Newt gave a speech at a regularly scheduled church service “not speaking as a religious leader, [but] speaking as a citizen”.  Whatever his intention, words coming from a pulpit during a church service carry a certain religious weight.

So, what does Gingrich mean by “We need to stand up for ourselves”?  Here’s a quote from his speech.

We are not going to have a one-sided offensive against our civilization in which we’re supposed to accept defeat, we’re supposed to accept humiliation, and we’re supposed to accept the death of our young men and women, and we have to accept those who are killing us? I don’t think so,” said Gingrich.

It’s interesting, especially for a stance to be preached from a pulpit.

From a purely secular viewpoint, I can see where he’s coming from.  It’s not reasonable to accept humiliation, or death, without fighting back.

Paul had a different thought:

Are they servants of Christ? I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers.

I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. ²⁹ Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. (2 Corinthians 11:23-30)

How can we as Christians pursue the heart of Christ in our life, except when it comes to politics (or business or sports or…)?  We are all fallen creatures and we all are tempted by the treasures of this world.  Satan has lost the ultimate battle for our souls, but that doesn’t mean he’s sitting on the sidelines.  If there is a way to misdirect our good intentions, our pursuit of holiness and righteousness or our knowledge of Truth, then he will find it.

Imagine the passionate Christian supporters of the Tea Party or the Democratic party directing their strident efforts towards the feeding of the hungry.  Imagine the billion dollar coffers of these candidates being transformed into educational materials that lift people from poverty.  Imagine the rancorous speeches (or even comments) attacking the morality, intelligence, goodness, and humanity of opposing candidates replaced by encouraging words spoken to colleagues, friends, family, or strangers.

This is a frightening time.  Not due to the fear-mongering that seems an inescapable facet of today’s political discource, nor due to escalating rhetoric on either side of the aisle, nor for the tumultuous events occurring around the globe.  It’s frightening, because never before, in my lifetime at least, have Christians sacrificed their beliefs so readily on the altar of political expedience.

Why do nations rage and people plot in vain (Psalm 2:1) ? He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. (Psalm 2:4).

If God laughs at the plotting of men and the raging of the nations, and if we believe that God is Lord of all creation, then why does the church allow itself to be sucked into the plotting?

God is on His thone.  Victory is assured.  There are Christians dying for their beliefs all over the world, Bibles being burned all over the world, churches forced underground every day and we live in the United States of America where persecution means suffering a quip from Bill Maher or Sarah Silverman, reading the comments section of CNNs Belief Blog (my advice, just stay away), or perhaps working for a hospital where the insurance coverage you share with another person might allow for them to receive contraceptives.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t stand against abortion or that we shouldn’t be concerned about the morality of our nation, but no matter where this country goes, it does not give us leave to set aside our witness for Christ or to behave in a way that glorifies God.

“If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. “

He makes an interesting point.  But, what if he were a poor, black kid in a post-Zombie Apocalypse?

I am not Gene Marks as a poor, black kid in a Post-Zombie-Apocalypse-World (GMAAPBKIAPZAW), I am a 30-year old white guy from a middle class background in a non-zombie infested reality, so life is easier for me.  But that doesn’t mean that GMAAPBKIAPZAW can’t survive and thrive.  It doesn’t mean that the zombies control the world and we have to fight for what’s left behind (although you could argue that this is in fact the situation GMAAPBKIAPZAW is faced with).  I don’t believe that.  I believe that every human in a Post Zombie Apocalypse World has a chance to succeed.  Even Gene Marks as a Poor, Black Kid in a Post Zombie Apocalypse World.

And I quote Gene himself:

“It takes brains.  It takes hard work.  It takes a little luck.  And a little help from others.  It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available.  Like technology.  As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this.”

If I was GMAAPBKIAPZAW, I would first and foremost work to make sure I wasn’t bitten.  I would make it my #1 priority to not get bit.  I wouldn’t care if I was in a serene farm house or in the middle of the deepest, darkest urban jungle, not getting bit means I don’t become a Zombie.  And the key to surviving is to not die.  Without getting bit and dying, I can focus on ways to stay alive and then progress on to making the world a better place.

