National Security Online Resource Center

1. Delaying his decision on Afghan troops-When running for the White House in 2008, President Obama called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and capture Osama bin Laden. Now that he is on office, he has barely met with his general, who insists that an increased troop presence will stabilize the region. Delaying his decision has both infuriated his general and reduced the morale of our soldiers fighting overseas.

2. Trying 9/11 terrorists in New York City-By trying 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, President Obama is providing Mohammed with access to classified intelligence, a platform to espouse his anti-American views, and the possibility of an acquittal or a mistrial despite his confession and requests for a death sentence.

3. Denouncing the legitimate government of Honduras-When Honduran legistalors voted out former-President Manuel Zelaya after his illegal attempts to secure a second term in office, President Obama sided with Zelaya and declared the new government “illegitimate” without examining either the facts or Honduran law.

4. Investigating CIA officials for alleged torture-Criminalizing the work CIA officials who acted in good faith when conducting counterterrorism investigations to save American lives places a chilling effect on the CIA’s ability and willingness to defend American citizens from terrorist attacks.

5. Bowing to the Japanese Emperor, incorrectly-The fact that President Obama “bowed” to the Emperor shows not only an obsequiousness that the president should not carry, but also his botched execution is a metaphor for his countless foreign policy blunders-all are based on false assumptions.

This list could go on. I welcome my fellow bloggers to either add to this list or critique it…

Congratulations to Tedoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, November’s Dictator of the Month! Inspired by this website that is unfortunately no longer updated, I am profiling one current dictator each month (last month was Mswati III of Swaziland).

Obiang gained control of Equatorial Guinea in 1979 after staging a successful military coup against his uncle. Ironically, his military career blossomed because he suppressed a coup against his uncle earlier that decade, when he received a series of promotions up to that of Vice Minister of the Armed Forces and Lieutenant Colonel. In a similar fashion to other military dictators, Obiang was promoted to “Colonel” after his coup.

Obiang is a tyrant. Consistently re-elected with 97% of the vote in clearly-rigged elections, he has been accused of causing countless human rights abuses. These accusations range from suppressing dissent and controlling the media to torturing prisoners, conducting political assassinations, and even staging coups against himself that he can destroy in an efforr to scare anyone who would dare oppose him (if this is true, Obiang has read Machiavelli, who promoted such actions). Equatorial Guinea does have a major source of wealth that Obiang can use to his advantage: plentiful oil and natural gas reserves.

Because few people can even locate Equatorial Guinea on a map, and its oil and natural gas reserves are one of only a few reasons other countries would take any interest in her affairs, we can see why few people have heard of Obiang. Just remember that the next time you fill up your tank, the proceeds could line his pockets.

Brazil, one of the largest and most powerful emerging countries in the world, has arrived on the world stage. Brazil along with India and China has been a key negotiator in the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round and is vying for a UN Security Council Seat. Also, a few weeks ago, Rio de Jeneiro, surprisingly beat the odds by winning the Olympic bid for 2016. Now, it is flexing its political muscle by entering into the dark hole of Middle East politics.
Today, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is hosting the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. In the last two weeks, Brazil has hosted President Shimon Peres of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. In his radio address, President Lula said “There’s no point in leaving Iran isolated,” rather “It’s important that someone sits down with Iran, talks with Iran and tries to establish some balance so that the Middle East can return to a certain sense of normalcy.”
This is a clear shot at the American approach, yet ever after Americans changed their approach and offered Iran a number of opportunities, Iran has refused to comply. Meanwhile, Brazil undercuts the United States’ effort and offers the embattled Ahmedinejad an air of legitimacy in the international community.
Can Brazil realistically broker peace? Possibly. If it is seen as a neutral party with the trust of both sides it maybe successful and add to Brazil growing international prestige. However, Russia and China, both of whom are on the table during P5+1 negotiations, are seen as neutral or even pro-Iranian and Iran is unwilling to meet their demands. Brazil may have arrived, but it needs to be careful where it goes from here.

The world has seen increased media coverage of pirate attacks of Spanish and English ships off of the Somali coast recently. This particular story details the release of Spanish hostages after the payment of a 3 million dollar ransom. Although the pirates were later captured, countless suspects still remain at sea, including pirates who are holding a British couple hostage for 7 million dollars.

The United States faced a crisis last spring when an American ship captain was held hostage on the high seas for days. Initial reports had indicated that he was killed, but we later learned that he survived thanks to a daring Navy SEAL operation. In this case, four pirates held the captain hostage, and SEAL snipers killed three of the pirates with simultaneous gunshots. The fourth pirate immediately surrendered and was transported to the US to face trial.

Some sympathizers may blame economic conditions as the cause for piracy (it may contribute) and therefore ask that ships either employ non-lethal tactics when responding to pirates or to pay off their ransom. These responses are flawed because they legitimize piracy as a profession. If Somali citizens saw that piracy was not a profitable profession but one with high risk of death, perhaps they would consider other means of making a living.

