Couple Hallmarks Stand Out, Right Off The Bat

The lead headline on the New York Times web site reads, "Bomb Plot Is Said to Contain ‘Hallmarks of Al Qaeda'." Exactly: They hate and want to murder Jews. The reporter who did the story for LA's NBC affiliate last night had picked up a hint locally that one of the two Chicago synagogues the bombs were headed for has a predominantly gay and lesbian congregation. If so, that would be an al-Qaeda twofer: Murdering Jews and homosexuals at the same time.

Hasan And Oswald

My pastor brother David Stokes writes as follows about those who minimize the apparent Islamist tendencies of the accused Ft. Hood murderer:

During the Cuban Missile Crisis (c. 1962), if an American soldier would have opened fire on his comrades while wearing a Che Guevera T-shirt and yelling, “Long Live Lenin, Khrushchev, and Castro,” it is doubtful that the guy’s communist sympathies would have been dismissed as irrelevant and peripheral. The commies were the enemy.

A year after the Cuban missile crisis, the commander-in-chief was murdered in Dallas by a Marine veteran who had not only shilled for Fidel Castro and reached out to the communists in Moscow but tried to defect to the Soviet Union. It was the height of the Cold War. And yet Lee Harvey Oswald's darkest of acts didn't become a pretext for Americans going door to door in their neighborhoods trying to root out communist President killers. It was and remains obvious that he had acted alone. Most of those who resist calling Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist or lumping him with al-Qaeda are making the same prudent distinction, at least until we learn the whole story.

A Torturous Choice For CIA

The PE's adorable second grader, Sasha, was amply protected today as she headed to her new school. As Mr. Obama would be the first to affirm, every child in America deserves to be just as safe. In all the years since Sept. 11, no terrorist attacks have been launched on U.S. soil. It hasn't been because al-Qaeda and others haven't tried. While we may never know about all or even most of the attacks that were thwarted, the CIA and others in the intelligence community have obviously played an indispensable role. No more than any other agency in Washington, the CIA doesn't need to be cleaned up, reined in, or reformed. It needs to be inspired and empowered. That's why Leon Panetta's appointment as CIA director borders on boneheaded.

Panetta's opposition to torture, which hometown media friends proudly trumpet, is irrelevant. Whatever you think of water boarding and other extreme interrogation measures, a Senate investigation has made clear that the Bush White House authorized them. Since Mr. Obama takes a different view, he'll issue different orders. There's no evidence he needs a reformist watchdog sitting at Langley to make sure they're followed.

Others praise Panetta's management skills. Was there no one in the country who combined management skills and intelligence experience? As a distinguished former White House chief of staff, he would certainly have advised Mr. Obama to check with intelligence policy stakeholders in Congress before making the choice. It's hard to believe that Sens. Feinstein or Rockefeller wouldn't have had better ideas.

During his recent appearance at the Nixon Library, Bill O'Reilly said his sources in the intelligence community were already dispirited by Mr. Obama's AG choice. Unless Panetta -- nothing if not a canny political pro -- acts quickly to reassure his new colleagues that his main job will be enabling them to do an ever better job than they've been doing for the last seven years, agency morale could decline further, which would be bad news for us all.

The Perils Of The Middle Way

It's a classic dynamic: Rivals inch toward understanding, if not yet friendship. Bitter anger gives way first, perhaps, to exhaustion and then the glimmer of a possibility of the hope of peace. Always good news -- except for extremists who for whatever reason find the idea of accommodation or compromise intolerable.

In March, teenage seminarians in Jerusalem were the victims of an attack that seemed calculated to destroy any progress being made by Israelis and the Palestinian Authority.

Similarly, the week's attacks in Mumbai (in which innocent Jews also died) seemed calculated to drive a new wedge between India and Pakistan, who had come to the brink of nuclear war after terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament in December 2001. India had blamed elements of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. Both sides finally backed down. Now prodded by the U.S., which wants him to worry about al-Qaeda instead of India, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has been making determined overtures, mindful of his country's desperate economic straits as well. Reports the New York Times:

A businessman at heart, Mr. Zardari understands the benefit of strong trade between India and Pakistan. Now on life support from the International Monetary Fund, Pakistan would profit immensely from the normalization of relations.

But some people don't want normalization. They want their enemies humiliated and killed and their every ambition for revenge and power realized. When India quickly implicated Pakistan in the Mumbai attacks, the cycle seemed bound to recommence.

The on-line Times (its site is mucked up, so I can't link) now reports that Pakistan's ISS chief is heading to India to assist in the investigation, an extraordinary, encouraging move. Sometimes extremists make the middle way impossible. But sometimes they fail, and the world gets a little better.

A Domestic Tragedy

Fareed Zakaria says the Mumbai terrorists were probably targeting Indians, not westerners. He doubts an al-Qaeda connection.

Jihading To Conclusions

In India, the magnitude of the attacks, taking of hostages, and targeting of westerners have led to speculation about an al-Qeada link. The “Economist” says not so fast:

Indian officials have so far resisted suggestions that Indian Muslims are being radicalised and joining a global jihad. Many refer approvingly to the observation of George Bush that Muslims from India have not in general turned up to fight the infidels on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. But security analysts have meanwhile despaired at the unpreparedness of India’s security agencies to counter a domestic Islamist threat. Whether or not al-Qaeda was behind the latest attack, that happy complacency must now have ended.