I would use technology available to me.  I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service.  Or they did pre-ZA.  As a GMAAPBKIAPZAW, I would ignore those computers and go for a chainsaw and a gun.  That’s the kind of technology that I am gonna need to keep from getting bit.  Libraries and schools are full of computers and other electronic gear that’s useless now, so I’d ignore them for the most part.  Professionals like accountant and architects use computers all the time.  That means I’d avoid these types of people as they are likely the least capable of surviving now and most likely to get me bit, if not bite me themselves.

If I was GMAAPBKIAPZAW, I would grab a few books from the library.  The ones that talk about survival, etc.  I’d become adept at snares for hunting and traps for defense against zombies and accountants.  I would set these traps all over the place.  I would learn how to weld and secure an apartment building by welding the windows shut, except for the top floor where I would build a greenhouse and a hydroponic system.  Thanks to those books from the library, I’d be set.

Is this easy?  No, it’s not.  It’s hard.  It takes a special kind of kid to succeed.  And to succeed even with these tools is much harder for GMAAPBKIAPZAW than a white kid from a non-PZAW.   But it’s not impossible.  The tools are there.  The technology is there.  And the opportunities are there.

In a PZAW, there are going to be communities like ShackTown, FreeTown and Tradesville.  These towns are free to join, but hard to get in to.  You need some sort of skill that they need and you have to have proof you’re not a zombie.  In a broken world, these are the bright spots.  Getting into one of these towns opens up a world of opportunities.  More than 90% of the people that go to FreeTown don’t get bit.  I would use a telescope that I fashioned from loose scrap and with instructions from the library I raided earlier to investigate the towns, learn their culture, and what specific skills they needed.  I would find out the names of their leaders and their trade routes.  If I was GMAAPBKIAPZAW, I would make it my goal to get into one of these towns.

Or even a slaver camp.  Most slaver camps in the PZAW are filled to the brim with humans.  That’s because they’ll take anyone that’s still alive and can’t fight the slavers off.  But there’s a secret about them: most won’t kill you outright.  Most of these are well-run organizations with a board of trustees that want to give opportunities to young kids, even if they don’t have a skill.  There’s always room keeping their beds warm.  Trust me, they love diversity.  They want to see smiling, smart kids of different colors and races on their auction block.  If I was GMAAPBKIAPZAW, I’d be using my set of binoculars I took off a guy I got with one of my traps (tripwire, long piece of bamboo and shard of glass aimed for head-level) to check out these camps, if the towns didn’t look like a good prospect.

And once admitted to one of these towns, I’d cozy (whichever kind of cozy is necessary) up to the cultural leader of the town.  This is the person who will one day help me establish myself.  This is the person that knows everything there is to know about zombies, survival, other towns and slavery camps, and the like.  This is the person who may also know of apprenticeships where I can become a better welder or zombie hunter.  This is the person that could get me a spot on the scavenging party to the homes or offices of the old 1% where I could meet people and show my stuff.

If I was GMAAPBKIAPZAW, I would get technical.  I would learn the welding.  I would learn skinning, knife play, knot tying. I would also seek out weak older people I could force to teach me skills in return for food, water or just the opportunity to live another day.  I would make sure that my communication skills stay polished.

Because GMAAPBKIAPZAW who knows how to not get bit, hunt food safe to eat, avoid slavers, use a knife, and grow food in nutrient-rich water doesn’t become a zombie.  There are trade goods available.  And no matter what GMAAPBKIAPZAW specializes in, GMAAPBKIAPZAW will have opportunities.  He can find a job in a country of humans trying to escape from zombies starved for smart, skilled people.  He will succeed.

Gene Marks was right in his column last week.  The division between rich and poor is a national problem, but the biggest challenge we need to be aware of is survival in a Post Zombie Apocalypse World.  So many poor, black kids don’t even know this is a possibility.

“They come from single-parent families whose mom or dad (or in many cases their grand mom) is working two jobs to survive and are just (understandably) too plain tired to do anything else in the few short hours they’re home [to teach survival skills].  Many have teachers who are overburdened and too stressed to find the time to help every kid that needs it.”

But that ignorance is just a reason, not an excuse as Gene so beautifully expresses:

“Technology can help these kids.  But only if the kids want to be helped.”

