RUTHFULLY YOURS

Red tape at the Pentagon prevented the development of a drone that could have helped avert the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Compared with, say, a B-2 Bomber, drones are simple things. An empty B-2 weighs 158,000 pounds. The largest version of the Predator—the unmanned aerial vehicle now playing a critical role in every theater where the American military is engaged—weighs just under 5,000. Yet these small aircraft are revolutionizing warfare. Given the simplicity of drones, why did it take so long to put them into operation?

An answer emerges in Richard Whittle’s fascinating “Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution.” Mr. Whittle, a military correspondent for the Dallas Morning News and the author of a previous book about the controversial tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey, has combed every available document and talked to almost every American participant in drone research and development. The result is a soup-to-nuts—or ground-to-air—history of the world’s most potent unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV.

As Mr. Whittle makes plain, there is nothing especially new about UAVs. Inventors have been fiddling with pilotless aircraft since World War I. By the 1970s, some 120 separate versions were listed by Jane’s, the authoritative guide to aircraft. Few of them, though, had made their way into military use. The obstacles were both technological and organizational.

First, there was the disagreeable fact that drones tended to crash, especially on takeoff and landing. Second, UAVs lacked a constituency within the Pentagon. As Mr. Whittle explains, Air Force pilots did not exactly appreciate pilotless planes. The Army, to the extent that it liked any aircraft, was keen on helicopters. The Navy, for its part, did not relish the prospect of unmanned craft loaded with munitions or fuel landing on carrier decks.
Predator

By Richard Whittle
(Henry Holt, 353 pages, $30)

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN IS SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO….RSK
The Islamic State and Vladimir Putin’s Russia are enemies of liberty, democracy and the rule of law.

The abhorrent beheading of two American journalists and a British aid worker shocked the world. So did the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. The deaths of these innocents show the global consequences of two major crises on Europe’s doorstep: the advance of the so-called Islamic State terrorist group across Iraq and Syria, and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The peace and security we enjoy in Europe and North America are under threat like never before.

These challenges will last for years, and we need to face that reality.

With Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has tried long and hard to build a partnership that respects Russia’s security concerns and is based on international rules and norms. Regrettably, Russia has rejected our efforts to engage. Russia has trampled on all the rules and commitments that have kept peace in Europe and beyond since the end of the Cold War. It is now clear that Russia regards the West as an adversary, not a partner.

The terrorist threat is now growing in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State terrorists are fueling the fire of sectarianism already burning across the Middle East and North Africa, with the risk rising that terror will be exported back to our shores.

A rule aimed at ‘conflict minerals’ hurts economies in 10 nations—and harms U.S. public companies.

Reminiscent of the racially discriminatory practice of “redlining” neighborhoods, a little-known measure in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, designed to stop the trafficking of “conflict minerals” from the Democratic Republic of Congo, is not achieving that goal. The measure also discriminates against the DRC’s regional neighbors and is hurting U.S. companies and consumers.

The minerals tantalite, tin, tungsten and gold reportedly are trafficked by armed groups. The Dodd-Frank measure calls on publicly traded U.S. companies who purchase these minerals from the DRC to voluntarily disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission the specific sourcing of the four minerals. But the provision also targets Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, South Sudan, Uganda and Zambia as potential sources of the minerals for no other reason than their shared border with the DRC.

In addition to being discriminatory, the Dodd-Frank measure has a highly debatable effect on the flow of conflict minerals, given that private U.S. companies and foreign firms and their subsidiaries are not covered by the provision. Indeed, the law hands those companies a distinct competitive advantage over public companies in the U.S.

The chain reaction of unintended results does not stop there.

U.S. companies subject to Dodd-Frank already are saddled with heavy compliance requirements governing complex anti-corruption and export-controls risks. Many of the companies are voting with their feet, leading to a de facto boycott of mining in 10 African countries by some of the world’s largest consumer-goods companies. African governments, eager to attract investment in their mineral sectors and integrate their primary products into global supply chains, now turn instead to Asian partners.

