Whereabouts Unknown

Remember the closing sequence of Animal House?  Just before the final credits rolled, we learned that Hoover became a public defender in Baltimore; Otter established an OB-GYN practice in Beverly Hills and Bluto became a U.S. Senator.  As for Daniel Simpson Day ("D-Day," played by Bruce McGill) his whereabouts were officially unknown.

Oddly enough, we can say the same thing about the Commander-in-Chief on the night of September 11, 2012.  As the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack and Ambassador Chris Stevens died (along with three other Americans), President Obama essentially disappeared.  Officially, we're told that he had a previously-scheduled meeting with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey, at 5:30 eastern time, during the early stages of the assault.  While the session with Panetta and Dempsey had been previously scheduled, events in Libya were discussed during the meeting.

After that...well, we don't know.  The next time Mr. Obama was seen publicly was 9 am the next morning, en route to a fund raiser in Las Vegas.  Where was he during the 12-14 hours from the time his meeting with Mr. Panetta and General Dempsey ended, and the moment he boarded Marine One for the trip to Andrews AFB, and his flight to Nevada?  Supposedly, he was somewhere in the White House but to this day, there have been no photographs of the President in the Situation Room (or any other venue), monitoring events in Libya as they unfolded.  

Eight months after Benghazi, the usually incurious Washington media (and various pundits) have apparently discovered Mr. Obama's disappearing act, and they're finally asking questions.  To be fair, most of the queries have come from Fox News, which has been on the story from Day One.  On the May 8th edition of Special Report, Charles Krauthamer pointedly asked "where was the Commander-in-Chief in all of this?" noting the stand-down order given to a U.S. special forces team that was in Libya at the time, and awaiting permission to fly to Benghazi and provide assistance.

So far, no one has bothered to pose that question to Mr. Obama himself, but Chris Wallace attempted to follow-up on that query this morning, in an interview with White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Fox News Sunday.  Predictably, Pfeiffer offered no additional details on the president's whereabouts during the Benghazi debacle, but he did offer this observation--the commander-in-chief's physical location on the night of September 11th is an "irrelevant fact."  Here's the complete exchange between Pfeiffer and Wallace, posted at The Weekly Standard:

WALLACE: let's turn to benghazi. he had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. the next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  the president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. this is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. i recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. there's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. the question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn't happen again? congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. when we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there's inherent risk. we need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: with all due respect, you didn't answer my question. what did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER:  kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: he didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. he didn't talk to the secretary of defense, he didn't talk to chiefs. the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  his national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  he was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  i don't know what room he was in that night. that's a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: well --

PFEIFFER:  the premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. the accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. it's a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLCE: here's the point, though, the ambassador goes missing, the first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. dozens of americans are in jeopardy. the president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. no forces are deployed. where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  this has been tested to by --

WALLACE: well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the --

PFEIFFER:  the suggestion of your question that somehow the president --

WALLACE: i just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER:  the assertions from republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive. there's no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: i'm simply asking a question. where was he? what did he do? how did he respond in who told him you can't deploy forces and what was his president?

PFEIFFER:  the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.

If you buy Mr. Pfeiffer's explanation, it really doesn't matter where the President actually was, given the communications capability that supports the commander-in-chief.  It doesn't matter if he is in the Oval Office, the residential quarters, the limosuine, or half-way around the world on Air Force One; the President has the ability to stay in touch with senior advisers, utilizing a full range of secure voice and data networks.

But if President Obama was in the White House that evening, why not move to the Situation Room, which is maintained--and equipped--for crisis management?  Mr. Obama has used that facility during past contingencies, ranging from the bin Laden raid to Hurricane Sandy.  The chief executive's presence has often been documented through official photos, released by the White House press office.  But so far, no photo has emerged of Mr. Obama in the situation room during Benghazi, suggesting he was at another location in the White House.  But where?

And what's the hang-up about releasing that location?   Needless to say, Mr. Pfeiffer (and the White House) have opened another can of worm by refusing to disclose the President's whereabouts on the evening of 11 September was and providing more details of the interaction with his national security team.

Such information is critical, because the version of events now available depicts a commander-in-chief who was out-of-the-loop by his own choosing (emphasis ours).  Obviously, no one expects a President to manage every single engagement in the War on Terror, but Benghazi was different.  A U.S. diplomatic facility was under attack for hours; four Americans died and it's unclear who was in charge.  Who gave the order for the special ops team in Tripoli to stand down?  Who determined that other assets could not be mustered in time to provide assistance?  These are questions that demand answers, beginning with the actions of the President.

However, there are ways of determining what the President knew, in terms of information available to him.  As we noted last fall, the National Security Agency (NSA) almost certainly issued FLASH/CRITIC intelligence reports on the situation in Benghazi.  A CRITIC, or Critical Intelligence Report is reserved for the highest-priority SIGINT reporting (an attack on a US. diplomatic compound would certainly meet the criteria for that type of reporting.  FLASH priority dictates the CRITIC must be delivered to the commander-in-chief within 10 minutes.

Perhaps it's time for the House Intelligence Committee to summon General Keith Alexander, the NSA Director, for testimony on his agency's reporting from Benghazi.  A review of CRITIC traffic (along with delivery confirmations) would provide additional insights into the amount of information received by the POTUS and how he accessed it.  Incidentally, there would be no need to disclose the intelligence details of the CRITICS; just the timelines for NSA issuing the reports and when they were received by the White House.

As for the President's location, the Secret Service is responsible for keeping tabs on that.  Maybe Congressman Issa should subpoena the Secret Service visitor logs and related documents for the White House on the evening in question.  That would offer some idea as to who was present in the situation room, and where the President was hunkered down as events unfolded in Benghazi.

Mr. Pfeiffer's parsing suggests the White House has something to hide.  What might that be?  Our guess goes something like this: initial reports from Libya were bad; in the middle of a re-election campaign, Mr. Obama took the advice of his political advisers and tried to distance himself from Benghazi--even before the attack ended.  Key decisions were deferred to subordinates, part of a strategy to muddle through the situation and "manage" the disaster on the back end.

