The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Pulling Back in Afghan Valley It Called Crucial,” describes a retreat by U.S. forces that the Taliban will tout as a great victory.

More than 103 U.S. troops have died protecting the Pech Valley in eastern Afghanistan, and the military has decided to withdraw from the area “to better protect Afghan civilians in the cities.” They are predictably calling the move a “redeployment.”

However, as the article notes, it was the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from the Pech Valley that was the immediate precursor to their defeat, and though one hopes the same situation will not be true for the United States, it’s not as if our war effort is undergoing any stunning successes.

The article also notes that this decision will create “reverse safe havens” for Al Qaeda, Taliban and other militant forces. Just as Pakistan has served as a safe haven from pursuing U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the Pech Valley may serve as a safe haven from pursuing Pakistani Army forces. I’m not a military man, but it seems like the safe havens are multiplying, definitely not a good sign.

It is possible that Afghan forces alone will be able to maintain security in the Pech Valley, but one Afghan troop described it as “a suicide mission.”

The lead article in today’s New York times, “U.S. Jury Aquits Former Detainee of Most Charges,” represents a poor test case for trying terrorists in civilian court due to its unique circumstances. The jury acquitted Adhmed Ghailani of 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

The case is unique because the operative was held for five years in a C.I.A. “black site,” a secret prison in Europe. Because of this factor, the confessed name of a witness during that time led to a dismissal of his testimony by the judge, a key element in the case.

It is also significant to note that the one charge endorsed by the jury can, in itself, lead to a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. However, because this was one of the first Guantanamo based cases tried in federal court, critics of the process are using it to fan up dissension about the policy.

Even so, and perhaps because of the final verdicts, many, including the judge, are using the decision to show the impartiality of the American justice system. Perhaps nowhere else in the world could a perpetrator come to the “shadow” of the former World Trade Center and receive a similar ruling.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Explosives Found in Parcels Meant for U.S. Delivery,” shows that the U.S. is still vulnerable to the plans of Al Qaeda.

The latest plot, hiding PETN explosive in printer toner cartridges, then sending them by parcel post to synagogues in Chicago, was fortunately foiled, but only after a hint from Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services. The explosives were sent by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a branch of Al Qaeda based in Yemen.

Yemen has been an active source of terror plots lately; the country also served as a base for the Christmas Day bombing plot, and serves as the home base for an influential American-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who has emerged as a charismatic leader, perhaps second in influence only to Osama bin-Laden.

Fortunately, the two packages with the explosive toner were intercepted in Great Britain and Dubai before they could do any harm, but there were also a series of scary possibilities that turned out to be false alarms.

All this terrorist activity comes as the U.S. elections head towards the home stretch, and it is impossible to determine what effect, if any, they might have. I suspect the only real problem will rebound against the Democrats because this time is crucial for them to turn the Republican tide, and all the air time has suddenly been sucked away for an unrelated matter.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Drones Batter Qaeda and Allies Within Pakistan,” describes the successful use of pilotless aircraft to strike at militants in the North Waziristan province in Pakistan. The strikes, partly necessary because Pakistan will not act on its own due to strategic partnerships, seem to have escalated since a CIA base was attacked by a suicide bomber. Not coincidentally, the drones are largely controlled by the CIA.

The attacks have disrupted Al Qaeda’s operations significantly, impeding their movement though not totally eliminating the training camps. Pakistani forces have recently begun to provide Americans with information regarding the militant movements despite the fact that they refuse to attack the region militarily themselves. The militants have long-standing ties with Pakistan’s intelligence agency and government. And the Pakistani government still officially condemns the drone attacks as a violation of it sovereignty.

When the US government has been on the defensive for so long, in a reactive mode regarding the shoe bomber and the Christmas Day attack, for example, it’s good to see us getting out on the offensive for a change. The local villagers in the region are starting to refuse shelter to Arab militants because they fear a drone attack against their own homes.

My advice to the US government: keep droning on!

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “After Eight Years, F.B.I. Shuts Book on Anthrax Case.” It describes the 2001 case, shortly after 9/11, when letters filled with anthrax were sent to two U.S. Senators and news organizations. The letters infected 22 people and killed five. They led to evacuations of Congress and the Supreme Court and resulted in increased spending on biodefense.

Dr. Bruce Ivins, who was an army biodefense expert, was a prime suspect when he killed himself. The F.B.I. later assigned sole blame to him based on DNA evidence on a flask in his lab, an analysis of his emails and his presence alone in an anthrax lab late at night.

While some felt he was incapable of such acts, and the case was called circumstantial at best, the investigation is now closed.

It’s easy to forget what things were like at that time, when we didn’t know if another Al Qaeda attack was imminent, and many felt it might involve a chemical or biological agent released into the atmosphere. The anthrax letters caused widespread panic despite their limited effect, and copycats sent talcum powder through the mail as a prank.

At least now, we can look back with some perspective on the situation, and thankfully, Al Qaeda has not adopted any of the methods reportedly used by Dr. Ivins.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan is Said to Pursue Role in Afghan Talks.” It describes an offer by Pakistan to mediate with Taliban tribes whose influence extends over both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some of these tribes, especially the Haqqani network, are the most lethal in the fight against the United States in southern Afghanistan.

