Building on my recent post about self-sufficiency and reliance for individual security , I’d like to begin laying out a proposal for the US adopting small decentralized solutions to the problem of border security. This is not so dissimilar from what the US is attempting in Afghanistan.

The Problems:

• The United States government is either unwilling or unable to adequately patrol and secure the nation’s borders.


• A large number of Americans feel that their wish for a secure and better patrolled border is not being met.


• Insecure borders allow easy infiltration of illegal immigrants, organized crime, and terrorists into the United States. It also increases the ease of the smuggling and trafficking of drugs, weapons and people.

The Reaction

• A proliferation of self-organized groups like the Minutemen.


• This has led to:
  

  • Government, media and left wing hysteria that ordinary people would take responsibility for their country into their own hands.
  
  
  • Potential problems and miscommunication with law enforcement.
  
  
  • Potential legal questions.
  
  

Solution:

The solution to this problem is neither more CBP people, bigger government or more centralization. In fact these are surefire ways to make matters worse. The solution lies in harnessing the sizeable numbers of citizens who are willing to volunteer their time, effort, and even assume some risk in order to protect their communities and country. Moreover, the militia, as meant in the Bill of Rights (every adult male with a firearm) has been called up before and in recent history. During WWII, the militia was called up on the West Coast in 1942 to guard against Japanese landings and I believe on the East Coast against German ones but cant find a link on that at the moment.

Read the rest here.

The 2001 Anthrax attacks have yet to be solved and the case is still open.

I think this is something some of us know but the details of the article will interest you. For the sake of conjecture, I’d posit there are several possible scenarios here:

1) The FBI simply can’t solve the case. Either the crime was committed too well or the FBI and other government agencies screwed up. No big mystery or conspiracy. Just incompetence. (an all too frequent explanation of government behavior)

2) Someone in the USG knows or has a very good idea who the perpetrator(s) was/were but is unwilling to acknowledge it and is perhaps impeding the investigation due to the ramifications. E.g. it could be another state such as Russia or North Korea in which case the US would have to declare war, or perhaps an alleged ally like Saudi, or rogue elements from within an allied state?

3) The USG wants the public to believe the case is closed while it continues to investigate quietly to avoid embarassment.

Readers, any further theories?

Robert D. Kaplan hopes that the actions of one radicalized Muslim in the US military does not result in a backlash against all Muslims in the US military:

The ultimate strategic goal of al-Qaeda is to turn our struggle with it into a “clash of civilizations.” If potential Muslim recruits to the U.S. military quietly decide not to enlist for fear of retribution or prejudice inside the barracks, that would be a victory for al-Qaeda.

Still, trust but verify:

That’s why, while we improve our security procedures behind the scenes, we should deal with the massacre at Fort Hood in as low key a manner as possible. More Maj. Hasans may lurk in the barracks and public squares. The way to find them out is not in a shrill witch hunt, but quietly, methodically, and legally, even as we open up our military to a wider spectrum of recruits.

The last map showed America’s dominance in winning Nobel Prizes. Via Bill Petti on Twitter comes today’s map showing book bans and challenges by state in America over the past three years. Is your state on the list?

Some of the banned books include Grendel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, The Golden Compass and Hoops. According to the BBC bans on 3,736 books and other print materials have been requested since 2001. The most banned book is the one about the gay penguins.

I think it would be appropriate to quote one of America’s most famous pieces of literature:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Book banning is sad behaviour, and I am by no means saying it only happens in the US. freedomtoread.ca maintains a list of over 100 books and magazines that have been challenged in Canada over the decades. Wikipedia comes to the rescue with a massive list of books banned by governments from around the world. Is your country on it?

Luckily, no Robert Kaplan books are on any of the lists.

DoD Announces New Defense Policy Board Members:

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates today announced the following new members to the Defense Policy Board: Gen. (Ret) Larry Welch, former Air Force chief of staff ; Stephen Biddle, Council on Foreign Relations; Richard Danzig, former secretary of the Navy; Robert Gallucci, former assistant secretary of state; Chuck Hagel, former senator from Nebraska; Robert D. Kaplan, Center for a New American Security; Andrew Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Rudy deLeon, former deputy secretary of defense; John Nagl, Center for a New American Security; Sarah Sewall, Harvard University; Wendy Sherman, former special advisor to the President.

These members join the following returning members: John Hamre, chairman; Harold Brown; Adm. (Ret) Vern Clark; J.D. Crouch; Fred Ikle; Gen. (Ret) Jack Keane; Henry Kissinger; Dave McCurdy; Frank Miller; William Perry; James Schlesinger; Marin Strmecki; Vin Weber; Gen. (Ret) Pete Pace.

Via SWJ via Simlaughter

Radical splinter groups self-financed with drugs and well armed. This may be a small foretaste of things to come in the next several decades.

The killings, last month, have terrified this small town near the Mexican border, in part because the authorities have now tied them to what they describe as a rogue group engaged in citizen border patrols.

