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.