Fortunately Shahzad’s training by the Taliban in his home nation of Pakistan didn’t seem to include adequate training in such improvised munitions. The car bomb failed to detonate and within hours the FBI apprehended Faisal Shahzad.

Federal prosecutors have filed a five (5) count indictment against charges against Shahzad on Tuesday, May 4, 2010  in U.S. District Court of Southern New York: attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, use of a destructive device in connection with criminal violence, transporting and receiving explosives, and damaging and destroying property by means of fire.

These are five very serious federal crimes. When – there’s no point in bothering with the fantasy of saying “if” – the filthy, failed jihadi terrorist is convicted he will face life in prison, mostly likely effectively without any possibility of parole.

Yet the single most applicable and important federal charge against Faisal Shahzad is sadly and conspicuously missing from the indictment. That is the charge of treason under Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381 of the US Code.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The 30 year-old Faisal Shahzad moved from Pakistan to America 12 years ago, studied for and recieved his MBA here in America and, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in April 2009. Shahzad certainly owed allegiance to the US – in the truest sense of that word; he had a debt to America that he should have spent his life trying to pay off.

That’s apparently not how Shahzad saw things. He was seemingly more than happy to enjoy the freedoms and comforts of America but felt know loyalty to the people and nation who were gracious enough to allow him to join them. He chose instead to levy war against them, adhere to their enemies, and give those enemies aid. He chose the path of Muslim jihad.

So why hasn’t US Attorney General Eric Holder instructed the federal prosecutors in this case: Brendan McGuire, John Cronan, and Randall Jackson to include the charge of treason in the indictment? Why hasn’t President Obama instructed his boy, Holder to do so?

Both were quick to defend offering Faisal the protections under the law that even Shahzad deserved as a American citizen, but neither seems willing actually fully apply the law to him.

Trying, convicting, and executing the jihadi, Faisal Shahzad for treason would send a clear and strong message to America’s enemies, both within and without the borders of our country. I just hope that fact is not the reason why neither President Obama nor his Attorney General, Eric Holder want to do so.

…So We Can Finally Bring George Bush To Justice

But hey! What can else can one expect from President Obama and his coterie? The boy got himself elected as the POTUS by running a successful Presidential campaign against the “lame duck” incumbent, President George Bush, Jr. – and he has blamed every one of his many failures and pathetic inadequacies upon the man since then. This is just Obama’s next logical step.

Now, truth be told, Obama’s outburst had more to do with scoring political points by attacking President Bush then with any firmly held convictions Obama might have possessed, but his point about “dumb wars” had a certain validity.

War is a dirty, bloody, horrific enterprise that should be undertaken, when possible, only after careful planning and with a clear goal and a exit strategy kept firmly in mind.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

– Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-IL)
October 2, 2002

It’s easy to argue that going into Iraq the second time was unneeded at that time, but harder to describe it as “dumb.” The operation was well-planned and we had clear objectives – though our exit strategy and the preconditions for such involved a time-frame that is largely unpalatable to the modern, “half-hour sitcom” format populace. It is also largely immaterial at this time; we’re pulling out of Iraq close to on schedule and the Administration that launched the war are no longer in power.

What About Afghanistan?

There’s a “dumb” war, if ever I saw one, and one that is growing more and more reminiscent of our protracted and ultimately failed engagement in Vietnam. What started out as a reasonably clear-cut punitive expedition by the US and NATO has become a quagmire.

General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of US & Allied Forces in Afghanistan, has pleaded for 40,000 more troops in order to prosecute the war there. President Obama and his administration seem very reluctant to provide those troops. The resulting schism between the US Military and the White House has become fodder for the media and various pundits.

For myself, I find this argument between the troops on the ground and the politicians in Washington D.C. to be ridiculous and a lethally stupid case of “putting the cart before the horse.” How can any decisions be made about the disposition of personnel and materiel before we have decided what the objective is?

What War Are We Fighting?

It’s rally a simple question and one that should have a relatively simple, if not necessarily easy, answer. I haven’t heard anyone – President Obama or Congress – provide that answer though.

• What are our strategic goals?
• What is the scope of our military’s mission?
• What constitutes the victory conditions?
• What is our exit strategy?

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, is required to answer those questions; that is his job. So far he hasn’t done so and every day our soldiers, allied Afghan militiamen, and even those who we’re currently fighting against are dying for no defined purpose whatsoever.