This strategy is reflected in the lack of communication between Mr. Obama and his senior national security advisers on that fateful evening.  To date, there is no record of additional conversations between the President, Defense Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey beyond their 5:30 meeting.  Similarly, there appears to be only one phone call between the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the attack in Benghazi. That conversation reportedly occurred at 10:00 pm Eastern Time, hours before the assault ended.

Clearly, it's hard for a President to manage a crisis when he has limited communication with his advisers.  And it's even more difficult when he is outside the Situation Room, apparently by design.  If there's anything worse than a commander-in-chief who is AWOL, it's a President who deliberately takes himself out of the loop during a serious foreign policy crisis.  The political calculations of Barack H. Obama are now being laid bare, and the White House is doing all it can to minimize the damage.                              

      

        

Risk Avoidance

Call it "Spook's Razor:" Opportunities for timely blogging decrease in proportion to the demands of one's "real job," and that decline usually coincides with significant, even earth-shattering events.  Put another way, we've been way too busy to post, even as the truth on Benghazi finally emerges--or should we say, can no longer be ignored--and the IRS scandal explodes with full force.

We'll have more thoughts on both tomorrow but in the mean time, Bing West has a great column at National Review on-line.  Mr. West, a Marine combat veteran of Iraq observes that the nation's senior military leaders (active and retired) didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with their handling of Benghzi, or trying to explain away the "decision-making process."  A few excerpts:

Sunday was quite a day for Benghazi and the U.S. military. At the platoon level, you are expected to admit errors in firefights in order to correct mistakes and do better the next time. We all make mistakes. But as we saw on yesterday’s talk shows, once you reach the top level, whether retired or not, you deny any possibility of error and label any question about military performance idiotic. This is not the behavior of a healthy organization, and if it persists, we are in for a nasty shock in a future crisis or conflict.

On CBS, former secretary of defense Bob Gates launched an impassioned defense of the Obama administration, sneering at critics for holding a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.” He staunchly defended the administration’s high-level decision-making surrounding Benghazi, citing four reasons.

First, he said, sending fighter jets "ignored the number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals.  I would not have approved of a sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi."  

How many aircraft has the U.S. lost in hundreds of thousands of combat flights since 2001? Zero. The former SecDef is so afraid of an unknown risk that he would not send an aircraft capable of destroying a mortar site while Americans died? This is the pinnacle of risk avoidance.   

Hammer, meet nail. Read the whole thing; it's a sad reminder that those on the E-ring and in unified command billets are sometimes more motivated by politics than their military judgment.  Which brings us to the $64,000 question: exactly who was calling the shots on the night of September 11, 2012?     

     

Dickey's Folly?

It may go down as one of the worst media decisions since Wall Street rejected David Sarnoff's appeal for investing in radio back in the 1920s.  As one of the smart money boys told the NBC president, "Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?"  Who indeed.

Almost a century later, the President of Cumulus Radio seemed poised to top that banker, by getting rid of Rush Limbaugh.  According to Politico, the New York Daily News and other outlets, Mr. Dickey has been complaining (again) that Rush's rant against Sandra Fluke cost his stations at least $5 million in advertising revenue last year.  That has renewed speculation that the Cumulus chief won't renew his stations' contract with Limbaugh that expires at the end of this year.

Naturally, some media types have begun whispering about how this would "hurt" Rush.  After all, Cumulus owns 40 stations that carry his show, in some of the nation's biggest media markets.  That means the nation's #1 talk host would lose such affiliates as WABC in New York; WLS (Chicago), WBAP (Dallas) and WJR (Detroit), to name a few.

As someone who slaved in the radio salt mines before having the good sense to make the military career, it's important to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Best as I can tell, here's what's really going on in the Rush/Cumulus controversy.

First, I'll assume that Lew Dickey isn't completely stupid (though the jury's still out on that one).  But he clearly wants a better deal.  By that, we mean he would like to keep Rush's show on his stations, but pay a lower syndication fee and keep more of the advertising revenue generated by the program.  As we've noted before, the Rush Limbaugh Show is not only the gold standard for syndicated talk, it's also a cash cow.  A 60-second network commercial (carried on all Rush affiliates) goes for a reported $16,000.  If you want a "live read" by the host, be prepared to pay even more.  And Rush and his syndicator, Premier Networks (owned by Clear Channel) keep half of the advertising revenue generated by every hour of his program.

Rush commands that kind of deal because his program delivers.  Critics claim that Limbaugh's heyday is long past, but he still attracts millions of listeners every week.  And at the local level, he can help a station reverse its fortunes.  In recent years, Clear Channel put Rush on struggling FM stations in New Orleans, Raleigh and Pittsburgh.  The stations in the Crescent City and Raleigh doubled their listenership in less than a year; in fact, Rush's New Orleans outlet (WRNO) now beats the legendary WWL-AM head-to-head, though WWL has more listeners when you add in their FM simulcast.

Truth be told, Lew Dickey is trying to blame Rush for his stable of under-performing stations.  Despite the bad economy, Limbaugh's powerhouse Los Angeles affiliate, KFI-AM is one of the top-billing stations in the country, selling almost twice as much advertising time ($46 million a year) as WABC.  In fact, you won't find a single Cumulus property on the list, a fact not lost on Mr. Dickey.  He recently conducted a mini-purge at WMAL in Washington, apparently because that station wasn't meeting performance expectations.  Even WABC, home to such hosts as Don Imus, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin (in addition to Limbaugh) bills about $13 million less a year than all-sports station WFAN, despite the fact that WABC has more listeners.  Rush is right: not even his "magic" can compensate for a laggard sales department.

And what if Dickey can't get a better deal?  He has Mike Huckabee warming up in the bullpen.  Cumulus signed the former Arkansas governor to a lucrative deal last year, at least by their standards.  His program currently airs opposite Rush in many markets; so far, his ratings have been under-whelming, to say the least.  But, since Cumulus owns the Huckabee show, they won't have to split advertising revenue with an "outside" host and his syndicator.  Dickey may believe he can get a better return with that option, even if it means fewer listeners.

It's one hell of a gamble, to say the least.  Without Rush, ratings on WABC, WLS and other Cumulus stations will crater, and may never recover.  That means lower audience levels for the afternoon drive period (which follows Rush in many markets); smaller cumulative audiences and of course, reduced ad revenues.