GOOD FOR FRAU MERKEL BUT EXACTLY WHAT ARE GERMANY’S “LIBERAL TRADITIONS” HUH? RSK

Angela Merkel spoke out Sunday against the spread of anti-Semitism in Germany. After a summer when protesters at rallies against Israel were heard chanting “Jews to the gas,” the Chancellor’s speech was a welcome affirmation of the country’s best liberal traditions.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivers her speech at a rally against anti-Semitism near the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on September 14. Associated Press

“I do not accept any kind of anti-Semitic message or attacks at all, not least the ones that were recently seen at the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, disguised as alleged criticism of the policy of the state of Israel,” she said. Something is badly amiss in Germany, she noted, when she hears “that young Jewish parents are asking if it’s safe to raise their children here or the elderly ask if it was right to stay here.”

German authorities recorded 184 anti-Semitic incidents in June and July this year, up from 159 for the entire second quarter. These ranged from Molotov cocktails thrown at synagogues to swastikas scrawled on Jewish gravestones. Responsibility for most of these assaults lies either with the country’s small band of neo-Nazis or pockets of Germany’s large Muslim community. But also culpable is the Israel hatred from elite quarters, which lends specious respectability to disreputable ideas with dangerous consequences.

Meantime, Germany has delivered a fourth state-of-the-art submarine to the Israeli navy, the INS Tanin, which is capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. In speaking so forcefully and helping Israel defend itself, Mrs. Merkel has helped to fulfill Germany’s historical obligations while exposing the face of modern anti-Semitism.

Dr. Mark Christian is the President and Executive Director of the Global Faith Institute (GFI), a Christian organization based in Omaha, Nebraska dedicated to “the proclamation and pursuit of truth as it relates Middle Eastern history and current happenings.” Dr. Christian, an Egyptian-born Christian convert from Islam related to high-ranking leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, is now engaged in a battle to root out the Brotherhood influence in what is called the Tri-Faith Initiative, a building project in Omaha.

The Tri-Faith Initiative was begun to build a center comprised of Temple Israel, a new Episcopal church, and a mosque the American Institute of Islamic Studies and Culture in West Omaha, forming “a multi-faith neighborhood of collaboration.” Their “vision is to build bridges of Respect, Trust and Acceptance, to challenge stereotypes of each other, to learn from one another, and to counter the influence of extremists and agents of hate.” But as a GFI statement reads, “the mosque – and those behind it – have distinct ties to groups previously named as ‘unindicted co-conspirators’ in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorist funding investigation in our nation’s history.”

Dr. Christian recently appeared on the Glazov Gang show with FrontPage’s own Dr. Jamie Glazov to discuss his religious conversion and the Initiative. He also co-wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine on how the Initiative mirrors the conditions for dhimmitude which originated in Islam’s earliest days. Dr. Christian also appeared onstage with Jamie Glazov at an event hosted by GFI in Omaha on August 7, when both men confronted Dr. Naser Z. Alsharif, Director of the Middle East Cultural and Educational Services, over the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive connection to the Tri-Faith Initiative. [The video of Jamie Glazov’s fiery attack on Alsharif can be seen here]

Dr. Christian was kind enough to make himself available to answer a few questions.

Mark Tapson: Can you talk briefly about your own background as a former Muslim, why you converted to Christianity, and what it was like for you as a Christian convert in Egypt?

Mark Christian: Growing up I was a very devout Muslim. I was indoctrinated into the Islamic theology and teachings at a surprisingly young age. I was very active in memorizing and learning the Quran, serving at mosques and acting as an imam.

On Monday, the Israeli Counterterrorism Bureau issued strong travel warnings for ‎Israelis and Jews planning trips abroad, particularly to Western Europe, over the ‎upcoming holidays. Such advisories for Israelis are not new. Whenever there is a flare-up ‎of some kind involving terrorism against Jews, the government tells the public to be ‎especially cautious. But this week’s admonitions point to a specific, clear and present ‎danger.

