The U.S. has said it is withdrawing $800 million in aid to Pakistan. Pakistan initially replied that the loss of funding would not affect military operations. Additionally, Pakistan said that the U.S. putting conditions on aid is unacceptable. In a slight change to the story, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar said that the Pakistanis could pull troops from the Afghani border if the U.S. doesn’t reinstate the military aid.

Pakistan - Omer Wazir (CC)

Pointing out that Pakistan and the U.S. are fair weather friends at best is merely pointing out the obvious, just as pointing out that China is the most likely candidate to fill any gaps in military aid created by the U.S. Arguing out whether or not it would have been better to tell Islamabad about the raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, while an interesting hypothetical, would most likely make things worse. It also leads to thinking that Pakistan knew where bin Laden was the entire time he resided in that country. There is no way to maintain any sort of relationship with that country if that is definitely the case. It’s a tense, tight-rope walk over an active volcano just suspecting that was actually the situation.

Mukhtar’s statements about pulling troops from the border should be taken with a grain of salt as well, because he’s the not the man on the ground that would make that decision anyway. However, it makes sense to consider whether or not he’s merely the messenger. Pakistan pushing U.S. personnel out through visa limitations and general bureaucratic obstacles may be an indicator of more problems to come. Using the aid as means to resolve these issues might seem like a good idea, and probably would be if there wasn’t another game in town. Countries in that region have been able to go to China when they haven’t been able to get what they want out of the U.S. when it comes to military weapons. Saudi Arabia was noted for it. If the U.S. public happens to latch onto the concept of cutting foreign aid in general as a possible solution to the debt ceiling issue, Pakistan would likely make the top of the “cut list” because of that country’s attitude about that money. Calling the money “theirs” will not endear them to the taxpayers in the U.S., and that brings up the whole argument against “blank checks”, at home and abroad. Pakistan hasn’t really been giving very much for that money. Yes, there are some dead militants. No, there weren’t enough to make anyone believe it was anything more than sectarian skirmishing, or just general revenge for any other harm those killed had done. Basically, a few dead militants doesn’t mean Pakistan is truly committed to taking down the “vacancy” sign that has been shown for years to Islamists looking for a place to hide.

As for this particular battle over U.S. aid, theoretically it’s time for Washington to finally reply. Hopefully, Obama remembers that Pakistan was calling U.S. taxpayers’ money its own, and replies accordingly. At the very least, require the answer to the question “what has Pakistan done for the U.S. lately?”

Two bombs killed 27 and injured 90 today in Kirkuk. Initial reports in the U.S. put the casualty numbers significantly lower, and also reported that Kirkuk police officials were suspecting the involvement of Al Qaeda in the attacks. One report stated that there were actually three explosions, and that the third was targeted at police.

Aftermath of car bomb - Aaron Keene (CC)

Unrest in the area is largely due to ethnic and sectarian disputes between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. As has been the case since the British entered the region in search of oil during the World War II era, one of the primary arguments is over rights to the oil rich lands. Currently, Kurds wish to claim the lands for Kurdistan, while the Arabs claim that it belongs to Baghdad. The removal of Saddam Hussein reawakened this argument that was started around the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

While sectarian fighting over oil rights could arguably be the cause of the current attacks, Lt. Brigadier Sarhad Qader, Director of the Kirkuk Police, is of the opinion that the attacks are directly related a recent arrest in the region. Mohammed Adel Amin, the “Wali (Islamic governor)” of Kirkuk and Al Qaeda front man in the region, was taken into custody under 24 hours before the bombings began. In addition to the current bombings, the “Wali of Kirkuk” is suspected to be involved in several other attacks in the region, including the bombing of houses belonging to two Hajiwa police officers.

Osama bin Laden - Seth Anderson (CC)

If one was looking for any signs of mourning in the Muslim world, we were told not to expect it – bin Laden’s death was apparently a happy moment for them, if for different reasons from the ones that caused jubilation at Ground Zero and Washington, D.C. We were even given a naïve explanation from the generation that probably can’t remember what life was like before bin Laden about why they took to the streets to celebrate his death. Why they think that they somehow “own” this part of history is questionable, but they are still young and have much to learn.