Wanting to be helped is the key.  Just wanting help is all a kid needs to know with the same precision as a “middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background” who has attended college and worked in the business world for years exactly what is necessary to be a success.

And the same holds true for a Post Zombie Apocalypse World.  That’s why, when the Zombies show up and start eating everyone, my money is on Gene Marks as a Poor Black Kid in a Post Zombie Apocalypse World.

Now, to be fair, the ships did indeed carry a great deal of aid. There was medicine, cement, food, etc, and reportedly no weapons to be found (other than clubs and knives, of course). Definitely no rockets, though. Judging by merely the contents of the ships, it very reasonable to call the group an “aid flotilla” or “aid convoy”.

That said, we generally name things for their intended purpose. Read any article about the events and you’ll get quotes from those involved with the aid organization that their primary mission was to break the blockade. That’s why they were not willing to drop the materials at a port and have it transferred by land to Gaza. In that case, why are we not referring to the group as “blockade runners”?

A cynical view would be to say that the hesitation with calling the group blockade runners is that it’s easier to understand a military/police takeover of blockade runners, but the same action carried out against an aid convoy? Oh my, that’s an international incident.

Let me be clear here, before some of you get really upset and head to your emails, and state that I don’t believe that Israel acted appropriately, or even intelligently here. I can understand a wide range of motivations for what they were trying to do, from ignorance (they didn’t really know what could have happened) to outrageously aggressive (they were looking to violently engage the ships to send a message), but whatever the feelings were in the government, calm decision-making does not lead you to dropping commando teams onto ships of overwhelmingly unarmed civilians.

My thought to more properly label the group of ships is not to diminish the attack by Israel, neither the poor decision to proceed with the attack or the violent outcome that resulted from it, but rather to provide a more balanced view of what actually was happening.

At the end of the day, there are two parties in the wrong here, not just one. The leadership of the blockade runners had every opportunity to direct the ships to the port to drop the aid goods. The Israeli leadership could have tried to take the ships non-violently with a prop-fouler or if they were set on using commandos, they could have done so in daylight, precipitated by a message over loudspeaker saying that they were landing, were not looking for confrontation and what the instructions the passengers should follow to avoid conflict.

Not properly labeling one of the parties to artificially engender additional sympathy is a disservice to the report of what occured.

I’ve still been reading and following, and came across this piece from Arab Insight’s Editorial Letter for their latest issue.

Although the U.S. developed an elaborate strategy to confront violent Islamists, Egyptian scholar Moataz A. Fattah notes that America has not created a cohesive strategy towards non-violent Islamists, who make up the majority of Islamists in the world. In the long term, Fattah argues, American security will benefit from identifying and engaging with nonviolent Islamist actors. Khaled Hroub, a Jordanian author, analyzes the frustration within the Muslim world regarding Obama’s presidency, particularly his treatment of Islamists and his efforts at democracy promotion.

So true. Violent Muslims only consitute 1.5-2% of all Muslims and yet I would suggest that 100% of our focus is on engaging that portion of the Muslim world population. True, there are in-direct engagements with non-violent Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that engagement is almost entirely a facet in our war on terrorism, a means to an end.

What is our policy toward these non-violent Islamists when Islamic terrorism fades from the forefront? Will it take the old Afghanistan approach and simply cease to be discussed? Will we continue to engage with communities most at-risk for lapsing into terrorism as a continued defense strategy? Or will we foster a new era of interaction with the Islamist population that seeks integration and a sense of community?

Until we can begin to engage Muslims as people and members of the same humanity that we belong to, rather than as potential (or active) enemies, we will be agents in the creation of those very enemies. A strategy fully based on national security is better than none, but we should be prepared for our overtures of peace and close association to be seen as hollow and as products of need rather than desire, which it is.

Based on this experience as a teacher, I believe that when Islamic youth believe there is hope for the future, that they have dignity and that their religion is respected, that their lives will change for the better, and that there will be justice in the Middle East, the threat of attack will lessen significantly, although it will probably never end completely. Branding these young people as terrorists will just convince them that their view of the world is accurate and that they need to be martyrs.

It’s my firm belief that the only long-term solution for the problem of terrorism is reducing the risk of radicalization of disenfranchised youth. We may never eliminate terrorism, but we can reduce the success rate of the recruiters for terrorist organization by providing these young men with other opportunities, other possibilities and by offering a view of the world that provides hope.

Long-term security requires long-term solutions for providing hope to all people.

Read his post here.

He said:

“belonging to the so-called Al-Qaeda terrorist organization” is “haram”, or prohibited in Islam.
Speaking to Okaz by telephone, Sheikh Al-Obeikan said that anyone who belonged to the organization belonged to “a group that has left the people of truth and taken up takfeeri thought” and that “affiliation to the Al-Qaeda organization is haram”.

We’ll have to wait and see how much impact this will have, but this is exactly the type of support we need from the Muslim community in our fight against “Islamic” terrorists. The US saying Al-Qaeda is bad isn’t good enough, we need this type of opposition from the leaders of the Middle East to fight against the propaganda that almost ceaselessly pours forth from AQ.

Thanks to Leah Farrell for the heads up.

The “myths” and my reactions to them after the jump.

1. Most terrorists are spoiled rich kids.

Frankly, I couldn’t be more shocked that this is considered a myth. Do people really think that spoiled rich kids are running around playing terrorists in the tens of thousands? Are the creme de la creme of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc running off to fight in the jihad? Stern herself dispels the “myth” with this factoid:

Of the 25,000 insurgents and terrorism suspects detained by U.S. forces in Iraq as of 2007, nearly all were previously underemployed, according to Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone, the commander of detainee operations at the time.

2. Al-Qaeda members come from repressive countries in the Middle East.

I think most would agree this is a strong belief. Stern talks about the fact that there are al-qaeda affiliates in North Africa, Somalia, and Indonesia. While true, I think if you polled most Americans, they would believe that Morocco, Libya, and maybe even Somalia are actually in the Middle East. It doesn’t make it true, but their problem is geography rather than philosophy. Indonesia is without question a trouble spot, but Indonesians also haven’t been a part of an attack (or attempted attack) on the United States.

Stern comments:

More broadly, there is no particular political system that reliably promotes or deters terrorism. And democracy is not the cure-all it is often assumed to be. There are many more terrorist incidents in democratic India, for example, than in non-democratic China or Saudi Arabia.

Since the “myth” was about al-qaeda, I think it’s a bit unfair to go outside those bounds when responding, but I also think it’s fair that Americans are most concerned with terrorist organizations that target the United States. Terrorist incidents in Kashmir are alarming, but the greater concern for Americans is for the jihadists that are training next to those destined for Kashmir who have American interests in their sights.

3. Al-Qaeda is made up of religious zealots.

Stern comments:

To the contrary, rank-and-file terrorists who claim to be motivated by religious ideology often turn out to be ignorant about Islam. The Saudi Interior Ministry has questioned thousands of terrorists in custody about why they turned to violence, and found that the majority did not have much formal religious instruction and had only a limited understanding of Islam.

This is another troubling “myth”, and one whose pertinence I question. What Stern really means is that Al-Qaeda is made up of religious zealots that are following the true Islam. The problem with this statement is that the terrorists, whether they are right or not, believe that they are following the true form of Islam. Ignorance doesn’t make one less devout, and believing a false teaching of a religion doesn’t make one less passionate about carrying out its creeds, if you don’t know or believe that it is false.

Stern continues:

Rather than Islam leading young recruits toward al-Qaeda, it may be an ignorance of Islam that renders youths vulnerable to al-Qaeda’s violent ideology.

Again, most would agree that the Salafi-Jihadist form of Islam isn’t true to the religion, but what does it matter? Salafi-Jihadi Islam is a form of Islam, even if you believe it is a corruption of the faith. These people are carrying out actions they believe their faith demands.

I don’t understand the point of shattering this “myth”. Is it to stop focusing on the Islamic association of Al-Qaeda terrorists? Is it to simply clarify with every report and every analysis that: “Yes, we understand that these people believe that they are following Islam, but that is simply not the actual case.” Is it to promote pity that these poor souls don’t even really know why they are training themselves to a fever pitch in order to carry out suicide attacks against the United States? (OK, I can almost get to that last point, because in point of fact, I do pity these people to an extent.)