Several factors are coming into play to make Israeli authorities sound the alert. The ‎recently paused war in Gaza is one. In spite of its defensive nature, Operation Protective ‎Edge was (and still is) portrayed by the international media as an act of Israeli aggression. ‎Demonstrations were held at Israeli embassies and consulates across the world, while ‎openly anti-Semitic incidents have been on a steady rise.

Meanwhile, the virulently anti-Israel Professor William Schabas was appointed by the U.N. ‎Human Rights Council to head the “inquiry” into “the widespread, systematic and gross ‎violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms arising from the Israeli ‎military operations in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

The “Schabas Inquiry” — which Canadian MP Professor Irwin Cotler attacked last week in an ‎op-ed in The Jerusalem Post, for “not only presuppose[ing] Israeli criminality … but ‎mak[ing] no reference at all to Hamas’ spectrum of war crimes and crimes against ‎humanity” — is no small matter in this context, as it provides anti-Israel protesters all over ‎the world with a hefty stamp of approval.

It is therefore not surprising that Israel Prize laureate, actress Lea Koenig, in Holland ‎this week for the “Spot on Israeli Theater” festival, was verbally assaulted by Dutch ‎activists storming the premises and shouting anti-Israel epithets and pro-Gaza slogans. ‎Though the hecklers were removed and Koenig’s hosts profusely apologized, the ‎incident is indicative of the overall menacing atmosphere pervading Europe.‎

Another factor that has Israeli officials jumpy is the explosion on the scene of Islamic ‎State terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Due to their preferred method of annihilating “infidels” — televised decapitation — they have upstaged the rest of the Islamist barbarians in the ‎region, including Hamas. (It is thus that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a ‎point of declaring that “ISIS is Hamas and Hamas is ISIS.” He needed to explain to all ‎those Israel-bashers in the West, horrified by the beheadings of American journalists ‎James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines, that this is the kind ‎of threat Israel faces from Gaza and elsewhere along and within its borders.)‎

This administration turns to Abbott and Costello for guidance.

It’s only been five days since President Obama announced his strategy which depends on a coalition of NATO members and Arab states to join with us to degrade and maybe someday destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. But, as I predicted on Thursday, that plan won’t succeed. It has already fallen apart.

The Arab nations are, as usual, singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” in the war against ISIS. Their resentment and distrust of Obama ensured that the most they’d do is permit us to use bases in their nations. Predictably, they won’t send one soldier to fight with us. Britain, Germany, and Canada have already told us that they’ll sit this one out. Turkey, once a cornerstone of NATO and now ruled by a radical Islamist, has not only refused to join us but has also indicated it will refuse us the use of what used to be our massive airbase at Incirlik.

Although one reported cease-fire between a “moderate” Syrian rebel group and ISIS seems to have been short-lived, Obama’s plan to arm the Syrian “moderates” is probably moot.

There seems to be a competition for the title of Obama’s shakiest ally. It’s not Congress, as one Washington Post columnist wrote on Saturday. The winners are the members of his own administration who should, by now, be famous for their imitation of Abbott and Costello’s immortal “Who’s on first?” routine.

So who’s on first? After Obama’s Wednesday night speech announced a war, first at bat to pull back from it was Secretary of State John Kerry. On Thursday, Kerry said, “I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity.”

What was on second? The White House and the Pentagon performances, stumbling over each other, to refute what Kerry said. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said (joshing earnestly?) we are at war with ISIS the same way that we’re at war with al-Qaeda. Pentagon spokesman RAdm. John Kirby made sure to point out that this isn’t the same Iraq war of a decade ago, but it’s a war nonetheless. Heaven forbid that someone might think this is connected in any way to the old nasty Bush war in Iraq.

In his view, the current debacle has nothing to do with his own errors and omissions.

How can we account for the apparent flip-flopping of the Obama administration about what we are doing, or might do further, to the Islamic State?

At times the secretary of defense seems at odds with the secretary of state. The administration seems not to be reacting to its own intelligence information about the Islamic State. Nor is it heeding the professional advice of the Joint Chiefs or top-ranking military officers in the field. Instead, in the run-up to the midterm elections, Obama appears to be guided largely by a stubborn adherence to his own past political truisms, and that explains the current inability to articulate a strategy or craft a coalition.

