The Fredo Corleone Syndrome

Passport, the Foreign Policy magazine blog, has some information about the impressive Pakistani family connections of Faisal Shahzad, the hapless Times Square bomber. He is the son of a retired Pakistani Air Force Vice Marshal who may also have been head of Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority.

That background gives him something in common with a number of other radical Jihadis, and it might be a clue to his motivation. As Passport notes:

If all this is true, it's pretty interesting. There seems to be a pattern of mediocre sons from elite families becoming terrorists. Osama bin Laden's dad was a wildly succesful contractor with close ties to Saudi royalty. Underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father was a prominent Nigerian banker and one of the wealthiest men in Africa. Perhaps they feel like failures next to their successful dads, and militancy offers a pathway toward self-respect.

I can just hear Shahzad / Fredo whining:

"It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!"

Truly, we could all learn much about power and conflict by applying The Godfather Doctrine.

Even better, we all ought to read Eric Hoffer's classic The True Believer. Nothing is better at explaining the attraction of fanaticism for disappointed people.

May the Fourth

Did you know that today is Star Wars Appreciation Day? May the Fourth Be With You.

(I can take no responsibility for that joke. My kid told it to me.)

Another FRUS Volume: Korea, 1969-1972

The State Department's Office of the Historian announced today that HO has released the latest volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, Volume XIX, Part 1, Korea, 1969-1972.

The Department of State released today Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XIX, Part 1, Korea, 1969–1972. (Part 2 of the volume on U.S. bilateral relations with Japan, 1969–1972 will be published at a later date.) During the first Nixon administration, Washington confronted an array of difficult foreign policy questions concerning the Korean peninsula. The preponderance of documents published in this volume concern security issues. As in earlier years, U.S. policymakers continued to deal with North Korean provocations between 1969 and 1972, the most serious being the North Korean Air Force’s destruction of a U.S. surveillance (EC–121) airplane over the Sea of Japan in April 1969. The U.S. military presence in South Korea also surfaced as an important topic. During Nixon’s first term, the United States reduced its forces in Korea from 63,000 to 43,000 soldiers. Although President Park was unable to prevent the U.S. drawdown, he did extract aid with which to modernize the South Korean military. Other records in this publication relate to the deployment of South Korean combat forces in Vietnam.

This volume documents U.S. satisfaction with the Republic of Korea’s increasing confidence as an international actor, a result of the South’s burgeoning economic prosperity and its (uneven) growth in political stability. Park successfully thwarted efforts to improve the relationship between Japan and North Korea. Instead, South Korea made its own contacts with the North Korean Government, an initiative that yielded few tangible results but did promote regional stability. Nonetheless, the Nixon administration was not fully successful at allaying Seoul’s misgivings about two of Nixon’s most important foreign policy initiatives: the improvement in relations between the United States and China, and the U.S. departure from Vietnam. Park’s fears about U.S. reliability added to tensions that resulted from economic competition, especially in the textile trade.

The Republic of Korea’s skepticism of the U.S. security guarantee was used to justify authoritarian domestic policies. In 1970 Park and his party amended the Korean Constitution to permit his election to a third term as the country’s president. The following year, the two titans of late 20th century South Korean politics, Park Chung Hee and Kim Dae Jung, competed for the presidency. Department of State officials endeavored to demonstrate balance by making themselves available to both candidates. When Park, victorious in the 1971 election, declared martial law in October 1972, the U.S. Government expressed frustration with this blow to the Republic of Korea’s political institutions. U.S. officials feared that alliance with South Korea could be seen by some as implicating them in Park’s actions. Given Park’s determination to adopt anti-democratic measures, U.S. efforts to respond by punishing South Korea would likely be either ineffective or create instability there, either outcome potentially damaging the U.S.-Korean relationship.