On one lone point I agree with what Obama said before he was elected President; I’m opposed to dumb war as well.

A surge by any other name is still a surge. Strange, that President Obama no longer has a problem with such things when he’s not running for office against a Republican.

The Liberal Media (MSM) has been largely conciliatory in their reporting of Obama’s war in Asia Minor – when they haven’t been utterly silent on the topic. There’s little signs of outrage on their part over this escalation of violence by Obama, unlike their near constant ranting about the same topic under the Bush administration.

Why are we not being inundated by anti-war coverage from the MSM outlets? Why aren’t we seeing one contrived interview after another with protesters demanding that President Obama “bring the troops home?” Is the media – in love with- and well-controlled by Obama – effectively silencing dissent, or is there no actual significant dissent for them to silence? Are the Liberals finally tacitly admitting that they have no real objection to America’s efforts against terrorism and that their only issue was with President Bush?

Perhaps Obama has certain advantages. Perhaps a Black President can kill Brown people with greater social impunity than a White President can.

No matter what the reasons are for this disparate coverage and level of outrage over Bush’s and Obama’s prosecution of the War on Terror it’s still disgusting. It starkly points out the prejudice, ethical failings, and utter lack of patriotism of the Left in America. If – and that’s a very big “if” – this was wrong when President Bush did it, then it’s wrong when President Obama does it. If it is right when President Obama does it, then it was right when Presient Bush did it.

A surge by any other name is still a surge.

NATO is finally fighting to win this war.

General Craddock understands that, in order to win the war against the Islamists and their jihadi terrorist cells, NATO has to do a lot more than just fight a long war of attrition against their forces.

BERLIN — NATO’s senior military commander has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers without waiting for proof of their involvement with the Taliban insurgency, according to a report in the online edition of Der Spiegel magazine.

The commander, Gen. John Craddock of the United States, floated the idea in a confidential letter on Jan. 5 to Gen. Egon Ramms, a German officer who heads the NATO command center responsible for Afghanistan, Spiegel Online reported Thursday.

General Craddock wrote that “it was no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective,” the news magazine reported. A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the wording of the letter, and several NATO officials said publicly on Friday that no such orders had ever been given to NATO troops.

– Judy Dempsey
NY Times article, January 30, 2009

Yes! Finally! At least General Craddock knows that NATO has to destroy the infrastructure that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the other terrorists use to fund and arm their organizations. A protracted engagement that attacks only the terrorists’ and insurgents’ – all too disposable – fighter will not win this war.

We didn’t win WW2 by just fighting troops in the field. We leveled the Nazis’ and Japan’s manufacturing capabilities. Allied bombing raids destroyed the factory districts – at a minimum – of dozens and dozens of Axis cities. That is to a large extent what gave the Allies their victory; we denied Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo the ability to effectively supply and arm their militaries.

The only functional difference between WW2 and the War on Terror, in this respect, is the nature of the enemies infrastructure. In WW2 the enemy were nations with heavy industry capabilities. In the War on Terror the enemy are bands of jihadis with little or no manufacturing capability but with access to large amounts of money from the international drug trade. In both cases, however, the enemy is dependent upon static resources and extended supply lines.

If NATO starts launching operations against the drug traffickers, we’ll break the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s supply lines. If NATO starts – finally – destroying the opium poppy fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we’ll destroy what passes for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s manufacturing capabilities. It will be a lot harder for these terrorists and insurgents to wage war or launch terror attacks against the civilians of the Civilized World if they can’t afford ammunition for their Kalashnikovs, grenades for the RPG-7s, and sundry other munitions and explosives.

Of Course There’s Dissent

According to Spiegel Online, who illegally obtained classified NATO documents, the directive to attack the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s opium and heroin infrastructure has caused open rift inside NATO.

A dispute has emerged among NATO High Command in Afghanistan regarding the conditions under which alliance troops can use deadly violence against those identified as insurgents. In a classified document, which SPIEGEL has obtained, NATO’s top commander, US General John Craddock, has issued a “guidance” providing NATO troops with the authority “to attack directly drug producers and facilities throughout Afghanistan.

According to the document, deadly force is to be used even in those cases where there is no proof that suspects are actively engaged in the armed resistance against the Afghanistan government or against Western troops. It is “no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective,” Craddock writes.