In anti-empirical fashion, the following axioms must be true — and thus the facts on the ground in Syria and Iraq must be massaged to reflect these beliefs.

1. The growth of the Islamic State has little if anything to do with the total withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. Our departure did not prompt the Maliki government to backslide into religious oppression, free the skies for foreign powers, and open the countryside to resurgent Islamists.

2. The success of the Islamic State has nothing to do with the past failure to aid anti–Bashar Assad groups in Syria that once upon a time may have also opposed the Islamic State.

3. The current ascendancy of the Islamic State has nothing to do with a sense that the credibility of the United States in the region is diminished, or that enemies in the Middle East are emboldened by past non-enforcement of loudly announced red lines, step-over lines, or deadlines. Nor does it have to do with the situation on the ground after the bombing of Libya, or with the promise to vacate Afghanistan, or with the shunning of our old allies in the Gulf and Egypt.

4. The administration’s current Middle East plan of reaching out to the Islamic world — from the euphemisms about terrorism to the proclamations of underappreciated Islamic achievement to outreach to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranians — has largely worked and therefore should be continued. Hence, the statement that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam.

In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists’ The Muslim Brotherhood is the best Obama can do.

It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges.

I wrote a book a few years ago called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America that addressed this partnership between Islamists and progressives. The terms “grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted from an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that lays bare the Brotherhood’s overarching plan to destroy the West from within by having their component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and opinion elites.

The plan is going well.

As long as the news media and even conservative commentators continue to let them get away with it, the term “moderate Islamist” will remain useful to transnational progressives. It enables them to avoid admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood is what they have in mind.

As my recent column explained, the term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.

Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.

If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally — often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I oppose terrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent”).

Understandably, the public is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people the government describes as “moderates” and portrays as our “allies.” If transnational progressives were grilled on these vaporous terms, though, and forced to concede, say, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the purportedly “moderate opposition” our government wants to support in Syria, the public would object. While not expert in the subject, many Americans are generally aware that the Brotherhood supports terrorism, that its ideology leads young Muslims to graduate to notorious terrorist organizations, and that it endorses oppressive Islamic law while opposing the West. Better for progressives to avoid all that by one of their dizzying, internally nonsensical word games — hence, “moderate Islamist.”

I rehearse all that because last week, right on cue, representatives of Brotherhood-tied Islamist organizations appeared with Obama-administration officials and other apologists for Islamic supremacism to ostentatiously “condemn” the Islamic State as “not Islamic.”

Klinghoffer: Pretending Art Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
The Klinghoffer opera transforms the Palestinian Arabs’ false, lethal narrative into truth, while wresting away the truth of the Jewish connection to the land of Israel. A relationship which predates even the creation of Islam, let alone the Palestinian Arabs, by centuries.

The most important thing to know about the Metropolitan Opera’s staging of the provocation piece “The Death of Klinghoffer,” is that the first of what should be many protests against it will be on Monday, Sept 22, starting at 4:30 p.m., at the Metropolitan Opera, which is nestled in the Lincoln Center Complex, at Broadway and West 65th Street in New York City.

The opera itself is still set to run at the Met for eight performances, starting on Monday, Oct. 20, running through mid-November. But in a concession that should serve as an admission, the Met pulled “Death” from its line-up of operas it simulcasts to theaters around the world.

Why?

Because as Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager admitted in a statement issued in mid-June, the international Jewish community is genuinely concerned that “the live transmission of The Death of Klinghoffer would be inappropriate at this time of rising anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe.”

It beggars the imagination that Gelb and his board recognized and acted in deference to genuine concern about the effect the opera could have for Jews in Europe, but shuts his ears to the genuine concern and outrage over staging it in New York City, where there is one of the largest concentration of Jews in the world.

What is wrong with this opera, you ask? Spending hours listening to scenes from the opera only undergirds the enmity expressed towards the opera by concerned ranks of the Jewish community.

AMERICAN JEWS GETTING FAT WHEREVER POOR PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING