On Closed Embassies and Wimpitude

[Huxley]

"On Closed Embassies, the Worldwide Travel Alert, and Wimpitude"
by Daniel Pipes | August 3, 2013 | Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

In April, the city of Boston was effectively under military curfew because two terrorists were on the loose. Now, fears of al-Qaeda attacking has led the U.S. government temporarily to close 21 U.S. embassies in Muslim-majority countries and then issue a worldwide travel alert announcing that "Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said that the two steps result from "a significant threat stream" and so the authorities "are taking it seriously."

Comments:

(1) Don't know about you, but I find this pre-emptive cringing unworthy of a great country, even humiliating. Why do we allow a bunch of extremist thugs to close us down, rather than the reverse? For what purpose do we pay for the world's best military and largest intelligence services if not to protect ourselves from this sort of threat? ...

Good question...

[Typhoon]

My guess is that in the current politics-as-pro-sports-point-scoring climate local internal politics drives such decisions rather than any geopolitical considerations.

[Alexis]

Even Le Figaro, a French newspaper which is not merely pro-American, but rather carpet in front of anything American, has had to remark how convenient this alert decided by US secret services is, giving a star role to the NSA at a time when this agency receives so much criticism thanks to the information unveiled by Snowden.

Has manipulation ever been so blatant and transparent?

[Ibrahim]

by Daniel Pipes

There's your problem..... *tosses oily rag over shoulder, dusts hands*



But yes, the apparent popular preference for the illusion of security over personal freedom is troubling. The skill with which both parties are able to exploit this politically is impressive.

[monster_gardener]

by Daniel Pipes

There's your problem..... *tosses oily rag over shoulder, dusts hands*



But yes, the apparent popular preference for the illusion of security over personal freedom is troubling. The skill with which both parties are able to exploit this politically is impressive.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim but............

Wow!

An ad hominem even when you agree..........

[Nonc Hilaire]

Daniel Pipes, Juan Cole, John Bolton - does anybody really consider these guys to have politically independent thought processes? They are all thought pimps.

[Huxley]

I'm puzzled by the derisive comments about Daniel Pipes.

1) It's a complete non-sequitur. The topic of this thread is the closing of the embassies; either Pipes is right that it's a wimpy act, or he's not.

2) When attacking someone, it's always a good idea to provide some examples or evidence.

3) I find Daniel Pipes to be a consistently provocative and original commentator, who isn't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom as well as the neo-conservative/Republican consensus, e.g. his argument that the U.S. should support Syria's Bashar al-Assad against the rebels.

4) What is a "thought pimp"?

Regarding the embassy closures -- I find it interesting but improbable that the U.S. would close 21 embassies just to make a point about the indispensability of the NSA. After all:

Most warnings about NSA over-reach have focused on its domestic bulk surveillance program authorised under section 215 of the Patriot Act. Yet several news organizations reported on Monday that the information justifying the latest alert came from an intercepted communication between al-Qaida leader Ayman Zawahiri and the chief of the terrorist organization's Yemeni affiliate. Such information would have been collected overseas using powers granted to the NSA under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Critics of the NSA surveillance programs pointed out that the latest threat had nothing to do with the bulk collection of domestic phone data. Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democract who has been a longstanding voice against the bulk collection of phone records, said the latest threat was "serious".

But Wyden, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, added: "While I can't go into specific details, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee noted yesterday that this information was collected using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, rather than the Patriot Act. I still haven't seen any evidence that the NSA's dragnet surveillance of Americans' phone records is providing any unique value to American counterterrorism efforts."

"US embassy closures used to bolster case for NSA surveillance programs"
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington | theguardian.com | Monday 5 August 2013

It's hard to see, therefore, how these embassy closures bolster the case for more domestic surveillance. Of course, there are many people who would draw that conclusion, but the closure of numerous embassies seems an awfully elaborate, indirect, risky, and politically costly way to persuade those people.

Skepticism is fully warranted and justified, but I find the simpler explanation more likely: that this action is the product of craven incompetence.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I'm puzzled by the derisive comments about Daniel Pipes.