Conventional wisdom says that Rush's program will move to WOR-AM in New York when his contract with Cumulus ends in December.  WOR once ruled the airwaves in the Big Apple, but now attracts about half the audience of WABC.  The addition of the Limbaugh would definitely boost WOR's fortunes, and there are hints that other Premier personalities (such as Sean Hannity) may follow suit.  However, don't rule out a more radical move by the folks at Clear Channel.  The radio giant has FM stations in New York, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit--and other cities--that could easily flip to a talk format, following their successful model in other cities.

Commercial radio is a Darwinian business in every sense of that term.  It's not a place for the faint-of-heart or executives who make idiotic decisions. Ninety years from now, Lew Dickey may be remembered as a visionary who foresaw the decline of conservative talk radio and its superstar hosts.  But I tend to believe that Dickey will wind up in the same category as that Wall Street investor of years ago, who made the wrong call and missed a gravy train.  Except in this case, Mr. Dickey is actually driving the train and for whatever reason, seems determined to run it off the tracks.                           

Paging Congressman Issa

On the way home in my car this afternoon, Sean Hannity took a call from a military member who claims to have been the sensor operator for the Predator drone mission over Benghazi on the night of September 12, 2012.  The caller, who identified himself as "John," said the UAV spent only about five minutes over the consulate before being repositioned over the nearby CIA annex.  He described seeing a crowd of hundreds of fighters outside the consulate, through the drone's sensors.

John also confirmed what this blog--and other sources--have reported for months.  The situation in Benghazi was actively monitored by various governmental organizations, civilian and military.  He noted that the secure "chat" rooms, which allow various nodes to share information during UAV missions, were very active that night.  It's also no secret that the drone's video feed was available at various command nodes, including the White House Situation Room; CIA Headquarters, the State Department and the National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC) in the Pentagon.

Now, here's the shocker.  John told Sean Hannity that no one from his unit has been contacted or questioned by Congressional investigators.  He was unable to confirm if the video from that terrible night still exists.  According to the sensor operator, the sensor "haul" from "uneventful" sorties is eventually erased, and the storage space is used for more recent missions.

Paging Congressmen Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers.  You might want to send your investigators to Creech AFB, NV and talk to the sensor crews who were "in the seat" that night.  You might also issue a Congressional subpoena for the video, and send your experts to CIA Headquarters; NGA Headquarters, the NMJIC, Langley AFB, VA; Ramstein AFB, Germany, US European Command, Beale AFB, California, Hickam AFB, Hawaii and any other place it might still reside in the bowels of our intelligence apparatus.  Before it's too late.                
 

Coming Home to Roost

George H.W. Bush once observed that "what you don't know about domestic policy" loses elections; "what you don't know about foreign policy gets people killed."

Sadly, we're about to see that maxim played out on a grand scale in the Middle East, where the two-year old Syrian civil war has already claimed at least 70,000 lives.  Now, as Barack Obama fiddles, that conflict is threatening to engulf Israel, Lebanon and the rest of the Levant, creating a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.  The next wave of casualties may well include Israeli, Lebanese, Jordanian and Turkish civilians, who die under a hail of rockets and missiles, some tipped with chemical warheads.  

How did we arrive at this most dangerous moment?  Flash back to 2009, and the Green Revolution in Iran.  Tens of thousands of Iranians, many of them students, took to the streets, demanding a democratic government.  The United States took a pass on providing support, and the mullahs responded brutally.  Scores of protesters died, and thousands more were sent to prison.  Further emboldened, Tehran continued work on its nuclear program, and increased support for its various proxies, including Hizballah in Lebanon, confident that America would not challenge Iran's geopolitical ambitions.

With the advent of the Arab Spring, the Obama Administration voiced strong support for so-called "freedom" and "democracy" movements in places like Tunisia and Egypt.  Unfortunately, the White House and their friends at Foggy Bottom had little concern about various Islamist groups that exploited the uprisings, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  So, when a terrorist group took the reins of power in Cairo, there was a collective shrug at State and the National Security

Council, amid some vague assurances that we could somehow "manage" the situation, or reshape the  Muslim Brotherhood into something the founding fathers might recognize.

In Libya, the U.S. and its western partners took a more direct approach, providing military support for the anti-Qadhaffi faction, hastening the demise of the long-time dictator.  But once again, there was no regard for who was running the revolution, and what might happen if the Islamists took power.  And when some of the same factions stormed out consulate in Benghazji last September (resulting in the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans), President Obama and various officials tried to blame the debacle on an internet video that "slandered" the Prophet Mohammed.  Six months later, Congress is still trying to figure out what happened on that September night, but one thing is certain: the "offended" Muslims were actually terrorists, and the assault on our diplomatic facility had nothing to do with that video.

Now, the conflict in Syria seems poised to explode into a regional war.  Israeli warplanes have attacked targets inside that country two times in as many days.  The first target was another shipment of rockets and missiles, apparently bound for Hizballah.  Less than 24 hours later, the IAF struck again, hitting a military site near Damascus that is (reportedly) affiliated with Syria's chemical weapons program.  The attack sent a fireball over the city, suggesting that the Israelis found their target.

In the aftermath of the latest air raid, reactions have been predictable.  Damascus has accused the Israelis of "aiding terrorists," claiming the attack "opens the door to all possibilities," including a wider war.  Iran has been trying to rally the Islamic world to Assad's side, with no apparent success, but it's clear that Tehran won't let its client go down without a fight.  Meanwhile, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon expressed grave concerns over the Israeli air strikes, but had no comment on the reasons behind the attack: widespread fears that Syria is using those weapons on its own people, and may soon target Israel as well.  Making matters worse, there are growing concerns that anti-Assad forces (aligned with Al Qaida) may soon gain control of some of the CW production facilities and stockpiles, making a grave situation even worse.

As for the administration, it's still trying desperately to kick the Syria can down the road.  The White House's disdain for the issue was on display in Sunday's edition of The New York Times when an unnamed administration official mused that if Bashir Assad dropped Sarin on his own people, "what's that got to do with us?"  Geographically, that might be remotely accurate, but what if those munitions wind up in the hands of Hizballah or Al Qaida?  Or if Assad, in a last, desperate move, launches a chemical and biological attack against Israel, or American forces in neighboring Turkey?