Despite his belief that he is a “citizen of the world,” President Obama showed once again how ignorant he is about the world around him. On a recent trip to Japan, President Obama met with the Emperor of Japan and “bowed” to him. While President Obama probably thought he was being respectful towards the emperor, this blogger (who is a Harvard professor) explains how Japanese customs are not like those Obama may have seen in Tom Cruise’s The Last Samurai.

President Obama is seen here bowing to the Emperor and shaking his hand at the same time, both of which were breaches of Japanese etiquette. First, international leaders are not expected to bow to the Emperor, but merely shake his hand (or maybe tilt their head down ten degrees). Second, if one chooses to bow for whatever reason, do not touch while bowing. President Obama may tout growing up in Indonesia as evidence of his international pedigree, but he clearly never bothered to learn that much about Japan before embarking on this trip.

Other writers see this bow as another example of Obama’s capitulation to “world opinion.” Obama has felt that he must apologize for mistakes the United States has made while simultaneously downplaying her triumphs. Therefore, some writers interpret this bow as another example of his subservicence to the rest of the world. As long as President Obama wants to bow, perhaps he should bow to the American populace who elected him.

President Barack Obama and top henchman Attorney General Eric Holder kept their promise that terrorists would be tried in civilian courts as part of an effort to “return to the rule of law.” Despite President Bush’s correct assessment that terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants and tried in military commissions, Obama sees terrorists as criminals who deserve access to our civilian court systems.

The problems with trying al-Qaeda members in civilian courts are numerous, and nobody explains these better than the National Review. While the New York Times and other prominent figures on the left believe that treating terrorists as criminals is the best strategy, NRO notes that this tactic did not work under Clinton’s administration in the 1990s as the courts exposed prosecutons to “the daunting disclosure and witness-confrontation rules that required government to disclose mountains of intelligence, the gargantuan expense of “hardening” courthouses and prisons to protect juries and judges, and the terrorists’ exploitation of legal privileges to plot additional attacks and escape attempts.”

Because al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization based overseas that has been responsible for terrorist attacks at home and abroad, it is reasonable to treat the entire organization and any and all attacks it organizes as matters for military courts. This article stresses that our military courts are well-equipped to balance both the rights of defendants and national security concerns that come with using classified evidence in a trial. It is unfortunate that President Obama does not see this.

John Allan Muhammad, also known as the DC Sniper, was executed  at 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday in Virginia. Muhammad and an accomplice killed ten people in the DC metropolitan area in 2002 with a sniper rifle before they were caught. Their motive is unknown: some allege it was an attempt to extort money, while others contend Muhammad intended the killings to serve as a smokescreen before killing his ex-wife (she was never killed). Regardless, they were arrested a couple of months after the murders started, tried, and ultimately convicted in both Virginia and Maryland. His accomplice is serving life without parole. Muhammad is also suspected of murders in Alabama, Louisiana, and Arizona.

A few anti-death penalty advocates held vigils to protest the execution, even though they acknowledged the pain that Muhammad caused in the greater D.C. area.

I vividly remember these killings and the fear that D.C.-area residents felt. Even though I lived in the Baltimore area where nobody was killed, we still walked the streets wondering whether the next step we took would be our last. Muhammad even listed a local middle school in my town as a potential target (they shot and wounded kid outside another middle school in the D.C. area), and frequently spent the night in Baltimore before killing during the day. The entire community breathed a collective sigh of relief when Muhammad and his accomplice were finally caught.

At this point, everyone has learned of the tragic shootings at Fort Hood, where an army psychologist opened fire and killed thirteen people, including soldiers and civilians. The shooter was an army major who was apparently anxious about returning to the battlefield, as early reports indicated.

However, newer stories like this one suggest that the suspect may have had ties to Islamist radicals. According to the New York Times, the US government had been monitoring the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, for his ties to a radical Yemeni cleric with whom he communicated shortly before the massacre. While the content of the communications is unknown, the Times reveals that the cleric praised Hasan on his website after news of the shooting broke: “He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

The army had closed the inquiry because they could find no evidence that Hasan would commit an act of violence. Sadly, but understandably, they were unable to predict this massacre based on their investigation.

We should be careful before jumping to conclusions about this event, whether your temptation is to blame the massacre on the overseas wars or on terrorists. In the meantime, here is a tribute to the victims.

New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh has an interesting take on the matter. I would take what he says with a heavy grain of salt given his sensationalist style of journalism, but he does provide an interesting perspective.

We have discussed political, social, and economic issues in countless countries of the world here at NSORC. Now, let’s see how many countries you can name in 15 minutes!

I named 157.

Next week, look for a discussion on the Fort Hood shootings and a commemoration of the victims’ lives.