The volume and this press release are available on the Office of the Historian website at http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v19p1. Copies of the volume will be available for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov (GPO S/N 044–000–02610–4; ISBN 978–0–16–077108–8), or by calling toll-free 1–866–512–1800 (D.C. area 202–512–1800). For further information, contact Susan Weetman, Acting General Editor of the Foreign Relations series, at (202) 663–1276 or by e-mail to history@state.gov.

Complaint Unsealed in Times Square Bomb Case

Read it here: United States of America vs. Faisal Shahzad, filed today before a United States Magistrate for the Southern District of New York.

For a guy with a Bachelor's in information systems and a Master's of Business Administration (see here), Shahzad must not have learned much at that bomb-making school he claims to have attended in Pakistan. Maybe he was absent the day the class was taught about fertilizer.

The subject of Mr. Shahzad and his visa history came up at today's State Department press briefing, and resulted in the following unsatisfactory exchange:

QUESTION: Can we go back to the – your very first thing on the – Pakistan?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: First of all, a couple questions about the suspect who is in custody, who is a nationalized citizen. Can you tell us when he – presumably, he got a visa to get to the States in the first place before he became a naturalized citizen. Can you tell us when that visa was issued and what kind of visa it was?

MR. CROWLEY: I will – I think I’ve actually heard some reporting in the last few minutes on that, but I’ll take the question as to whether we can release specific information about his visa history.

QUESTION: You’ve heard reporting on this in the last few minutes?

MR. CROWLEY: Actually, I was watching NBC.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if you’ve heard reporting on it, then you surely know.

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, I’m not disputing that we know. I’m just – I have to go sort through legal questions as to whether we’re allowed to release that information.

QUESTION: Well, he’s been charged with a crime.

MR. CROWLEY: I understand that.

QUESTION: I don’t think that – the Privacy Act doesn’t apply here.

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure if you – I can see a situation where if you’re convicted of a crime, perhaps you forfeit certain Privacy Act (inaudible) – I mean, I’ve agreed to take --

QUESTION: Well, once --

MR. CROWLEY: Wait a second. I’ve agreed to take the question.

QUESTION: Well, I’m a little surprised that --

MR. CROWLEY: I have to sort --

QUESTION: But I’m a little surprised that you don’t have that information ready to go. You clearly would have known this is going to be a matter of interest, no?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, there – I think there’s a difference between whether we have provided full information on this individual’s travel to the United States prior to becoming a citizen. That, you can rest assured, we have provided to the ongoing investigation. Whether we’re in a position to discuss this publicly is a separate issue.

QUESTION: Well, then when did he apply for and when did he receive a U.S. passport?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I will take all – well, wait a second. I mean, again, all of these issues are subject to the Privacy Act. I pledge --

QUESTION: I’m sorry. This guy tried to blow up a car in Times Square (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: Let me finish. Let me finish. As to his visa history and as to whether or not – as to his passport information, I’ll take those questions. If we can release them publicly, I will do so.

QUESTION: There is --

QUESTION: No, no. Hold on a second. So you do know. It’s not as if you – I mean, the problem is that it sounds like you don’t know.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, but hang on a second. Does the United States State Department know if it has issued a visa to this individual in the past? Yes, we know. Does the United States Department of State know if we have issued a passport to this individual? Yes, we know. Again, whether I can share that information publicly, I’ve just got to consult before I can release that.

QUESTION: And on the cooperation with Pakistan, what is it that so far that you’re aware of that the Pakistanis have done?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll defer to the Pakistanis to announce what they’ve done.

Hey, gentlemen of the press, just because someone has been charged with a crime doesn't release U.S. government agencies from their legal responsibility not to disclose information they may hold about him:

"No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains" etc.

Wait for the book and movie to come out, Mr. Questioner. Shahzad will tell you all about his history then.

Times Square Not-a-Bombing Story, Day 3

The failed car bomb in Times Square has generated more reporting and commentary based on less actual news than any other incident I can think of.

The New York Times was all over the story today, with five sidebars about bombs and security precautions to eke out its insubstantial main story. The WaPo was almost as overheated.

Even the Taliban inserted itself into the media buzz, and made a less than credible claim of responsibility for the would-be attack. Considering how inept the attacker was, the Taliban is really slumming to take credit for that one.

We learned that the stolen SUV had been loaded with three tanks of propane (with their valves safely closed), two jugs of gasoline, and about 30 large firecrackers. I have to say I'm not too impressed by that list. That could describe an SUV being driven by one of my relatives on his way to a cookout at the beach, but only if you added some rifle and pistol ammunition, because we usually like a little celebratory gunfire.

Speaking of guns, the SUV also contained a metal gun locker. Only, instead of guns, it was filled with about 100 pounds of fertilizer. Plain fertilizer, the kind you might put on your lawn. It had not been mixed with fuel oil into an explosive preparation, so it was harmless. Once again, I'm not feeling very threatened.

The only new news today was a 20-second video showing a purported 'person of interest.' The video is remarkably inconclusive, and both Mayor Bloomberg and Police Chief Kelly immediately hedged as to its significance.

The Mayor said on the Today Show: “the person on the tape may not become a suspect” ... “There are millions of people that come through Times Square” ... “This person happened to be in a position which a camera got a good shot of him, and maybe he had something to do with it, but there’s a very good chance that he did not. We’re exploring a lot of leads.”

Police Chief Kelly told the NYT: “We just felt that person warranted an interview” ... “It could be perfectly innocent.”

Both the news media and the legions of government spokesmen would be well advised to take a deep breath, relax, and wait until there is something new to report.


p.s.

As an aside, the mention of celebratory gunfire at family cookouts made me think of the excellent song Choctaw Bingo by James McMurtry. The lyrics include this hair-raising shopping list for a family reunion:

Bought a SKS rifle and a couple a full cases of that steel core ammo
With the berdan primers from some East bloc nation that no longer needs 'em
And a Desert Eagle that's one great big ol' pistol
I mean .50 caliber made by badass Hebrews
And some surplus tracers for that old BAR of Slayton's
Soon as it gets dark we're gonna have us a time

The song's worth a listen. It's a much better way to spend a few minutes than enduring another rehash of fluff and hysteria about the Times Square not-a-bombing.

A Safe Assumption About the Times Square Vehicle Bomb

The investigation into yesterday's failed Times Square bombing continues, and speculation about the bomber's identify and motive runs wild. Was it a Muslim or an infidel? Foreign or domestic? Retaliation against South Park's Viacom distributors or a blow against corporate oppressors? The Taliban or al-Qaeda? Anarchists or militias? Personally, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

People have been using homemade explosives in New York City fairly regularly over the last few years, to include at the British Consulate in May 2005, at the Mexican Consulate in October 2007, at a Times Square Army recruiting in March 2008, and at an upper East Side Starbucks in May 2009. So far as I recall, there have been no arrests in any of those cases. To be sure, there were differences between those cases and yesterday's failed car bomb. The old cases involved small explosive charges that were detonated between the hours of 3:30 and 4:30 AM, presumably to avoid causing casualties, whereas the vehicle bomb was a large if highly eccentric assembly that fizzled and smoked at about 6:30 PM in a heavily trafficked location.

The most useful observation about the Times Square bomb that I've read so far was a piece re-tweeted by Marisa Urgo and written by Leah Farrall, a former senior Counter Terrorism Intelligence Analyst with the Australian Federal Police. According to a note on the failed [vehicle-borne improvised explosive device] in Times Square:

[W]hat strikes me about it all is the problem that repeatedly faces terrorists…actually getting something to go boom.

My first take is whoever did this didn’t have a whole lot of training, if any. And could have solely gone off manuals they’ve found on the net.

There are ample training materials out there from all manner of terrorist groups and crazies. And plenty of things that outline how to build a device just like this.

That said they knew enough to try to take identifying markers off the vehicle. However, this too can be found in a number of online guides.

