RTFA: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristo…

John McCain isn’t boasting about a new endorsement, one of the very, very few he has received from overseas. It came a few days ago:

“Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,” read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and often disseminates the group’s propaganda.

The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda’s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated.

“The transcendent challenge of our time [is] the threat of radical Islamic terrorism,” Senator McCain said in a major foreign policy speech this year, adding, “Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House.”

Talk about palling around with terrorists! I think this is a fascinating intersection of interests: the desire to engulf the Middle-East region in racial and religious hatred is mirrored on both sides of the Atlantic, and it appears that both sides mutually depend on a reliable enemy in order to sustain this furor.

I don’t like this one bit. Wasn’t there a time when the rhetoric was that, “the US wouldn’t cave to the demands of terrorists?” …well what now, if the terrorists have articulated the manner in which one presidential candidate fits into their recruiting strategy?

This poses a fascinating dilemma for the people of the United States.

RTFA: http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/the-cost-of-empire/

It is of course one of the defining articles of faith of the conservative movement that Reagan militarily spent the Soviets into bankruptcy. But it is a Big Lie. Of course the Soviet economy was a hollowed out shell in 1989, but it also held an extrordinary number of assets including one of the world’s largest oil reserves and an well educated work force. Freed from the need to compete in an arms race, the Russians were able to turn their talents to business. Today, the Russian central bank and the Central Bank of China, our other cold war foe, now control over 20% of the U.S. Treasury debt, and we control none of theirs. Exactly who spent who into bankruptcy?

Interesting point, but Taplin’s essay is LOADED with many such insights. This is well worth the read, although you won’t find some magic-bullet solution in the closing paragraphs. Consider these details, and arrive at your own conclusion.

RTFA: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/in…

How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa’ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.

…paid for by your tax dollars, this RAND report is a counterpoint to McCain’s 100-year military occupation of Iraq.

Of course, the word on the street is that the party is moving back to Afghanistan.

RTFA: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159067…

The words “war on terror” will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country’s chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.

Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless “death cult.”
The Director of Public Prosecutions said: ‘We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language.”
London is not a battlefield, he said.
“The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers,” Macdonald said. “They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way.”

Interesting development.

RTFA: http://www.whitehouse.gov/pennproject/index.html

Ad-hoc security barriers first appeared on Pennsylvania Avenue after security concerns forced its closure in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the number of barriers cluttering the historic Avenue soon proved to be overwhelming. Disheartened by the appearance of America’s Main Street, NCPC in 2001 proposed the redesign of the Avenue, and in 2002 selected Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates to create a safe and beautiful pedestrian space on the Avenue.
In September 2003, NCPC gave formal approval to the Van Valkenburgh design, and First Lady Laura Bush endorsed the project just days later during a White House ceremony. Throughout the project, Mrs. Bush strongly supported the effort, engaging in the design and the selection of materials to be used on the Avenue. Her steadfast support enabled the NCPC and the FHWA to transform the Avenue into a dignified civic space appropriate for a place of national significance.
The FHWA began construction on the site in January 2004. Working on an expedited schedule, the agency completed a design that is both elegant and secure – a public streetscape for all Americans and our nation’s visitors to enjoy.

DESIGN ELEMENTS
The central elements of Van Valkenburgh’s design include new paving materials; pedestrian amenities and site furnishings; a combination of retractable, removable, and fixed bollards; new guard booths; new trees; and a route for a planned transit system. The plan is simple and flexible and can be easily retrofitted to accommodate a vehicular thoroughfare in the future, should the security environment change.

Some background on the Pennsylvania Avenue Project.