To be fair, there are no good options in Syria.  By some estimates, a ground operation to secure Assad's WMD arsenal would require 75,000 ground troops (who would be vulnerable to attack) and put us squarely in the middle of a civil war.  There is virtually no support for that option, and rightfully so.

On the other hand, a case can be made for air and missile attacks against Syria's chemical and biological research and storage facilities.  The Israeli Air Force has penetrated Assad's air defense system with no apparent problems (again), and a few days of SEAD would virtually eliminate that threat, allowing planners to focus on the destruction of WMD stockpiles and research centers.  

Are there any guarantees of eliminating all of the Syrian stockpile?  No.  Risks of collateral damage. Certainly.  But after years of kicking the can down the road, we are faced with stark choices: help the Israelis eliminate most of the threat now, or spend decades trying to track down every missile warhead, artillery round and BW culture that will disappear from Syria after Assad falls and the Islamists take over.  In the interim, there is the threat of chemical and biological attacks against civilian targets in the region.

A senior Air Force officer one told me the lack of easy or convenient options is no excuse for inaction.  Not when the stakes are this high--and climbing.  By trying to "muddle through" on Syria, President Obama is putting us on a path that will jeopardize our security for decades to come.  What was that line about chickens coming home to roost?                                


                          

National Security Fraud?

Over at National Review online, Andrew McCarthy has an superb piece on a bit of fraud being perpetuated on the American people by the Obama Administration.  And no, he's not talking about the gun-control crusade or the green energy jobs scam.  Mr. McCarthy is referring to the administration's "investigation" of the Boston Marathon bombing, and the surviving suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  As he describes it, recent revelations about additional plots are little more than distractions, aimed at diverting public attention away from the government's handling of the case:

Unlike you, federal government officials are immune from charges of fraud. The executive branch, vested with all of the government’s prosecutorial authority and discretion, is not going to investigate its own operatives for carrying out its own mendacious policies.

That is the story of last week’s Boston Marathon bombing and the frantic efforts of the bombers, the brothers Tsarnaev, to evade capture, shoot it out with police (one of whom they killed, and another of whom they wounded), and — we’re now told — detonate more bombs in Times Square.

The Times Square non-attack is quite interesting. The specter of it, projected in the immediate wake of the Marathon murders and maimings, is horrific . . . so horrific that the government, in leaking this tidbit from its botched interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, knew that news media were certain to lead their broadcasts with it. The press would never wonder why they, and thus we, were being told about it.    

Mind you, there is nothing inappropriate about government officials’ speaking about matters on thepublic record — such as the allegations lodged in criminal complaints. But the Times Square non-attack is not mentioned in the complaint filed against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In fact, the complaint includes no information from Tsarnaev’s interrogation.

Yet somehow the airwaves are now full of startling revelations from his Miranda-aborted 16-hour post-arrest interview, including not least his confession, and, of course, his assurance, as Allah is his witness, that no one other than he and his Svengali older brother — and certainly no foreign Islamic terrorist organization — had anything to do with their terror spree.

And the reason for these machinations?  According to Mr. McCarthy--a former federal prosecutor who won convictions against jihadists in the 1993 World Trade Center attack--the Obama Administration is desperate to convince the public (and its friends in the media) that Islamic terror threats can be handled through the criminal justice system.  No need to classify the younger Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant and use intelligence interrogation methods to extract information from him.  Just read him his Miranda rights and let him stop talking--on the advice of counsel, naturally.

In his piece, McCarthy thoroughly obliterates the various arguments accompanying Team Obama's handling of the case.  For starters, he notes that the "public safety exception" that allows a slight delay in Mirandizing a suspect does not grant 48 hours of free-wheeling interrogation.  In fact, the countdown to reading a defendant his rights begins as soon as he is rendered defenseless.  So, FBI agents and intelligence operatives had a very narrow window for interrogating Dzhokhar, and it began when he climbed out of that boat in suburban Boston.  

Secondly, Mr. McCarthy observes that it was President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder who triggered the rush to Mirandize the terror suspect.  Representatives from the U.S. Attorneys office in Boston rushed into federal court last Sunday night to file charges against Dzhokhar.  That begs a rather obvious question--why?--but it also mandated that Tsarnaev be informed of his rights.  When that federal magistrate arrived at Dzhokhar's hospital room, she was merely concluding a chain of events put into motion at the highest levels of American government.  

But the most telling bit of deception may be found in the third "rationale" offered by the Obama Administration, namely that we had gained all of the vital intelligence from Dzhokhar by the time that magistrate advised him of his constitutional rights.   

In fact, it seems rather obvious that the government is managing the entire affair to fit a certain template: the Tsarnaev brothers acted on their own; they became radicalized here in the United States, and there is no evidence of a wider conspiracy involving terrorist elements in their native Chechnya.  

So far, that effort has produced only mixed results.  While the fawning U.S. press corps is ready to report any disclosure from the administration--even those meant to mislead and distract--certain inconvenient facts keep popping up.  First of all, there are the warnings we received about Tamerlan Tsarnaev from Russian security services more than two years ago.  We have subsequently learned that the Russians notified their FBI and CIA counterparts about Tamerlan's radical activities on at least two different occasions.  FBI agents even interviewed the over Tsarnaev brother, at Moscow's request, but found nothing to suggest he had become radicalized or posed a security threat.  

Apparently, the feds never bothered to look at his social media postings, which included an assortment of jihadist videos and comments suggesting an affinity for Al Qaida.  There have also been reports that Russian security officers witnessed Tamerlan in contact with suspected terrorists on six different occasions during an extended visit to Dagestan last year.  It is unclear if that information was shared with American intelligence and the FBI and we've learned more recently that the Russians monitored phone conversations where Tamerlan vaguely discussed jihad with his mother.  They also recorded her conversations with another man in southern Russia, who is now under investigation by U.S. authorities.   Unfortunately, Moscow didn't pass along the results of its wiretaps until this week. 