The NATO commander has long been frustrated by the reluctance of some NATO member states — particularly Germany — to take aggressive action against those involved in the drug trade. Craddock rationalizes his directive by writing that the alliance “has decided that (drug traffickers and narcotics facilities) are inextricably linked to the Opposing Military Forces, and thus may be attacked.” In the document, Craddock writes that the directive is the result of an October 2008 meeting of NATO defense ministers in which it was agreed that NATO soldiers in Afghanistan may attack opium traffickers.

– Susanne Koelbl
Spiegel Online article, January 28, 2009

What amazes me is that these people admit that $100 million flows each year to the Taliban and its allies from the opium and heroin industry, but refuse to see that this makes those industries viable targets in the Civilized World’s War on Terrorism and the Islamists.

But then it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that there are some – even with NATO it’s sad to say – that don’t want the War on Terror to be won. Some Europeans are afraid of the “domestic consequences” that a pragmatic war against the Taliban and other Islamist might cause among their growing and increasingly “unruly” Muslim populations. Others – like Spiegel – probably see a protracted, but ineffectual war as a steady means of income. Finally, some hate President-emeritus George W. Bush so insanely virulently that no cost – not even the murder of innocent children in the Civilized World – is too high a price to pay to defeat anything that started on his watch.

One of my wives, Eve aka jmochagrrl, sent me this solution to the US’ ongoing war on terror and terrorism, specifically the dangers arising out of the Middle-east.

The War On Terror

As viewed from the Bourne shell

$ cd /middle_east
$ ls
Afghanistan  Iraq     Libya      Saudi_Arabia  UAE
Algeria    Israel   Morocco    Sudan         Yemen
Bahrain      Jordan   Oman       Syria
Egypt        Kuwait   Palestine  Tunisia
Iran         Lebanon  Qatar      Turkey

$ cd Afghanistan
$ ls
bin Taliban
$ rm Taliban
rm: Taliban is a directory
$ cd Taliban
$ ls
soldiers
$ rm soldiers
$ cd ..
$ rmdir Taliban
rmdir: directory “Taliban”: Directory not empty
$ cd Taliban
$ ls -a
. .. .insurgents
$ chown -R USA .*
chown: .insurgents: Not owner
$ cd ..
$ su
Password: *******
# mv Taliban /tmp
# exit
$ ls
bin
$ cd bin
$ ls
laden
$ cd ..
$ rm -r bin/laden
bin/laden: No such file or directory
$ find / -name laden
$
$ su
Password: *******
# mv bin /tmp
# exit
$ pwd
/middle_east/Afghanistan
$ cd /opt/UN
$ ln -s /Bad_Guys/Al_Qaeda /middle_east/Iraq/.
ln: cannot create /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda:
Permission denied
$ su
Password:*******
# ln -s /Bad_Guys/Al_Qaeda /middle_east/Iraq/.
# cd /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
Al_Qaeda: does not exist
# rm /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
# mkfile 100g /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
mkfile: No space left on device
# rm /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
# cd /opt/Coalition/Willing
# mkfile 1b /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
# chown -R USA:Proof /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
#exit
$ cd /middle_east/Iraq
$ ls
saddam
$ ls
saddam
$ ls
saddam
$ ls -a
. .. saddam
$ find / -name [Ww][Mm][Dd]
/Korea/North/wMd
$ wall Propaganda.txt
Broadcast Message from USA (pts/1) on USS_Abraham_Lincoln Th May 1st
Mission Accomplished!
$ rm saddam
saddam: No such file or directory
$ find / -name saddam
/var/opt/dictators/spiderhole/saddam
$ wall NewsWorthy.txt
Broadcast Message from USA (pts/1) on Time.Magazine Sat Dec 13
We Got Him!
$ mv /var/opt/dictators/spiderhole/saddam /opt/jail
$ cd /opt/USA
$ cp -Rp Democracy /middle_east/Iraq
$ cd /middle_east/Iraq/Democracy
$ ./install
Install Error: Install failed. See install_log for details.
$ more install_log
Installed failed!
Prerequisite packages missing
Conflicting package Wahhabism found in /midde_east/Saudi_Arabia
Packages Church and State must be installed separately
File System /PeakOil nearing capacity
Please read the install guide to properly plan your installation.
$

Eve got this from The S Word Blog over at Sun Microsystems.

Of course there are still some issues with the “operating system” used in the above example; as has been pointed out, everything in /bin should be “executable.”