1) It's a complete non-sequitur. The topic of this thread is the closing of the embassies; either Pipes is right that it's a wimpy act, or he's not.

2) When attacking someone, it's always a good idea to provide some examples or evidence.

3) I find Daniel Pipes to be a consistently provocative and original commentator, who isn't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom as well as the neo-conservative/Republican consensus, e.g. his argument that the U.S. should support Syria's Bashar al-Assad against the rebels.

4) What is a "thought pimp"?

Regarding the embassy closures -- I find it interesting but improbable that the U.S. would close 21 embassies just to make a point about the indispensability of the NSA. After all:

Most warnings about NSA over-reach have focused on its domestic bulk surveillance program authorised under section 215 of the Patriot Act. Yet several news organizations reported on Monday that the information justifying the latest alert came from an intercepted communication between al-Qaida leader Ayman Zawahiri and the chief of the terrorist organization's Yemeni affiliate. Such information would have been collected overseas using powers granted to the NSA under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Critics of the NSA surveillance programs pointed out that the latest threat had nothing to do with the bulk collection of domestic phone data. Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democract who has been a longstanding voice against the bulk collection of phone records, said the latest threat was "serious".

But Wyden, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, added: "While I can't go into specific details, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee noted yesterday that this information was collected using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, rather than the Patriot Act. I still haven't seen any evidence that the NSA's dragnet surveillance of Americans' phone records is providing any unique value to American counterterrorism efforts."

"US embassy closures used to bolster case for NSA surveillance programs"
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington | theguardian.com | Monday 5 August 2013

It's hard to see, therefore, how these embassy closures bolster the case for more domestic surveillance. Of course, there are many people who would draw that conclusion, but the closure of numerous embassies seems an awfully elaborate, indirect, risky, and politically costly way to persuade those people.

Skepticism is fully warranted and justified, but I find the simpler explanation more likely: that this action is the product of craven incompetence.

Huxley, I don't pretend to be an expert on middle eastern politics but I have found Pipes, Cole and Bolton to be as predictable in their opinions as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton so I discount their opinions. They seem to be financially dependent on promulgating extreme and stratified opinion instead of balanced dialog, so I call them thought pimps.

I have made a personal decision to ignore all five of these chuckleheads because I believe they are pushing personal agendas at the expense of a balanced and informed understanding. If one of them has an epiphany and produces a well balanced intellectual treatment please drop a link because they are all on my ignore list.

[Huxley]

Nonc Hilaire,

Daniel Pipes is a commentator, analyst and activist. His job is to tell you what he thinks, not promote "balance" or present both sides of an issue neutrally. "Extreme" is an empty and meaningless word that is used to silence opposition and shut down thought. Every single person holds views that some group of people would consider "extreme." What is meant when we call an opinion "extreme" is that we disagree with it. Pipes is indeed "financially dependent" on promulgating his views, as is everyone in the world who earns a living as a pundit or think tank analyst.

The entirety of your post boils down to the fact that you disagree with Daniel Pipes and have therefore decided to ignore him. Which you are perfectly entitled to do. It's just not a particularly helpful approach when contributing to a discussion thread about one his articles...

[Nonc Hilaire]

Nonc Hilaire,

Daniel Pipes is a commentator, analyst and activist. His job is to tell you what he thinks, not promote "balance" or present both sides of an issue neutrally. "Extreme" is an empty and meaningless word that is used to silence opposition and shut down thought. Every single person holds views that some group of people would consider "extreme." What is meant when we call an opinion "extreme" is that we disagree with it. Pipes is indeed "financially dependent" on promulgating his views, as is everyone in the world who earns a living as a pundit or think tank analyst.

The entirety of your post boils down to the fact that you disagree with Daniel Pipes and have therefore decided to ignore him. Which you are perfectly entitled to do. It's just not a particularly helpful approach when contributing to a discussion thread about one his articles...

Please note I also ignore Juan Cole. Now that governmental propaganda is legalized, I suppose expecting critical thinking instead of strident ideology is hopelessly old-fashioned.