That raises a very disturbing question that may explain some of the legal chicanery now on display.  Why didn't the U.S.'s vast signals intelligence (SIGINT) network detect these same calls?  The National Security Agency (NSA) doesn't rely on the Russians to monitor communications between Muslim terrorists operating in the Caucasus regions.  With its global resources, NSA and its partners are quite capable of handling the task, but there has been no confirmation that our communications intelligence (COMINT) detected these calls, let alone reported them.  

If that was the case, then the Tsarnaev case represents a major intelligence failure.  True, some calls are missed, and others are never isolated among the flood of communications intercepted by NSA each day.  But the western SIGINT community has been much more proficient at capturing, translating and analyzing terror-related communications in recent years; in fact, many of our counter-terrorism successes began with intercepted phone calls or e-mails that sent other intel operatives (and law enforcement) in the right direction.  

Based on the limited information that keeps trickling out, it seems increasingly likely that the Tsarnaev brothers were foot soldiers in a wider terrorist conspiracy, one that was probably rooted in Chechnya and Dagestan.  Putting the plan into motion required some sort of communication between Tamerlan and his handlers, but there is no record (so far) of phone calls, e-mails or other contacts that were intercepted by western intelligence.  That could indicate that the terrorists found some way to beat U.S. surveillance.  If that actually happened, the potential repercussions are positively frightening.  

On the other hand, there is the equally disturbing scenario that a probe of the Tsarnaev brothers was undone by bureaucratic bungling and political correctness.  Given Tamerlan's status as a permanent resident alien, any extended monitoring of his communications would have required a FISA warrant at some point.  Yet, there is no record the Obama Justice Department ever sought such approval, despite persistent warnings from the Russians.  Once again, the salient question is why? Did we ever pursue a FISA-approved wiretap against the Tsarnaevs and if we did, why did the bomb plot go undetected?  Or did someone at DOJ decide to give the matter a pass, fearing cries of profiling and discrimination if the surveillance effort was ever disclosed? 

If either of these explanations proves correct, then a lot of folks in the intel community and at DOJ need to be fired.  But then again, we've never been very good at holding individuals accountable, no how badly they screw up.  Not a single intel official was dismissed after 9-11, and high-level administration officials have been immune in such scandals as Fast and Furious.  

If the Boston bombings case follows a similar pattern, the future chain of events will go something                                                   

like this.  There will be a few more articles bemoaning the FBI's inability to complete its interrogation of Dzhokhar, followed by defense team leaks about prosecutors refusing to discuss a potential plea deal.  The case will eventually fade from public view until the day that Dzhokhar is scheduled to face trial.  Amid all the media speculation about defense strategies, government evidence and courthouse security, the actual trial will prove anti-climactic.  As the trial gets underway, the defendant will enter into a plea deal that spares his life--and prevents the feds from having to divulge the screw-ups that led to the terror attack--and the subsequent political maneuvering that denied the collection of needed intelligence.   

Dzhokhar will eventually emerge from federal prison in his early 50s, after completing a 30-year "life" sentence.  By that time, the masterminds of the legal fraud that Andy McCarthy describes will be dead, and their reputations firmly secured.   At that point, no one will really care about the claims of a former terrorist, convicted in a case that happened four decades earlier.  Call it the Benghazi template.  Seven months after terrorists murdered four Americans at our consulate in that Libyan city, that scandal has been apparently sealed off, behind a wall of official silence.  A similar veil is now descending on Boston, but no one seems to notice.  
***
ADDENDUM:  In the past 24 hours, two respected figures in the national security establishment, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and Representative Mike McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, have suggested that others were involved in the marathon bombings.      

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. McCaul  said he believes the Tsarnaev were "trained" to carry out the attack, and their mother played a key role in their radicalization.  McCaul said that assessment is based (in part) on the sophistication of their pressure cooker bombs.  In a separate interview with the network, Mr. Mukasey offered similar thoughts saying the belief the bombers followed instructions from the internet "doesn't do it" for him.  He also suggested that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could still be questioned for intelligence purposes and that information could be "kept separate" from criminal proceedings.  

Excellent idea, but the odds of that happening are approximately zero.  Just ask President Obama, or Eric Holder.        

  

The Chechen Connection

As law enforcement captured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night, some rather grim realities began to take hold.

First, for all those who cautioned against a "rush to judgment" (i.e., the terrorists might not be Muslim), here's the ugly truth.  The younger Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan--who died after a shootout with police early today--were apparently influenced by radical Islam.  Tamerlan made several on-line references to Feiz Mohammad, the Australian-born cleric who actively encouraged children to become "soldiers for Islam," and said "there is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a muhajid."

Additionally, the older Tsarnaev brother posted links to "The Black Flags of Khorasan" at his YouTube account.  While that doesn't make him an Al Qaida operative, it suggests he was sympathetic to its ideology--and mythology.  More from Thomas Joscelyn in The Weekly Standard, and Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal:

The Khorasan is a region that encompasses large areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. The Khorasan is considered by jihadis to be the place where they will inflict the first defeat against their enemies in the Muslim version of Armageddon. The final battle is to take place in the Levant - Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. Mentions of the Khorasan have begun to increase in al Qaeda's propaganda. After al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq, the group began shifting its rhetoric from promoting Iraq as the central front in their jihad and have placed the focus on the Khorasan.

Secondly, there may well be an international component to the Boston attacks.  It was quickly revealed that the Tsarnaev brothers are natives of Chechnya, the breakaway former Russian republic that has become a key breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Chechen fighters have traveled to places like Iraq and Afghanistan where they have fought--and killed--U.S. troops.  Veterans of U.S. special forces and the CIA's covert and paramilitary branches will tell you the Chechens are among the most vicious (and dangerous) of all the jihadis.  