The White House gave us an iconic photograph of the Situation Room during the raid, and Secretary Clinton attempted to explain its context. As I write these words, the President is laying a wreath at Ground Zero, and (appropriately?) decided not to speak on that hallowed ground today. While Secretary Clinton states that the U.S. will continue to stand by Pakistan, the Pakistani military is stating that they want the ouster of the majority of the U.S. Military from their soil. We even saw a professional football player trip over words about bin Laden’s death on Twitter, and later try to clarify his position.

But the dust is still flying, and isn’t showing any signs of settling. It’s been said – not often enough – that the way we have lived for the past decade isn’t really a testament to our resiliency or strength. We have falsely contented ourselves with the fact that we haven’t seen repeated attacks on U.S. soil (although we have seen a few foiled), claiming that there is real value in the fact that we’ve also surrendered many freedoms to that end. We are still living in the shadow of bin Laden, and will continue to do so until we decide that our freedom is more important than creating the illusion that we are safe. We will never return to life as it was before September 11th, and rightfully so. We were foolishly arrogant in our thinking, assuming that we were impervious to terrorist attacks. However, if we continue to live as we have, perpetually in fear of another attack, bin Laden has won even though he is dead. It is up to us. There must be a middle-ground between what life in America was on September 10th, and what it is now. Is it time to reassess our way of life, or do we continue with the status quo and become bin Laden’s legacy of fear?

Beyond problems for the blind, there are issues for individuals with other handicaps, as my mother heard from a caller to KDKA Radio’s Marty Griffin show. She told me about a caller that explained his difficulties getting onto a plane, due to the hooks he had in place of hands he had lost during the Vietnam War. My mother told me that she could tell the man was probably in tears as he described his problems with air travel, and said that he stated that he never attempted to fly again.

It infuriated me to hear this, particularly since this man is a disabled veteran. But, beyond the issue of handicapped persons having problems with airlines, there is a much more important issue. We are still ruled by fear. Airlines and the government continue to push insane security procedures in the attempt to keep us safe from terrorism, when the reality of the situation is that if terrorists truly wanted to harm us, they would find a way regardless what we do. Travelers in general are inconvenienced daily to create this false sense of security.

Yes, there are certain security measures that honestly do need to be in place, but the harassment of the handicapped, and honestly insane situations like the stories of forcing women to drink their own breast milk before boarding a plane are just that – insane. The bottom line is that we can’t stop every terrorist from carrying out attacks. It is impossible. When they read stories about blind men being turned away from flights, or having their canes confiscated, war veterans being harassed over prosthetics, or women drinking breast milk in order to fly, they know they have won. While not as satisfying to their blood lust as mass murder, it is still a victory for them. All of these things are signs that they are in control of our lives. I am not suggesting that we stop screening luggage and passengers – I am saying that we need to re-examine the laundry list of rules and procedures we have adopted over the past nine years to keep us safe. We need to be sensible, not irrational. We need to stop letting them win by living in fear of what they might do. Fear paralyzes people, and it is time that we stopped letting our enemies (and our government) control us with it.

I understand that it hurt your feelings when Bill O’Reilly said that the crimes against our society that were committed on September 11, 2001 were perpetrated by Muslims. I’ve no doubt you were also upset with the Bush Administration and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security when it was suggested that airport security personnel consider paying greater attention to people of Arabic descent (or with “Islam” listed as an individual’s religion on passports or other identifying paperwork) in the months following the attacks. No doubt you cried out against racial profiling.

Well, the reality of the matter is that Bill O’Reilly is right.

Muslims did perpetrate those crimes, and continue to commit similar crimes today – only now it is largely against our armed forces, as opposed to civilians.

While you think it is right and proper to say that all followers of Islam have the right to observe their faith just like any others in the world, the fact remains that in many cases, such observation infringes on the rights of others – primarily, it tends to infringe on the rights of others to live and breathe without fear of murderous attacks from others.

It is true that there are some followers of Islam that are peaceful, and have no desire to carry out violent acts against people of other faiths (or no faith at all.) However, there is no way to pick them out of a crowd.

Assuming that any followers of Islam are definitely, absolutely non-violent is foolhardy at best. They have no reason to be truthful about their intentions. If you are willing to believe they are, it is a good thing that you did not choose a profession in law enforcement. The fact is that people that are guilty of committing a crime (or are planning to do so) aren’t likely to admit it!