4. Terrorists are motivated by a strong belief in their cause.

Stern comments:

Terrorist movements often arise in reaction to a perceived injustice, whether real or imagined. Yet ideology is not the only, or even the most important, factor in an individual’s decision to join. In my research and interviews with terrorists, I have found that operatives are often more interested in adopting a new identity than in supporting a terrorist group’s stated goals. Many speak, in particular, about being motivated by a feeling of humiliation. A Kashmiri militant founded his group because, he said, “Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts . . . we are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves.”

This is another troubling “myth” because it would seem to suggest that the people fighting and killing themselves to attack the United States are not motivated by a strong belief. If that’s true, then they are willing to fight, kill and sacrifice their own life for something they don’t really care about. I just can’t get behind that.

If Stern is trying to suggest that terrorists aren’t necessarily motivated by the specific global (or regional) operational aims of the central commanders for the terrorist organization, I can agree with that. I have no problem believing that Abdulmutallab wasn’t really concerned with a free Palestinian state, or the supposed imperialistic ambitions of the United States. I have no problem agreeing that he was likely motivated more by loneliness, personal restlessness, lack of alternate opportunities that met his needs (whether financially, morally, in matters of fulfillment, etc), or by an emotional manipulation by his handlers. What I can’t agree with is that he would carry out the act to kill himself and nearly 300 other people on the flight for something he wasn’t actually all that jazzed about. I also find it hard to believe that he and others like him aren’t motivated by the general aims of the terrorist organization. I believe that they do care about establishing their version of Islam, attacking those that would (in their minds) seek to destroy Islam, and especially about getting revenge on who they believe is responsible for the situation their family and perhaps even their country is in.

I also have a problem with the dispelling of this myth, and this line in particular:

Many speak, in particular, about being motivated by a feeling of humiliation. A Kashmiri militant founded his group because, he said, “Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts . . . we are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves.”

This doesn’t dispel the myth for me, but it might bring up a qualifier. Terrorists are often motivated by something that has been done to them and their actions seek to restore what they believe they have lost. Whether that is a voice in their country, the freedom to practice their version of their religion, the prestige that they feel their family, religion, region or country should have, etc, they are seeking restoration, at the least.

This quote also clarifies a quality of self-loathing that motivates many terrorists. They are lonely, seeking to be a part of something, and even when they find a group that they can belong to, it’s difficult to let go of that knowledge that they didn’t fit into society. There very likely lingers a questioning of what’s wrong with me that I wasn’t accepted? Or in the case of this Kashmiri militant, “Why wasn’t I able to live up to the standards I believed in?”

It’s likely that the militants or terrorists that are involved in the fighting are motivated by this need for restoration, or even simply the fact that they have found a “family” that accepts them. The fact that the “family” accepts them only insofar as they are able to aid them in their agenda to destroy doesn’t seem to factor.

I still find it hard to believe, though, that the ones that carry out the suicide bombings or other highly risky, likely lethal actions aren’t motivated by a strong belief in something. I’m not prepared to categorize terrorists as people willing to throw away their life on a whim, and I believe that this line of thinking does a disservice to the work of stopping terrorists.

5. The typical terrorist recruit is an alienated loner.
Stern comments:

According to The Washington Post, Abdulmutallab, the alleged Christmas airplane attacker, wrote in an online Islamic forum: “I have no one . . . to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

But for most terrorist recruits, the problem isn’t so much a lack of friends as the wrong friends. This dynamic isn’t so different from the way gang recruiting works in the United States: Terrorists often join an armed struggle because they have a buddy who has done so. In a survey of 516 Guantanamo detainees, researchers at the Combating Terrorism Center found that knowing another member of al-Qaeda was a better predictor of who became a terrorist than was belief in the idea of jihad.