If you need more proof, look no further than their "signature" operations, the 2002 Moscow theater bombing, or the Beslan school massacre that followed two years later.  Western media coverage focused largely on the heavy-handed tactics of Russian security forces, while underplaying the savagery of Chechen terrorists.  During the siege at Beslan, the Chechens carefully selected dozens of Russian girls, who were gang-raped and sodomized in front of their parents and teachers.  But their cruelty didn't stop there:

Along with causing paralyzing fear, the terrorists had an ally in the weather. It was extremely hot outside, but the school had no working air conditioner. As the heat raged, the hostages begged for water, and at first, some was given. Time crept on, and the terrorists became increasingly cruel. They drank in front of the hostages and mocked the children who were crying out for water. Things got so bad that the victims were forced to drink their own urine. In some cases, the hostages poured urine over one another in a feeble attempt to keep cool. Seeing the suffering enhanced the joy of the perpetrators. In a twisted, ghoulish game, the terrorists put water in front of the children who were desperately thirsty and told them if they reached for the water, they would be killed.

It is this particularly sadistic and virulent strain of jihad that gave us the brothers Tsarnaev.  And while it is possible they became self-radicalized, there are hints that the Boston terrorists had outside help.  In the aftermath of last night's shootout, police found "military-grade" explosives along the route used by the Tsarnaevs as they attempted to flee.  Presumably, a Golden Gloves boxer and a pre-med student would have some difficulty acquiring those materials on their own.  On the other hand, Chechen terrorists have large stockpiles of explosives; it would simply be a matter of smuggling them to their operatives in Boston.  

Experts also note that a "new" terror operative would need some instruction and practice in building pressure cooker bombs, like the ones detonated at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev might have acquired the necessary expertise during a six-month visit to Russia last year.  Tamerlan's itinerary during that extended trip has not been fully confirmed, but there might have been opportunities to visit one of the Chechen/Al Qaida training camps that still operate in Russia's Caucasus region.  

There are also disturbing hints that at least one of the Tsarnaev brothers was a concern for intelligence and security officials.  Earlier today, a Congressional source told FNC's Bret Baier that Tamerlan was "on the FBI's radar" before the Patriot Day attacks.  CBS's John Miller added more details on his network's evening newscast.  Law enforcement officials tell Miller that a foreign security service (read: Russia) had become concerned about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's possible radicalization.  The foreign agency asked the FBI to check into his activities.  

According to Mr. Miller, the feds ran Tamerlan against their existing databases and even interviewed him, but they developed no information that suggested he was a terror threat.  The information was summarized in a report provided to the foreign security service and (apparently) the matter was closed.  So far, there have been no reports of additional FBI surveillance of the Tsarnaevs since the report was delivered.  The FBI inquiry reportedly occurred in 2010, two years before his extended visit to Russia.  But there is no evidence (yet) that either Tsarnaev brother was even on a watch list before the Patriot Day bombing.

Finally, there is a growing concern among intelligence and security officials that Boston may represent "the new normal" in domestic terrorist threats.  Peter Brookes of The Heritage Foundation made that point in an interview on Fox News this afternoon, articulating what has worried many of us for a long, long time.  

Simply stated, the Boston attack incorporated tactics and techniques that are easy to use, and more difficult to defeat.  The Tsarnaevs had been in America for more than a decade, giving them plenty of time to integrate themselves into the fabric of society.  In fact, Dzhohkar became a U.S. citizen on September 11th of last year.  As ethnic Chechens, they blended more easily into American crowds and were less likely to attract suspicion as they went about their deadly business.   

As for the bombs, they are easy enough to assemble and employ, assuming that Tamerlan acquired the needed skill during his visit to Russia last year. That process could be facilitated by other operations or support cells that could be easily be present on American soil.  It's worth noting--again--that the marathon bombings were not suicide attacks.  The Tsarnaevs (and their handlers) clearly had other targets in mind, and there is the disturbing possibility that other cells may be waiting for orders to attack.

True, attacks like the one in Boston pale in comparison to events on 9-11, or the slaughter at Beslan.  But consider this: a single terrorist on the lam shut down a major metropolitan area for a day, at a cost of millions in lost wages and commerce.  Now, imagine the impact of a series of suicide bombings, occurring simultaneously in multiple American cities.  Such a scenario is quite plausible, and may represent the "new" terror threat we face in the United States.  While preparing for that challenge, we must also demand answers to other critical questions, namely, why do we still tolerate an immigration system that allows scores of dangerous individuals to enter and remain in this country, and why were obvious warning signs missed once again?                    

   

            

          

Closer to the Brink

Spent most of the past week traveling on business, but between planes, driving and appointments, I kept watching developments on the Korean Peninsula.  Simply stated, tensions in the region are at their highest since the capture of the USS Pueblo in 1968, or the shootdown of a U.S. Navy EC-121 "Warning Star" aircraft fifteen months later.  In both cases, the United States opted against an armed military response, although the Pueblo incident resulted in a large-scale reinforcement of our air assets in Korea, and declassified documents indicate that President Nixon briefly considered a nuclear strike retaliation for the downing of the Navy reconnaissance aircraft.

This time around, our response has been much more measured, for a variety of reasons.  First, Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal has to be factored into the equation, despite its small size and questionable reliability.  There's also the matter of the DPRK's new leader, Kim Jong-un.   No one knows how far Kim will go in pressing his luck, though recent actions affirm that he's quite willing to push the peninsula to the brink of conflict--and perhaps beyond.  

In recent days, Kim Jong-un has deployed a Musudan intermediate range missile to North Korea's east coast, in preparation for an upcoming test.  With a range of up to 4,000 km, the Musudan (or BM-25) is capable of hitting U.S. military bases as far away as Guam.  According to The New York Times, South Korean intelligence analysts believe the test could come as early as Wednesday.  In anticipation of an expected launch, the U.S. has beefed up ballistic missile defenses in the Sea of Japan and on Guam.

But there may be limits to any American response.  In the past few hours, the Pentagon has announced plans to postpone a long-scheduled ICBM test from Vandenburg AFB in California, apparently to avoid sending the wrong signal to Pyongyang.  Never mind that such tests have been conducted regularly for the past four decades and the target area (Kwajalein Atoll) is thousands of miles from the Korean peninsual.   The Obama Administration has also been trotting out various officials and spokesmen, who claim the current round of sabre-rattling is nothing new.  Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Presidential adviser Dan Pfeiffer said current events are "a pattern of behavior we've seen from the North Koreans many times."

