Category Archives: Response Articles

In Chad Turner’s article on homegrown vs. international terrorism, he states “Despite the relative ease domestic terrorists may have in carrying out attacks, these attacks are less probable than attacks from international groups.”

My use of the word illegal is not the right word with regard to the Ultra Orthodox Jewish belief. Their word is illegitimate. I not sure if there is any real difference between illegal and illegitimate. The point is that the Jewish belief is that the Messiah has to establish the state of Israel, not men. Others who do not accept the state of Israel, like Iran, believe that the United Nations partitioning of Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state was illegal. That discussion is for international legal scholars. My point about the Jewish population in Iran is just to establish that Iran seems not to have a problem with Jews per se but with the state of Israel; otherwise they would be rounding them up and either expelling them or killing them.

In what sense is Israel an ‘illegal’ state? Under what law is this so? Is the United States illegal? Is Iran legal? Or more to the point, is the regime in Tehran legal in spite of many violations of human rights, sponsorship of terrorism, acts of outright war, etc.? Does the survival of Jewish dhimmis in Iran mean that Israel has no legitimate self-defense concerns?

Excellent analysis. I believe that the leaders of Iran have been misquoted about their opposition to Israel’s existence. They seem to believe that Israel is an illegal state. This is also the view of Ultra Conservative Jews who believe that only the Messiah can establish the state of Israel. As further evidence that the leaders of Iran are not anti-Semitic, Tehran has a significant Jewish population who are not subject to treatment like the Jews received at the hands of the Nazis. This analysis should be read by Mitt Romney and advisers who project the intent to attack Iran over this Nuclear program.

I applaud the article written regarding Somalia and the pirates that hold the country hostage from progress.

You wrote a very good piece; congratulations.

A good article, but moving forward, where does that leave us? It is well known that Pakistan has developed nuclear weapons, what is unknown is how many they have. After we disown them, is there any advantage other than not having to hear them whine? Unless we invade Pakistan like we did Afghanistan, no positive change will happen. Here is my case:

Your discussion of the way drones shape the way we fight is, I think, quite cogent. It is a new option, a shiny new toy, and one for which our generals may have been searching out opportunities to deploy. I would add another point. Not only do drones allow us to strike enemies and effect change, but they also may provide a way and potential tendency for the government to involve itself more deeply without alerting the public. The government has always been able to send in small strike teams, but those tend to work on a shorter, more limited basis. The example of this idea, of course, is Yemen, where Bush, and then Obama, have waged a secret CIA war with drones. While the CIA by itself is quite capable, unmanned drones give them a ready-made air force and increase their capability to make what amounts to war. I predict that the availability of drones and other, similar technologies will decrease the amount of information the public knows about.

Aaron French’s article on the security implications of the obesity epidemic in the United States is insightful and deals with a truly fundamental issue in national preparedness. It was ever thus. We don’t often think of it in those terms, America’s “greatest generation” of the 1940’s faced similar challenges, though for much different reasons, and that in itself may increase our concern.

Michael Slawson, in his article “Gitmo: It’s Not Even Over When We Say It’s Over,” draws a predictable but flawed conclusion in his analysis of the Obama administration’s apparent decision not to close the Detention Center. He contends that holding and interrogating detainees without legal charges and in violation of legal rights is not only bad policy but a betrayal of American values. And there’s the flaw. Like the Obama administration, and the Clinton administration before them, Slawson considers the terrorist-detainees at Guantanamo Bay criminals when in fact they are prisoners of war.