The head of Pakistan’s army, General Kayani, has made the offer to several leading U.S. generals, in an effort to maintain the peace when the United States leaves the region. The Haqqani tribes has links with many in the Pakistan army and intelligence services. However, the United States is most concerned with the link between the Haqqani and Al Qaeda. If this link can be severed, they might be persuaded to tacitly approve the talks.

Pakistan’s main concern remains India, and they see Afghanistan as a second front that they don’t want to open. Whether this can work in the United States favor remains to be seen.

The political considerations in all this jockeying for position are profound and complex. In my opinion, the shifting alliances could eventually work against the United States. And, in fact, this article concludes with the observation, “The United States is pretty worried about seeing a deal emerge that suits everyone other than us.”

8H358GEY9563

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City.” It describes a reversal by the Obama administration on holding the trial of 9/11 masterminds in criminal court in Manhattan.

The change in decision came after Mayor Bloomberg changed his mind about the event, in turn influenced by the  plans presented by the New York City police commissioner, Raymond Kelly. Kelly had described a plan with multiple checkpoints, snipers on the roofs, etc., at a cost of up to $1 billion.

But, reading between the lines, the real problem came down to another form of money; the real estate agents for downtown had become extremely concerned about the fate of their businesses and the ability to lease downtown during the course of the trial, which could take years. It was their complaints and pressure that seemed to start the anti-trial ball rolling.

Of course, this just represents another form of NIMBY politics — not in my backyard. Many of these people are all for a non-military trial, just so long as they don’t have to deal with any of the repercussions. Trial at a military base may represent a possible alternative instead of the heart of Manhattan.

In any case, these terrorist trials and Guantanamo seem easy to resolve in terms of our values; it’s just the details that are slowing things down.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Suicide Bomber in Afghanistan a Double Agent.” It provides a new revelation about the bombing last week killing seven C.I.A. agents — the bomber was a double agent provided by the Jordanian government.

The article describes how the Jordanian spy service, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided the individual to infiltrate Al Jaeda and how the man was purportedly going to provide information about the location of Al Qaeda’s number two leader, the Egyptian doctor,  Ayman al-Zawahri. As a result, the double agent was never screened for explosives, and Al Qaeda gained a major tactical victory.

Well, I don’t have to be a C.I.A. agent to know that one of the first major rules of espionage is that you can’t trust anyone. But to not even take the most elementary precautions speaks very poorly of our intelligence service. It’s one thing to have airline security people make a glaring error, quite another one for our own operatives professionally trained in the field.

The C.I.A. bombing also creates a major internal division in our ranks. The government of Jordan and the C.I.A. have cooperated closely in the past, even though this is distinctly unpopular with the Jordanian people, especially in light of the Palestinian situation. One can only hope that cooperation will resume, even if in a more guarded manner.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. and Britain Close Embassies in Yemen Capital.” It describes the decision to close these buildings based on new information regarding a possible Al Qaeda attack.

The focus on Yemen has grown since the backing of the Al Qaeda group there, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, for the failed Christmas Day terror attack on a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. The decision to close the embassies was based on a credible threat and occurred after a private meeting between General Petraeus, now responsible for the entire Middle East, and the President of Yemen.

In my opinion, the current reaction is purely defensive in nature. The United States must avoid “fighting the last war” because the next attack will come from a different country in a different way. Al Qaeda learns and adapts, and they will avoid attacking us where we expect it. Human intelligence is far more important than responding to past weaknesses.

For human intelligence, you need to start to infiltrate terrorists groups. And this will only occur if we provide a crash course in the Arab language and Arab customs for our operatives. We can’t anticipate the next terrorist attack through improving security measures or fiddling around with the terrorist watch list. With millions of bits of information, more than the Library of Congress every day, we simply don’t have the manpower to review them all, never mind trying to connect the dots.

We need to get men in the inside of Al Qaeda to anticipate their next move.  This should be the main focus of all our intelligence agencies moving forward.

The lead article in  today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Spy Agencies Failed to Collate Clues on Terrorism.” It provides an analysis of advance information obtained by spy agencies and an attempt to determine who is at fault for the attempted Christmas bombing on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The article casts a wide net. Most to blame, according to the article, seems to be the National Counterterrorism Center, founded in 2004 specifically to encourage sharing of intelligence information among a wide variety of U.S. agencies. The C.I.A., protective of its turf as always, seems to be a secondary source of responsibility because it did not share biographical information it compiled about the bomber. The article also mentions partisan attacks on President Obama by Dick Cheney, the intercept of a communication about an unknown Nigerian in Yemen by the National Security Agency (NSA), and the fact that every plane taking off for the United States must forward details on every passenger. These details, in addition to providing the fact that Mr. Abdulmutallab was on a watch list, would have noted that his ticket was paid for in cash and that he  didn’t check any bags.

I’m  sure President Obama will assess blame in more detail and that people will lose their jobs. While it’s good to know that we were able to intercept hints of the plot, the inability to synthesize intelligence information is perhaps the most troublesome aspect of this potential tragedy.