The lead article in this morning’s New York Times, “Police Seeking Man Taped Near Bomb Scene,” describes the latest developments regarding the car bomb left in Times Square and defused with robotic and police assistance.

Apparently, one of the surveillance cameras in the area caught the perpetrator leaving the scene and changing clothes to avoid detection. The police also traced the S.U.V. involved through the vehicle identification number on its parts, even though the outside identification had been filed off.

It seems like a matter of time before the guy is caught, but the question remains how did he get so close to carrying out his deadly scheme? There were propane tanks, firecrackers and fertilizer in his car, and he managed to deliver it right to the scene of the crime.  The plot failed, not because of superior police protection but because of poor chemical knowledge.

Meanwhile, it seems like police initially downplayed the seriousness of the crime. They now admit that if the bomb were properly constructed, it could have caused significant damage, including casualties, in a fireball that would have shattered glass throughout the region, even if it didn’t cause a building collapse.

Police investigations continue as they trace the vehicle and its illegally transferred license plates.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Female Suicide Bombers Strike at Moscow Subway,” describes the impact, at least 38 killed, of two explosions set off by female suicide bombers.

Russia’s terrorism problem, centered primarily in Chechnya and other Islamic regions in the south of the country, had been relatively dormant in major population areas, and the attack poses the question of whether the country will take security measures that will limit personal freedoms. The last time Russia was confronted with a major series of terrorism attacks, in 2004, Vladimir Putin used them as an excuse to centralize government, stop the direct election of governors, and clamp down on political opposition.

Dmitri Medvedev has pursued a more liberal approach, and Russia’s reaction may give some indication of who is really in charge. One wonders how different the effect would be if bombs went off in the New York subway. Would we clamp down on freedom of movement? How about curfews and the use of identification for nearly any activity?

We kid ourselves when we think these things can only happen in Russia. As the saying goes, when the people are given a choice between liberty and security, they will choose security nearly every time.

One other issue to consider: these were female suicide bombers. Does this represent a new tactic of Islamic radical groups, or is it an exception to the rule? What does the Koran say about? Not that these people truly follow the Koran, but it may still have some effect on their actions.

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, “Taliban Assault Rattles Capital of Afghanistan.” It describes an attack by Taliban commandos right next to the Presidential palace, Ministry of Justice and Central Bank. The battle raged for up to five hours, and there was a secondary blast a few blocks away.

The ability of the Taliban to attack at will in such a secure urban area was designed to strike fear among the residents of Kabul. Generally, the Taliban is perceived as strong in rural areas, the area where the majority of American troops are located. That’s why this situation is so troubling.

The Americans are currently undertaking a program to attract Taliban militia to their side by portraying the Taliban as inevitable losers in the struggle. Such a brazen attack by the Taliban brings them favorable publicity and makes any U.S. recruitment efforts less likely to succeed.

In my opinion, the entire Afghanistan situation could easily result in a quagmire, if it hasn’t already. We are not familiar with the terrain; the local customs are foreign to us; and our increased military footprint is sure to increase resentment.

As Vice President Biden noted, the Taliban do not represent a threat to our homeland, and we would be better off just targeting Al Qaeda, located primarily in Pakistan.

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.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Hears of Signs That Should Have Grounded Plot.” It describes an admission by President Obama regarding a systemic failure in the nation’s security system and his pledge to hold the responsible parties acountable.

The article lists several facts known before the attack including the preparation of a Nigerian for a suicide mission, the central role of Yemen for training purposes, and intelligence regarding the movements of Umar Abdulmutallah, not to mention the already provided information about the warning from his father. It concludes that if the information had been properly shared among various departments, they should have been able to connect the dots.

In my opinion, it’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback and decry what might have been. But we do not live in a perfect world, and that’s what makes the prediction of terrorist incidents so difficult. Of course, President Obama has to claim that the system did not work because he can’t say what’s more true, that a security system, no matter how thorough, will never always work. The terrorists will keep trying to stay one step ahead of our detection apparatus, and we will inevitably respond to their innovations.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “President Seeks to Reassure U.S. After Bomb Bid.” It describes a speech by President Obama, comments by his administration, and developments in the investigation of an attempted Christmas Day bombing on a jet flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Al Qaeda in Yemen has now taken responsibility for the incident, leading to increased examination of possible ways to retaliate against both Al Qaeda and the nation of Yemen. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has come under increasing attack for what is perceived as a tepid response three days later. Janet Napolitano has been especially criticized for her statement that “the system worked” on Sunday.

In my opinion, there are few immediate actions that the President could take. A military response should not be rushed but be carefully planned and targeted against Al Qaeda to avoid creating even more enemies in the Middle East. Systemic changes, other than just an increased effort, also require study to be most effective.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s personal character does not mesh well with these type of situations. While the public yearns for emotional support, President Obama is more studious and prone to dispassionate analysis. Even though he is on top of the matter, his political enemies are able to attribute his character nature as displaying a lack of concern or emphasis on terrorism.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “More Questions on Why Suspect Wasn’t Stopped.” It provides more details and background on the attempt by a Nigerian to blow up a jetliner travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The article notes that the individual, Umar Abdulmutallab, paid cash for his ticket to the United States and checked no bags, plus he was already on a terrorist watch list based on information provided by his father. Based on these facts, he should have received a more thorough security review by airport officials before being allowed to board the plane. The Obama administration has ordered an investigation of the watch list process as well as airport screening procedures.

In my opinion, there were definitely enough facts to merit alarm by airport officials.  However, you must remember the thousands of people travelling by air every single day, and the need for security procedures to be 100 percent accurate. Also,  many of the Monday-morning quarterbacks speaking out now have also raised privacy concerns about full-body scanners and patdowns. However, in the age of the Internet, and the age of terrorism, we should definitely provide the full list of TIDE suspects, the most inclusive watch list, to every check-in counter and ticket-buying outlet in the world. This combined with proper identification  procedures would have prevented the Christmas Day incident.