I believe the gang analogy stands up pretty well here, but as someone that has personally known more than a few gang members, I question the premise that the people joining up aren’t alienated loners. When I was in elementary and middle school, there was a national wave of gang recruitment and violence, and it was particularly strong in my hometown. At one point, an intersection less than 10 miles from my house was the deadliest place in the United States (based on murders per capita per day). I knew many people that got involved in the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings and dozens of affiliate gangs (my favorite was the Tree Top Crips, who would only wear green shirts and brown pants). In my personal experience, the people who joined these gangs fell into two specific categories: 1) they were people who didn’t really get along well with others or didn’t realize that they got along with others due to lack of confidence, and 2) the people that knew they could control group #1.

Were people recruited into (or attracted to) the gangs because they knew someone in a gang? Absolutely. I was recruited into two different gangs by people I knew, even though I was a skinny white boy (or maybe because I was a skinny white boy…). The reasons for the attraction to the gang was a place to belong, even when someone already had friends. Wearing a certain color, sharing a group name, and knowing where to focus your negative feelings were all powerful attractants.

It’s the same for terrorists. Does having a friend in a gang/terrorist organization increase the likelihood that you will be recruited to join? Absolutely. Will being an alienated loner make this recruitment more appealing? Absolutely. Let’s not confuse correlation with causation here. Another aspect to consider is that more extreme forms of all religions generally drive people to seclusion, away from the world. The people who become involved in these types of religion willingly (at first) exclude themselves from society in order to maintain the tenets of their faith. This self-imposed alienation helps to drive them into the arms of like-minded people.

Knowing someone in a terrorist organization opens the door for recruitment, but the crushing feeling of being alone in the world (even in the midst of friends) can drive people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, just as when Abdulmutallab says, “And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

Stern’s original point for the article was stated as:

The bottom line is that we can no longer assume that terrorists will come from any particular country or fit any particular profile. The more we learn about what makes people vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist organizations, the less any of the old generalizations hold up.

Perhaps I’m just a little late to the game, so I’m not familiar with what “old generalizations” Stern is talking about, but from everything I’ve read, we’re still pretty much focusing on the right people, if we’re talking about AQ and those that are seeking to strike the “far enemy” of the West. This person is usually:

• very poor
• a follower of an extreme, corrupted form of Islam of which they generally know little about
• they are motivated by real or perceived wrongs to themselves, their family, their religion or their country or by a feeling of inadequacy in the pursuit of their faith
• and they are generally able to be recruited by their feeling of alienation from the world at large

True, we can’t count on every single terrorist coming from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Iran, or Iraq. Fair enough (although I think we can agree that a large percentage do in fact come from those states). I truly don’t want to put words in Sterns mouth, but I feel like this article was a response piece to the new TSA rules, and that maybe the other four “myths” were filler thrown in to make a nice Top Five list, which generally proves more consumable, and in this day and age, re-tweetable. If so, I’d suggest that now is not the time to be muddying the waters in our national dialogue on the response to terrorism. If not, then I’m even more concerned.

It is true that since the anarchists fell in love with dynamite, most terrorist operations have been conducted with guns or bombs. It may even be true that terrorists are “operationally conservative.” However, it seems to me flabby thinking to jump from the first point to the second.

So true.

I’d be more receptive if the argument was that terrorists have been “operationally conservative” for strategic reasons, i.e. the acquisition of more complex/rare weapons would tend to attract more attention, and risks disrupting operation security. If the terrorists are saying, “Well, we could go grab this nuke, but where do we store it and how do we deliver it without everyone immediately knowing what we’re trying to do?”

To suggest that it’s a mindset just makes me scratch my head. Terrorists are using boats packed with explosive, commercial jetliners and IEDs because that’s what they can get their hands on and that’s what they can successfully carry out attacks with. To think that it’s because they aren’t interested in a weapon that could annihilate New York City or Washington, DC in a second seems foolhardy.

Stout follows up with:

Consider this: for more than 100 years armies have inflicted the vast majority of their battlefield casualties with artillery and small arms. Most soldiers who personally engage in killing the enemy are infantrymen who kill with small arms.

Does the fact that armies are so fixated on small arms and artillery make them “operationally conservative”? Hardly.

The fact that armies (even transnational terrorist organizations) are utilizing one level of technology doesn’t mean that they aren’t interested in escalating, it means that they are using what’s available (and usually what’s cheap, widely available, easily trained on, and for terrorists relatively easy to disguise).

This type of underestimation of the forces that oppose us is disturbing.