Also note that this must be done from the Bourne shell. Using the slowly deprecated Bourne Again shell ($bash) will accomplish the goals faster, but may result in the destruction of all files in /middle-east.

So – to help correct society’s gross oversight in the matter:

You Might Be Taliban If…

You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

You own a  $15,000 rocket launcher, but you can’t afford shoes.

You have more wives than teeth.

You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

You’ve ever opened a can of falafel with a mortar round.

You used a Stinger missile given to you by George Bush Sr. to shoot at a helicopter sent by George Bush Jr.

You’ve ever had your camel repossessed.

You can’t think of anyone you HAVEN’T declared Jihad against.

You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry ammunition in your robe.

You get really excited by the idea of a goat beauty pageant.

You’ve ever been asked, “Does this burka make my ass look fat?”

You think “The Kite Runner” is the funniest book you ever read.

You’ve felt the urge to rub one out after seeing a woman’s exposed ankle.

You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

You’ve ever uttered the phrase, “I love what you’ve done with your cave.”

You wipe your ass with your bare left hand, but consider bacon “unclean.”

You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.

You believe rape is a crime punishable by death – for the victim.

You bathe at least monthly whether necessary or not.

You’ve ever had a crush on your neighbor’s goat.

You’ve ever executed a goat for being sexually provocative.

You think homosexuals should be killed but see nothing wrong with molesting boys under 11 years of age.

You think there is nothing wrong with forcing 9 year old girls into marriage with 50 year old men.

Come on, people. Terrorism relies on terror in order to be even marginally successful. You defeat things like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hamas by ridiculing them and laughing at them. Then shoot them, strip their corpses naked, and leave them unshriven on the ground for the vultures and jackals to feast upon. But the ridicule and laughing should come first.

Since I have friends in Pakistan this interested me on a more personal level than it did many of the viewers of the debate. My friends, who are fairly secular and educated would be placed in direct peril if the government of Pakistan collapsed due to the rising unrest, insurgency, and terrorism that could result from an increased and expanded US and / or NATO campaign within Pakistan.

So let us discuss Pakistan’s fate at the hands of each of the US presidential candidates. Each candidate has a different approach to the question. Each approach will have a different impact on the nation of Pakistan and its peoples.

The question:

Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Sen. John McCain’s answer:

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

McCain wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda. More importantly he seems to want to work with the people in Waziristani region to convince them to help remove Al-Qaeda. This means that Pakistan gets to keep its sovereignty – and probably its government – intact. It also probably means that the Pakistani military will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. McCain’s plan to be unsatisfying. I can also find several flaws with this methodology for dealing with Al-Qaeda.

Firstly, there’s no positive proof that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s regime is friendly enough towards the US to consider aiding us in this struggle. Secondly, McCain’s plan hinges on successfully winning “the hearts and minds” of the Waristanis.

Sen. Barack Obama’s answer:

What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Obama wants also wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda – when it suits our purposes to do so. He makes no mention of- or allusion to working with the people in the Waziristani region to further this effort. This means that US forces will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. Obama’s idea very emotionally appealing; our dead and bereaved from 9/11 deserve to be avenged. I can find several grievous flaws in his plan however.

Firstly, Zardari’s regime is already quite unfriendly to the US and Pakistani troops have already fired upon US / NATO forces within and near the borders of Pakistan; Obama’s plan would most likely escalate that violence into open warfare. Secondly, Obama’s plan would require that US forces launch unsupported attack into Waziristan. This is an action that the Soviets and the Pakistanis themselves have failed at accomplishing.

From Pakistan’s point of view…

I would have to say that Pakistan would fare better with Sen. McCain as President of the United States of America than with Sen. Obama in that role. In point of fact I think Pakistan would do much better with McCain than they would with Obama.

McCain’s plan is a cooperative effort with the Pakistani government and the people of the Waziristani region. By involving all parties it would mitigate the potential for disaster to be the Pakistani government and it’s people.

Obama’s plan seems to focus on using financial aid to convince Zardari’s regime to aid our forces, or at least ignore our encroachments into their territory.  This would likely result in an increase of violence and terrorism in Pakistan if Zardari’s regime could even be convinced in the first place.  Alternatively Obama’s plan could place Pakistan in open warfare against the US and at odds with Waziristan. Either is a recipe for disaster within Pakistan.