Anyway, my point is that it is far more difficult to get something to go boom (for the average untrained person) than what people think. This is why, for example, training for construction of explosives and explosives devices in terrorist training camps has historically taken up to two years, as opposed to the usual basic training where people are trained how to *use* explosives instead of how to build devices. It is an ongoing problem for militant groups. This is why some of them (and here I’m thinking AQ) often sent the detonator or a key part of it back with those it was deploying to carry out attacks. Especially for the more sophisticated attacks. Or they gave intensive one on one or small group training. Not that this is the case here, but I point it out to reinforce the point that when groups or individuals don’t have training in construction of devices there is less likelihood their devices will detonate properly.

That's all that can be safely assumed right now. The bomber was an untrained person who was willing to cause mass casualties.

Multicultural Encounter in Houston Parking Garage = International Incident

The New York Times is reporting that the Chinese Deputy Consul-General in Houston had a minor encounter with local law enforcement last weekend, and now the Chi-Coms are making a big deal about it. I say, the Deputy CG is lucky it was Houston Police he was trying to evade and not Walker Texas Ranger, or else that injury to his neck might not have been so minor.

From the NYT, Diplomat’s Arrest in Houston Spurs Complaint From China:

Three Houston police officers caused an international incident last weekend when they followed a Chinese diplomat into a parking garage at the Chinese Consulate and arrested him, injuring him in the process, the authorities said.

Mayor Annise Parker said late Thursday that the officers had been restricted to desk duty while the police and the State Department investigated the arrest. The officers have said they were unaware the building the diplomat had entered was a consulate and off limits to them.

The arrest took place Saturday night. The diplomat, Yu Boren, the deputy consul general, was treated at a hospital for minor injuries to his neck and head. His wife, who was riding with him and also has a position at the consulate, was not injured, a spokesman for the consulate, Wang Peijun, said. “They are both at work now,” Mr. Wang said Friday.

In Beijing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry lodged a formal complaint with the United States over the arrest of Mr. Yu, noting that the police had violated international treaties by following Mr. Yu onto the consulate’s grounds.

The United States responded with a promise to investigate the episode quickly and fully. “The department takes this incident very seriously and has been in touch with the Chinese Embassy about what occurred,” a spokeswoman at the State Department, Nicole Thompson, said.

The police department declined to release any details about the arrest of Mr. Yu. The mayor’s office identified the officers as Timothy J. Riley II, Quang Tran and Victor Olivares. A local CBS television station, KTRK, reported on Thursday that the officers had followed Mr. Yu because his car was missing its rear license plate.

The officers' names were Riley, Tran, and Olivares? Houston is a more cosmopolitan place than I would have assumed. Add a Schwartz, a Vito, and a Jones, and you have the makings of a typical Army squad from a World War II movie.

But to return to Mr. Yu, police are not powerless when it comes to persons with diplomatic immunity, despite the impression created by countless movies. (Here's a handy summary of the Legal Aspects of Diplomatic Immunity and Privileges.) So the Deputy CG's privileges were not necessarily violated when Houston's multi-culti posse served a Habius Grabus on him after he scooted into a parking garage to avoid being pulled over for a traffic offense.

Deputy Consul-General Yu Boren could have simply stopped his car when the police signaled him to pull over, and avoided some trouble for himself, not to mention an international incident. Chris Rock once did a public service message that warned people to stop immediately when they see flashing red lights in the rear view mirror, because, if you make the police chase you, they're bringing an ass-kicking with them. That's good advice, however, it looks like no one ever explained that to Mr. Yu.

Since Mr. Yu was riding with his wife when he was arrested, it's also possible that he could have been violating another of Chris Rock's rules - Don't Ride With a Mad Woman. A mad woman might like nothing better than to see you get your ass kicked by the police.

I wonder if there was any dashboard video that recorded Mr. Yu as he played Do You Know Who I Am? with the local cops. I'm just guessing here, but what are the odds that an official from Communist China isn't a pompous jerk with an attitude?

I'll be interested in seeing what develops as this incident works its way through the process.