And finally, back to the argument that started it all, it does make a difference where people of the Islamic faith want to create buildings. While you are right that they have the right to do so where they please in this country, it is also true that if they were as peaceful as they claim they are, they would have had the sense to abandon the Park 51 plans. It is disrespectful of Americans, and the victims of 9/11 and their families, period. Now, I don’t know about you, but I find no compelling reason to be respectful toward people that choose to be disrespectful toward me.

I hope this makes the situation clear, and I hope you realize that Mr. O’Reilly had no reason to apologize to you for telling the truth – he probably did it because he is a gentleman.

With not much love or respect

A Concerned American

1. Two wars are not enough. Let’s bomb Iran. What better way is there to gain support world-wide, right?

2. Teens are “sexting.” Current child pornography laws make it a felony. ACLU opposes new law that would make it a misdemeanor. Apparently the ACLU believes that disseminating child pornography isn’t a crime if the children are the ones passing the pictures around.

3. The Executive Branch can order assassinations of U.S. citizens if they are deemed to be terrorists by…. You guessed it, the Executive Branch! *Have no words for this one, since it speaks for itself!

4. The new most-hated breed of politician is the FCINO, aka the Demon Sheep. The new most-ridiculed breed of politician is the Carly.

5. Obama hates Catholics. Just ask the folks at RedState. Doesn’t that make you miss the good old days when everyone was terrified that the Vatican was going to control the White House if we had a Catholic President?

Since its creation, the Department of Homeland Security has been like a lame soldier – unable to perform its intended duties. While talking a good game in front of the cameras and microphones, the Bush Administration failed to give the fledgling department the clout necessary to do what it was created to do. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge explained the problems in-depth, and is continuing to do so on various news channels on a regular basis. Obama admitted today that we have a problem with inter-departmental communications where our intelligence and security organizations are concerned.

And that is business as usual in the world of intelligence. Information is their currency, and they are greedy in that they want to keep as much of their own as they can without sharing – even with their allies within the government. Not a very reassuring situation for the public to consider, and we’re probably not reaching an end to it all.

Admitting fault is fine, but in an administration that can’t seem to keep the White House secure, what is needed now is action. The likelihood that Obama will manage to put an end to the spy games in the alphabet city that is supposed to be managed by Homeland Security at least on the level where threats to our safety are concerned is extremely low.

Beyond the issues plaguing the dissemination (or lack thereof) of information on terroristic threats to the relevant agencies, there are problems with the current plans and policies regarding foreign relations and the war in Afghanistan. Some have suggested that the war is a direct inheritance from the Bush administration and still others question the intelligence of using the troop surge tactics used in Iraq. First, although the war was started during the last administration, the true root of the problem as far as the U.S. is concerned dates back to the Reagan administration. We “covertly” helped remove the Soviets from Afghanistan, then walked away. The nation building that is apparently so objectionable to at least one of our Senators was neglected then, and we suffered for it. (Add the failure to deal with Bin Laden during the Clinton years, of course.)

History does repeat itself, and the current headlines simply add veracity to that adage. And beyond all the complex military and foreign policy punditry is a very simple statement that covers our current problems. “If you make a mess, clean it up.” Our country has a tendency of ignoring that simple lesson we all should have learned before we graduated from kindergarten. Our “messes” that we’re paying for now date back to the war in Korea, and instead of cleaning up the ones in our past, we’re trying to make more.

And that brings me back to Mr. Hazo, the apparently gifted poet turned novelist who managed to predict at least a little of what we’re faced with today back in the 1980’s. Or was he merely pointing out the next logical step based on history? We’d been introduced to terrorist-style warfare in the 1950’s in Korea, hadn’t we? Hazo merely connected a few dots, and guessed where the next dots would end up. It was perfectly logical for someone in the 1980’s to think that an utterly frustrated militant from Lebanon or anywhere else in that region would consider striking in the West when raising hell at home didn’t seem to bother the U.S. all that much.

Terrorism is an act of desperation. It is what those who are cornered – in reality or in their own minds – do to strike against perceived enemies that are obviously stronger. We are stronger. That has never been up for debate. The only question is whether or not we can be smart enough to learn from the past.