The three people arrested in the crime include the leader of Minutemen American Defense, a Washington State-based offshoot of the Minutemen movement, in which citizens roam the border looking for people crossing into the country illegally. Former members describe the group’s leader, Shawna Forde, 41, as having anti-immigrant sentiments that are extreme, at times frightening, even to people accustomed to hard-line views on border policing.

The authorities say that the three suspects were after money and drugs that they intended to use to finance vigilantism, and that they have been linked to at least one other home invasion, in California.

Will we one day see cross-border raids by American militia groups into Mexico? If drug violence increases or some event acts as a catalyst increasing militia groups and bringing more mainstream Americans into it, there may one day be. As the economy continues to decline and federal and state services are cut, at times drastically, we can expect to see not just radical groups like those mentioned in the article, but local communities organizing their own security. It will likely start with those on the edges of bad neighborhoods, or in places where neighborhoods have been gutted by the housing crisis and are going downhill fast.

Readers, what indicators should we watch when considering whether such groups will remain on the fringes or begin to grow? Unemployment rates among young white males? Law enforcement funding? A perceived lack of immigration reform? Some terrorist attack or major event wherein the perpetrators are found to have crossed in in from Mexico illegally?

With arms control talks underway between the US and Russia, a Russia general noted

Russia must keep at least 1,500 nuclear warheads after talks with the United States on a new arms treaty, Interfax news agency quoted the commander of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces as saying Wednesday. If Moscow’s final position reflects Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov’s view, it would mean Russia is not willing to cut its stockpiles by more than a few hundred strategic warheads – far less than some arms control bodies had hoped.

One of the most critical things to pay attention to in news like this is whether they are discussing strategic or tactical nuclear weapons. The article does not make it clear but from what I know, I suspect he means strategic weapons, i.e. larger yield and long range ones. It would therefore not include the thousands of smaller tactical warheads Russia has and which it has refused to reduce or give up. Thus, be wary of any ‘progress’ or agreement that does not specifically mention both types.

Given Russia’s size and the threats it faces on its many borders, tactical weapons are of great use and importance to Moscow, whereas they are not for the United States which finds itself in a very different geographic and security situation. The real danger here is that the current administration, which seems intent on disarming the United States while EVERY other country is increasing its arsenal, will agree to cuts in our forces that do NOT include Russia’s tactical weapons being dismantled. Therefore, while you would read news articles on Russia’s and America’s numbers being about the same, they’d only be counting strategic forces and thus not actually revealing the much weaker and vulnerable position the US would have put itself in.

The WSJ has yet another sign of the dissolution of political units into ever smaller ones. As the economy worsens and states, cities, communities and families move to, or at least explore, becoming more independent, self-sufficient and resilient, we’ll see things like this happening more often.

As the recession batters city budgets around the U.S., some municipalities are considering the once-unthinkable option of dissolving themselves through “disincorporation.”

Benefits of this move vary from state to state. In some cases, dissolution allows residents to escape local taxes. In others, it saves the cost of local salaries and pensions. And residents may get services more cheaply after consolidating with a county.

In Mesa, Wash., a town of 500 residents about 250 miles east of Portland, Ore., city leaders have initiated talks with county officials about the potential regional impact of disincorporating. Mesa has been hit by a combination of the recession and lawsuits that threaten its depleted coffers, leaving few choices other than disincorporation, said Robert Koch, commissioner of Franklin County, where Mesa is located.

With this trend devolving power and responsibility to lower and lower levels, another interesting question to consider in the long term, is whether this will lead to the division of states. Consider northern Virginia (Fairfax County), Texas and California. Perhaps it will eventually lead to statehood in places like Washington, D.C. I discussed this awhile back here. Although the financial crisis may be the primary motivator for decisions at the moment, it seems to be only reinforcing an already growing trend.

Putting aside the absolute fantasy of a nuclear weapons free world, Obama is attempting to improve the US relationship with Russia. The major starting point is negotiating a new START (strategic arms reduction treaty) treaty with the Russians to reduce each country’s respective nuclear weapons. Yet, this blogger feels it runs contrary to the idea of an improved and friendlier relationship with Moscow. After all, how many arms control treaties does the United States have with its allies? Zero. My and others’ great fear is that the Obama administration will let arms control define the US-Russia relationship at a time when a far broader range of issues require attention. Continuing the Cold War era arms control treaties with Moscow continues to define the US-Russia relationship as adversarial, not cooperative. I understand proliferation and nuclear forces reduction are important issues and that since Russia currently possesses the most nuclear weapons in the world, it is a key issue with them. However, I feel this is the wrong way forward.

Readers, your thoughts?

After revealing some cloak and dagger tales of American covert ops in Iran in recent years, New York Times Washington bureau chief David Sanger asks a great question: Will President Obama stop covert ops in Iran? Or will the weight of history push him to continue Bush’s legacy?

Is “legacy” an important factor in the calculus of being the POTUS? People said Bush was particularly conscious of his legacy. Can anyone provide historical examples of presidents choosing legacy over national interest that will let us gauge what President Obama will do?

By the way, the clip resides on fora.tv, an online community that collects smart and provocative videos from across the interwebs for discussion and debate. It is a kind of an open source TED, or a thinking man’s YouTube. Check it out.