in both Soviet and post-Soviet days, it also has a considerable one in Norway.

Speculation aside, what we can gather about Anders at the moment is that he is a fairly educated and intelligent sort of terrorist. He doesn't seem the type to be led around by the nose of one ready-made ideology, but might well hand pick the things he likes out of both right and left baskets. Just another speculation, of course, since we truly know so very little about him yet. Some have made some great points about the fact that had Norway's gun laws not been so strict, camp counselors could have been able to possess firearms and thus could have stopped Anders much earlier on in his murder spree. That would have especially been handy in this case, because authorities took an hour and a half to respond. Another travesty of the socialist dystopia? It is likely that Anders will only get 21 years for his unspeakable carnage. 21 years? Seriously?

Some great analysis and links to those who've really been digging into this can be found here, here, here, and here. Bonus: Far-Left Wikipedia has already linked Anders to the American Tea Party Movement.


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.

Norway has gone farther than many EU countries in appeasing Islamists to the extent of even persecuting Jewish visitors - Israelis and otherwise - and citizens. Islamists can't be appeased, but we could have told PM Jens Stoltenberg that before the Islamist bomb went off - and many indeed tried to warn his country.

In fact, the hate and violence have been building, proffering an ominous warning for those who would listen. YNetNews from just last month today, 22 June:

Earlier this month, a survey by the Oslo Municipality found that 33% of Jewish students in the town are physically threatened or abused by other high school teens at least two to three times a month. The group that suffered the next highest amount of bullying was Buddhists at 10%. "Others" were at 7% and Muslims at 5.3%. Furthermore, the survey found that 51% of high school students consider "Jew" a negative expression and 60% had heard other students use the term.

The story goes on to talk about Norwegian media's role in enabling the danger to build, too, by shielding Norwegians from criticism from outside their country about the dangerous trends that were clearly visible from afar. For instance, the YNet story points out, US Senator Samuel Brownback sought to warn the Norwegian ambassador to the US Wegger Strommen of the rapid rise of anti-Semitism as well as anti-Israeli sympathies in Norway.

But there's more:

A letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center was appended and mentioned extreme negative actions of inter alia Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, as well as Ministers [Jonas Gahr] Stoere and [Kristin] Halvorsen. Also mentioned was Deputy Environment Minister [Ingrid] Fiskaa, who had stated that before she entered the government, she dreamt about the UN launching rockets against Israel.

YNet also makes mention of Norwegian diplomats being promoted by comparing Gaza to the Holocaust. But there was more:

In retrospect, it seems that the tipping point in exposing Norway abroad was Professor Alan Dershowitz' visit in March of this year. Three Norwegian universities refused his offer of a free lecture on Israel and international law. Dershowitz thereupon compared his Norwegian experience with a visit to South Africa under apartheid in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.


More horrific photos of the blast area. This is in Norwegian, so it helps if, like me, you know German, Dutch or something similar. Otherwise, just click the thing that most closely resembles "next".


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


     The Blogbat Weblog 3.0



About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the International Security category.

Tibet is the previous category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.