[Huxley]

Nonc Hilaire,

Your dislike of Juan Cole, as well as (confusingly in this context) John Bolton, is noted. I'm not sure what to make of the second sentence of your reply. My point about Daniel Pipes was simply that all of the opprobrium you heaped on him amounts to the fact that you disagree with his views, although you don't explain why. The language that you used in denouncing him - “extreme,” “financially dependent,” etc. - is typical of the sort of reaction that modern-day Americans evince when they encounter ideas that they don't like but can't mount a factual argument against, which is why I drew attention to it.

When I said that Pipes's job is to tell you what he thinks, I did not mean to defend "strident ideology." Pipes is an accomplished scholar who advocates certain positions. These positions are explained on his website, clearly and in great detail and with ample supporting evidence and informed analysis. If you disagree with Pipes, you're welcome to explain your reasoning and show us why he's wrong. What I don't understand is why you would contribute to a discussion thread about a Daniel Pipes article by stating that you don't read Daniel Pipes articles. With all due respect, it's the sort of comment that makes Internet discussion so frustrating.

When and how was governmental propaganda "legalized"?

[Torchwood]

Presumably it's the fear of another Benghazi rather than pimping the NSA.

Americans can be as courageous as any other nation, as history shows, but there is a wimpish strain. The aftermath of 9/11 was telling, and I recall with amusement that Bruce Willis, of all people, was not allowed to fly to Europe by his Hollywood minders as it was too dangerous.

Diplomatic postings to dodgy countries carry an element of risk. It goes with the job, move on. Meanwhile a propaganda coup for America's enemies.

[Huxley]

Thank you, Torchwood. I tend to agree. Occam's Razor.

Incredibly, the decision appears to have been based on an intercepted, unencrypted conference call in which the plot was allegedly revealed:

The specific warning of large-scale coordinated terror came from no less than a conference call between al Qaeda's purported chief Ayman Zawahiri and some twenty supposed sub-chiefs in the Middle East and Africa. The conference's existence and procedure – the boss even promoted a subordinate – confirmed the US government's image of a corporate al Qaeda. The conferees' agreement to strike Americans in their bailiwicks as well in Europe on August 4 was indeed "specific."

It was all so neat. No one in high places, it seems, said: "too neat," and asked why professional terrorists whose success depends entirely on secrecy would discuss their worldwide network and specific plans on unencrypted phone connections they know that the US government is monitoring. The various ways by which US electronic surveillance may be evaded are no secret. Besides encryption – easily purchased by persons financed by petrodollar "charities," – the several participants could have used one-time, pre-paid cell phones or even Skype accounts used on a one-time basis.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that, not having done anything to keep from being overheard, the conference call's participants wanted to be overheard.

"NSA Data Fuels the Administrative State"
by Angelo M. Codevilla | Aug 11, 2013 | libertylawsite.org

The conclusion I would draw is that the U.S. government is either very cynical (per Alexis), or very dumb. Not sure which, and not sure which is worse.

[Ibrahim]

I'm puzzled by the derisive comments about Daniel Pipes.

You posted an opinion piece, the author of the piece and his opinions in general are relevant. No need to go through your list but suffice to say Daniel Pipes is a professional anti-Muslim ideologue, and vociferous proponent of any number of discriminatory policies. He also started a McCarthyesque organization to police universities in America to make sure they were in line with these views (as ineffective as that might be).

I was content to make a casual joke about it but if you want to get into it we can get into it we can.

[monster_gardener]

I'm puzzled by the derisive comments about Daniel Pipes.

1) It's a complete non-sequitur. The topic of this thread is the closing of the embassies; either Pipes is right that it's a wimpy act, or he's not.

2) When attacking someone, it's always a good idea to provide some examples or evidence.

3) I find Daniel Pipes to be a consistently provocative and original commentator, who isn't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom as well as the neo-conservative/Republican consensus, e.g. his argument that the U.S. should support Syria's Bashar al-Assad against the rebels.