Still, it's hard to remember a recent crisis on the peninsula that has lasted this long, or escalated to such dangerous levels.  In the past, DPRK nuclear or missile tests were often followed by a cooling off period, as Pyongyang tried to gauge reactions from the region and the United States.  And after that, North Korea officials would offer vague hints about a "deal" (usually involving food aid or a decrease in sanctions) that could repeat similar standoffs in the future.

But Kim Jong-un seems to be operating from a slightly different playbook.  Following nuclear and missile tests late last year, the North Korean leader has steadily ratcheted up tensions with a series of calculated moves, ranging from the "cancellation" of the 1953 armistice that ended the first Korean War, to the public signing of an order authorizing missile units to strike the U.S., and most recently, a warning to embassies that the safety of their personnel could not be guaranteed past 10 April, a date that may coincide with the expected Musudan missile test.

While publicly down-playing the potential threat, the U.S. is making military preparations to deal with various Korean scenarios.  Three American destroyers outfitted for ballistic missile defense are now patrolling the Sea of Japan, along with Japanese ships that have identical capabilities.  The Pentagon also announced plans to send a THAAD battery to Guam in the coming weeks, adding another layer of protection for Andersen Air Force Base and other key facilities on the island.  THAAD's arrival on Guam will mark the system's first operational deployment.

Perhaps the week's most interesting move occurred in China, where thousands of troops were mobilized along the border with North Korea.  Sixty years ago, the People's Liberation Army surged across the Yalu River to save Kim Il-Sung from defeat.  Virtually no one expects a similar scenario this time around; Beijing is said to be extremely "displeased" with North Korea's actions, but has done nothing to push its erst-while ally.  The recently observed deployments are probably aimed at preventing thousands of DPRK residents from seeking refuge in China, should war break out on the peninsula.  There have been mobilizations of this type in the past, but the large numbers of troops involved in the PRC drills suggests that China is quite concerned and believes armed conflict is a very distinct possibility.

How could the current situation digress into a shooting war?  At Foreign Policy on-line, Patrick Cronin offers a highly plausible scenario.

Let's say that the North decides to fire its new mobile KN-08 intermediate-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching U.S. bases in Guam. An X-band radar based in Japan detects the launch, cueing missile defenses aboard Japanese and U.S. ships. The U.S.S. Stetham, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer equipped with Aegis phased-array radars, fires its SM-3 missiles, which hit and shatter the KN-08 warhead as it begins its final descent. The successful intercept is immediately touted internationally as a victory, but, now desperate for tactical advantage that will allow it to preserve its nuclear and missile programs, the North Korean leadership orders an assault on South Korean patrol vessels and military fortifications built after the 2010 shelling incident.

The regime feels safe in striking out along the maritime boundary because the two sides have repeatedly skirmished in the area in the past 15 years. But President Park, determined to show backbone, dispatches on-alert F-15K fighter aircraft armed with AGM-84E SLAM-Expanded Response air-to-ground missiles to destroy the North Korean installations responsible for the latest assault. For good measure, they also bomb a North Korean mini-submarine pier as belated payback for the sinking of Cheonan. North Korean soldiers and military officers are killed in the attack. Pyongyang vows a merciless response and launches a risky salvo of rockets into downtown Seoul, in hope of shocking the Blue House into seeking an immediate cessation of fighting. But far from ending the tit-for-tat attacks, North Korean actions have now triggered the Second Korean War.   

What happens after that?  A renewed Korean conflict would be both protracted and bloody.  The number killed on both sides would be measured in the tens of thousands--and that assumes we somehow avoid a nuclear exchange.  The early stages of the conflict would be particularly precarious; the planned defense of South Korea is built on blunting the north's invasion while ROK reserves mobilize and U.S. reinforcements--primarily airpower--rush to the region.  But the bulk of those forces won't be available until at least 10 days after the war begins.

And did we mention the wave of humanity that will be fleeing Seoul, as DPRK rockets, missiles and artillery rounds rain down on the city?  Many of the city's 12 million residents will attempt to head south as key ROK reserve try to move north and join the fight.  It's the kind of gridlock no modern Army has ever encountered.  To give you some idea of the potential congestion problem, a holiday drive from Seoul to Pusan can take up to 24 hours.  Now, picture yourself as a ROK battalion or brigade commander trying to head north against a mass exodus from Seoul.

After the first two weeks, the odds begin to shift against North Korea.  The NKAF won't be able to protect exposed ground units, and Kim Jong-un's Army lacks modern, mobile SAMs to hold off Allied airpower.  But that reality is tempered by geography; to "win" the war, Pyongyang only needs to capture Seoul, and inflict enough casualties to compel South Korea and the U.S. to negotiate a new cease-fire--on North Korea's terms.

Conventional wisdom holds that Kim Jong-un must be persuaded to "climb down" from the geopolitical limb where he is currently perched.  But that assumes that the young dictator is a rational actor (to some degree).  Unfortunately, the evidence to support that contention is inconclusive, at best.  Mr. Kim may genuinely believe that he has enough military power to intimidate the U.S. and its allies, or retake the peninsula by force.

Which brings us back to a component that has been largely missing in this crisis--American leadership. As we've noted previously, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have issued a number of statements on North Korea, but our Commander-in-Chief has been largely silent.  There is a certain school of thought that American Presidents don't respond to rhetoric by North Korean dictators, since it tends to elevate their stature.  This is particularly true for Kim Jong-un, who (by some accounts) is still trying to consolidate his hold on power.              

But Mr. Obama's silence is not playing well in Northeast Asia.  Yesterday, the Japanese announced plans to shoot down any North Korean missile that poses a threat to their territory.  We can assume the statement was coordinated with the U.S., but there was clear frustration in Tokyo.  So far, Washington has made little more than the standard promises about defending its partners, raising new fears that the United States is an unreliable ally.

And that may be the most lasting consequence of the current crisis--assuming it doesn't boil over into armed conflict.  American reactions to threats from North Korea and China are being closely scrutinized in places like Seoul, Tokyo and Taipei.  There is a growing consensus that U.S. security guarantees only go so far, and democracies in the region may (at some point) have to "go it alone" when it comes to their defense.  Such thinking opens the very real possibility of a new arms race in Northeast Asia, with countries like Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan contemplating development of their own nuclear arsenals.

