Obama Takes Blame for Detroit Christmas Bomber Intelligence Failures

Too many acronyms, too many agencies, too many security failures and a presidential decision to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants is a recipe for American suffering in what used to be called the "War on Terror." Failing to call our response to attacks on America a "War on Terror" is part of a calculated strategy by the Obama administration. Proponents of this sanitized view will appreciate the renaming process and remarks of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who sees more danger to America from returning veterans than from Farouk Abdulmutallab, Major Nidal Hasan, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and recycled Yemeni terrorists released during the Bush administration. Napolitano likes to use the term "man-caused disasters" to describe acts of terrorism. You wonder what she'd call a forty car pileup on a snowy Route 80. Would that be terrorism by automobile?

Janet Napolitano should really be fired if the Obama administration wanted to signal it was serious about resolving our security lapses. And should the damage caused by Napolitano's "everything worked smoothly" remarks cause the light of reason to go off in the President's head, he might think also of getting rid of security advisor John Brennan who could not stay focused during a Meet the Press segment with David Gregory on the topic at hand-the treatment of terrorists like the Detroit Christmas bomber as citizen-criminals entitled to full constitutional rights. For what reasons, other than political reasons, does the Obama administration hamstring anti-terror efforts by insisting on criminal trials and the closure of Guantanamo? It is a particularly insidious form of weakness, and the narrowest of reasoning to believe, as the President does, that Guantanamo and military tribunals have allowed Al Qaeda to define us in some way and that the definition can be reversed only if we succumb to the platform of the enemy. In a fight, as in a war, the last thing you want to do is to advertise your weakness.

From the looks of things, I had hoped President Obama might shed a little light on the topic of criminal terror trials during his scheduled TV address of this evening. The President's talk was originally scheduled for early afternoon, then moved back to 4:30 as securities analysts wrestled with the problems of declassifying information about the would-be Detroit Christmas bomber, Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Most reporters found nothing shocking and little that was new in President Obama's address, nor in the briefs provided by NCTC chief John Brennan and Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. A justly angry President Obama was blunt in condemning the near fatal security lapses, but had already divined a "systemic" cause which avoided having to blame leadership failures. As with criminal trials for terrorists, the decision to stress the importance of "process" in security matters allows for the addition of more layers of bureaucracy and more jobs for lawyers and policy wonks.

The real path to better security is to send the right signals, to reward and not discourage individual field initiative, and to provide top leadership we can all believe in. Somehow, Miranda and a criminal trial for enemy combatant Abdulmutallab, who trained in a military organization in Yemen, will not impress Ayman Zawahiri for its high-mindedness, nor will it instill confidence in Americans that the President knows what he is doing.
It is the same for the prisoners in Guantanamo. Al Qaeda prays for a large, de-clawed, and redundant American security bureaucracy, rather than a compact and aggressive one that works.

Reporters asked some interesting questions but none touched upon the rather insane notion of treating Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as a citizen-criminal. The point that the Obama administration wants to make is that we must "show the world" that we can conduct fair trials in Manhattan criminal courts. That conceit is well off the target of protecting American citizens from terror attacks. I'd hate see anyone lose their life in a political game of presidential show-and-tell.