4) What is a "thought pimp"?

Regarding the embassy closures -- I find it interesting but improbable that the U.S. would close 21 embassies just to make a point about the indispensability of the NSA. After all:

Most warnings about NSA over-reach have focused on its domestic bulk surveillance program authorised under section 215 of the Patriot Act. Yet several news organizations reported on Monday that the information justifying the latest alert came from an intercepted communication between al-Qaida leader Ayman Zawahiri and the chief of the terrorist organization's Yemeni affiliate. Such information would have been collected overseas using powers granted to the NSA under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Critics of the NSA surveillance programs pointed out that the latest threat had nothing to do with the bulk collection of domestic phone data. Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democract who has been a longstanding voice against the bulk collection of phone records, said the latest threat was "serious".

But Wyden, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, added: "While I can't go into specific details, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee noted yesterday that this information was collected using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, rather than the Patriot Act. I still haven't seen any evidence that the NSA's dragnet surveillance of Americans' phone records is providing any unique value to American counterterrorism efforts."

"US embassy closures used to bolster case for NSA surveillance programs"
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington | theguardian.com | Monday 5 August 2013

It's hard to see, therefore, how these embassy closures bolster the case for more domestic surveillance. Of course, there are many people who would draw that conclusion, but the closure of numerous embassies seems an awfully elaborate, indirect, risky, and politically costly way to persuade those people.

Skepticism is fully warranted and justified, but I find the simpler explanation more likely: that this action is the product of craven incompetence.

Huxley, I don't pretend to be an expert on middle eastern politics but I have found Pipes, Cole and Bolton to be as predictable in their opinions as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton so I discount their opinions. They seem to be financially dependent on promulgating extreme and stratified opinion instead of balanced dialog, so I call them thought pimps.

I have made a personal decision to ignore all five of these chuckleheads because I believe they are pushing personal agendas at the expense of a balanced and informed understanding. If one of them has an epiphany and produces a well balanced intellectual treatment please drop a link because they are all on my ignore list.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Nonc.

If one of them has an epiphany and produces a well balanced intellectual treatment please drop a link because they are all on my ignore list.

Don't know if this is well balanced but this Cole piece seems in agreement with you on Fukushima.........

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/fukushi ... nding.html


This one on Privatization also may not be balanced but it is interesting........

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/neolibe ... hheit.html

[monster_gardener]

I'm puzzled by the derisive comments about Daniel Pipes.

You posted an opinion piece, the author of the piece and his opinions in general are relevant. No need to go through your list but suffice to say Daniel Pipes is a professional anti-Muslim ideologue, and vociferous proponent of any number of discriminatory policies. He also started a McCarthyesque organization to police universities in America to make sure they were in line with these views (as ineffective as that might be).

I was content to make a casual joke about it but if you want to get into it we can get into it we can.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

by Daniel Pipes

There's your problem..... *tosses oily rag over shoulder, dusts hands*

That was a joke?

I even Googled it..............

Maybe you need to use more emoticons........

[Azrael]

I guess propagandist Daniel Pipes didn't bother noting that a number of other Western countries also closed their embassies.

Imagine if we didn't close those embassies and there was an attack. Daniel Pipes would have a field day.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The embassy closing was a response to a direct and immediate threat that has since been droned out of existence.

[Huxley]

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The embassy closing was a response to a direct and immediate threat that has since been droned out of existence.

Do you know for a fact that there was such a threat? What was it exactly?

Regardless, Daniel Pipes (I assume that's who you mean by "that guy") is unlikely to be less informed than you. The issue is that he believes it's wimpy and humiliating for the U.S. to close its embassies in the face of any terrorist threat, real or imagined. I agree. It's a propaganda victory for the jihadists and weakens the West in the long run. We need credible deterrence more than drone bombings.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The embassy closing was a response to a direct and immediate threat that has since been droned out of existence.

Do you know for a fact that there was such a threat? What was it exactly?

Regardless, Daniel Pipes (I assume that's who you mean by "that guy") is unlikely to be less informed than you. The issue is that he believes it's wimpy and humiliating for the U.S. to close its embassies in the face of any terrorist threat, real or imagined. I agree. It's a propaganda victory for the jihadists and weakens the West in the long run. We need credible deterrence more than drone bombings.

This is going to sound stupid, but yes I know it was a real threat, no I can't say exactly what it was. The linguist who dealt directly with the intelligence is a friend and currently sleeps in the rack right below me.

[Huxley]

Interesting, thanks.

[Ibrahim]

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The embassy closing was a response to a direct and immediate threat that has since been droned out of existence.

Do you know for a fact that there was such a threat? What was it exactly?

Regardless, Daniel Pipes (I assume that's who you mean by "that guy") is unlikely to be less informed than you. The issue is that he believes it's wimpy and humiliating for the U.S. to close its embassies in the face of any terrorist threat, real or imagined. I agree. It's a propaganda victory for the jihadists and weakens the West in the long run. We need credible deterrence more than drone bombings.

This is going to sound stupid, but yes I know it was a real threat, no I can't say exactly what it was. The linguist who dealt directly with the intelligence is a friend and currently sleeps in the rack right below me.

Oh I'm sure they droned somebody.

[Mr. Perfect]

My guess is that in the current politics-as-pro-sports-point-scoring climate local internal politics drives such decisions rather than any geopolitical considerations.

There is nothing current about it.

[Nastarana]

I don't really know enough about Daniel Pipes to have an opinion, but in this recent article from his website he expresses a good idea.


http://www.danielpipes.org/13389/syria-refugees

House Syrian refugees in Moslem countries. Well, why not? KSA, Qatar, Dubai, etc., they can afford it. Most Western countries right now, cannot.

What I understood was that the proposed attacks were to more or less coincide with then-President Morsi of Egypt's proposed military attack--apparently an outright invasion was planned?--to the south into, I think, Ethiopia, as well as "jihad" into Syria, sending Egyptian "volunteers" to beef up the Syrian insurgency which by then was clearly losing. It may be of some significance that August 4 is President Obama's birthday.

Those plans by Morsi were what provoked his deposition and the subsequent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. A warning was given in the form of a statement by the Egyptian High Command that the job of the Egyptian Army is to defend the borders of Egypt, and ignored by Morsi, who proceeded to announce his plans for invasion of another African nation.

Perhaps someone here might know more about all this?

[Ibrahim]

I don't really know enough about Daniel Pipes to have an opinion, but in this recent article from his website he expresses a good idea.


http://www.danielpipes.org/13389/syria-refugees

House Syrian refugees in Moslem countries. Well, why not? KSA, Qatar, Dubai, etc., they can afford it. Most Western countries right now, cannot.



Perhaps someone here might know more about all this?

Pipes is a racist propagandist, and his idea here is essentially that religion and ethnicity should be the primary considerations when accepting refugees. Implicit is the assumption that America or the West in general is essentially white and Christian, and that non-whites and non-Christians do not belong there. The economic argument is laughable, a thin justification for his prejudicial agenda. In any case the country that has accepted the most Syrian refugees is Turkey.

What I understood was that the proposed attacks were to more or less coincide with then-President Morsi of Egypt's proposed military attack--apparently an outright invasion was planned?--to the south into, I think, Ethiopia, as well as "jihad" into Syria, sending Egyptian "volunteers" to beef up the Syrian insurgency which by then was clearly losing. It may be of some significance that August 4 is President Obama's birthday.

Those plans by Morsi were what provoked his deposition and the subsequent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. A warning was given in the form of a statement by the Egyptian High Command that the job of the Egyptian Army is to defend the borders of Egypt, and ignored by Morsi, who proceeded to announce his plans for invasion of another African nation.

This invasion plan nonsense sounds completely ridiculous. As for the Egyptian military, high-ranking members, including al-Sisi, were paid by the Saudi regime to stage the coup, removing the threat of functioning democratic Islamism as an ideology which might threaten their Wahhabi monarchy.