The cornerstone of President Obama's global security strategy was his much-heralded "pivot to Asia."  Now, with the specter of a new Korean War looming on the horizon, many of those affected by that decision are asking if the U.S. position represents a genuine strategy, or just another campaign speech.                              
                


          

  

The Next 3 AM Phone Call

***Update/31 March/12:50 EDT***According to The Wall Street Journal (and re-printed at Marketwatch.com), the U.S. has moved a squadron of F-22 Raptors to a base in Korea, in response to escalating tensions with Pyongyang.  The Journal did not name the installation where the F-22s are operating, but Reuters is reporting the Raptors were deployed to Osan AB, about 30 miles south of Seoul.

Normally based at Langley AFB, VA, the Raptors arrived in January at Kadena AB, Okinawa, as part of a routine, four-month rotation.  While F-22s from Langley (and other installations) have been deploying to the Far East for the past four years, the decision to send them on to Korea is yet another reflection of the current crisis on the peninsula.  Moving the F-22s to South Korea clearly sends a signal to Pyongyang, but it's unclear if other military moves will follow.  When the DPRK captured the USS Pueblo in 1968, the United States deployed scores of aircraft to South Korea (along with other military forces) and many of those assets remained in place until the ship's crew was released.  
***
 
It would be easy to dismiss the latest threat from North Korea's Kim Jong-un as an exercise in propaganda, if not downright absurdity.

In a move dutifully reported by Pyongyang's "official" news service (and picked up by media outlets around the world), the North Korean leader signed a directive placing his missile forces on standby, ready to strike U.S. targets on short notice.  The order was approved at the end of an "emergency" meeting of Kim's senior advisers, and photographs of the event featured a large maps of the United States as a backdrop, with Los Angeles, Washington, DC and Austin, Texas featured as apparent targets.

Never mind that no serious military power would engage in such a clumsy public display.  Or that Kim Jong-un looked like someone signing his first auto loan instead of a strike order.  Or the serious doubts that exist regarding the DPRK's ability to actually launch a missile that could actually reach targets as distant as Austin, or  nation's capital.  Indeed, Austin's appearance on the purported strike graphic caused a few chuckles among some analysts.  Maybe Mr. Kim and his generals don't realize the Bergstrom AFB closed down more than a decade ago.  Or maybe the North Korean dictator and his generals don't know that former President George Bush lives in Dallas, not Austin.  Whatever, their reasoning, there are more lucrative targets than the Texas capital, unless you want to disrupt the 2013 UT football season, or next year's SXSW festival.

Still, Kim Jong-un's vow to launch missiles against American targets cannot be rejected out of hand.  If his missile units currently lack the weaponry (and reliability) to strike the CONUS, they have hundreds of short and medium-range missiles--mostly SCUD and NO DONG variants--that can hit our bases in South Korea and Japan.  Reaching Guam, Hawaii or the CONUS would depend on the operational status of the KN-08 long-range missile, seen for the first time at a North Korean military parade in April 2004.  There have been no flight tests of that long-range system, and it's operational status remains questionable.

But that's little consolation for U.S. military personnel at places like Camp Humphreys, Kunsan AB or Osan AB which are within range of scores of North Korean SCUDs.  The same holds true for many of our military installations in Japan, including the airbases at Misawa, Yakota, and Atsugi; the Yokusuka Naval base (home to our only carrier group based in the Far East), along with installations on Okinawa, including Kadena AB and various Marine garrisons.   American forces in those locations routinely train to operate under chemical contamination conditions for extended periods, assuming that North Korea would target our facilities with a barrage of missiles tipped with persistent and non-persistent chemical munitions.  And, at some point, the DPRK will be able to put a nuke on its ballistic missiles--and build one capable of reaching the CONUS--completely changing the threat equation.    

It's simply a matter of time.  Pyongyang has displayed great patience in working towards its goals of obtaining nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.  And with the United States and its allies doing little to deter their efforts (aside from economic sanctions and the occasional diplomatic protest), there has no reason for North Korea to abandon its WMD program.  Now, with nuclear weapons in the arsenal and an ICBM only a few years (or few months) away, Pyongyang is determined to cross the finish line, knowing that the ability to put a nuke on an American city is a game-changer.

Over the near-term, there is the very real possibility of an accidental showdown between the U.S. and the DPRK.  Consider this scenario: in response to continued sabre-rattling by Kim Jong-un, the USAF is directed to fly additional B-52 missions over South Korea.  As a two-ship "Buff" formation flies well south of the DMZ, they are locked-on by one of the DPRK's aging SA-5 surface-to-air missile sites.  Moments later, a pair of huge GAMMON missiles, with a range of 140 nautical miles, are launched against the B-52s.  One of the missiles exploded close enough to a Buff to damage the aircraft and kill one of the crew members.  The B-52 makes an emergency landing at Kunsan AB, as the incident escalates into an international crisis.

And that's just one of many situations that could initiate a conflict between the United States and North Korea, begging an important question: what comes next?  At this point we don't really know, since President Obama has been largely silent on the North Korean problem in recent weeks, preferring to spend his time on gun control and other domestic issues.  To be fair, new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been talking about the DPRK, as did his predecessor, Leon Panetta.  But there's no substitute for presidential leadership on this pressing problem, since Kim Jong-un's next action will be based (in large measure) on his reading of Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, he may interpret the President's security record as a green light for continued aggression.  Mr. Obama took a pass on the Iranian student revolution, allowing the mullahs to launch a bloody crackdown and retain control.  He's also been quiet on other key global issues, ranging from China's cyber-attacks against American targets, to the civil war in Syria.  Many have equated his caution with kicking the can down the road, hoping that events resolve themselves, minus U.S. leadership.  And when we have become involved (read: Lbya), the results have been "less-than-optimal" to coin a phrase.

Mr. Obama ignores North Korea at his own peril, and that of 32,000 American military personnel stationed on the personnel, along with millions of ROK civilians.  Kim Jong-un feels emboldened and he's about to give our commander-in-chief a three am phone call.  According to his propaganda bureau, the North Korean leader is ready to "settle accounts" with the U.S. and he believes they will be settled on his terms.  And so far, Mr. Obama has given him no reason to think otherwise.